Why the Necropolitan Template?

[Nemo_Tu_Novi]

So whenever I read about easy undead templates for characters, everyone always points out the Necropolitan template. But the Necropolitan template is kind of well... I don't get why people always recommend it when the Bone Template is clearly superior. Now hear me out;

(The Bone Template is found on pg.184 of the BoVD)

In addition to gaining the Undead subtype, the Necropolitan Template gives a +2 bonus on saving throws against Control Undead, and Turn Resistance, along with the ability to regain HP naturally.

The Turn bonuses can be easily replaced with relatively cheap Magic Items (Boo) and most people who will be using it will be either Clerics or Dread Necromancers (which can heal themselves indefinitely) The earliest you can get this is level 3, which will set you right back down to level 1 due to the level and XP cost.

The Bone Template on the other hand grants the Undead subtype, gives Immunity to Cold (free healing for Uttercold Assailants), grants DR/5 Bludgeoning, grants a +4 to dexterity, give the Weapon Finesse feat for on weapon for free (good for Gish DN's), costs no XP to create, doesn't require an Alignment change (good for Neutral DN's and Clerics and allows them to bring back fallen party members until they can get a proper resurrection), grants a +2 bonus to Natural Armor, along with a natural attack that can be used twice per round for most PC's.

Not only that, but it's created by a Create Undead spell (probably the worst undead creation spell)

I honestly don't get why people keep on recommending the crappy, crappy, Necropolitan template as a +0 LA undead template when the Bone template is so superior.

If anyone has a counter-argument, I would love to hear it.

[Zanos]

Bone Creature has no printed LA. As 3.0 material it needs to updated to include an LA, which is up to DM interpretation. The methods of creating a bone creature are also probably not available to most characters. The necropolitian template is clearly intended for PC's and even contains a method for petitioning to become one.

There is no such method for petitioning a level 11+ wizard to kill you and resurrect you as a bone creature.

Necropolitian also only costs one level if you do it at level 3. When you lose a level you're set to the midpoint between the level you're reduced to and the next, so you actually come out of the ritual with 1000 XP if you do it as soon as you hit 3rd level.

[eggynack]

Bone Creature has no printed LA.

Pretty much this all the way. Necropolitan is likely the best option for accomplishing this stuff, where "this stuff" is pretty awesome.

[georgie_leech]

Among other things, it's un-updated 3.0 material. Your DM will need to make any adjustments needed to update it to 3.5.

[ThisIsZen]

Also worth noting that a bone creature is basically never going to be able to hide its undead nature without shenanigans, whereas a necropolitan just needs some makeup and the knowhow to use it right, which I think makes the Necropolitan template useful in a much wider number of circumstances and parties, in terms purely of flavor.

[Marlowe]

Well, I imagine that some people find the prerequisites a little harsh. To become a Bone creature, you actually have to DIE. And then trust your friends to raise you accordingly. Also, actually being a Skeleton is a bit more of an issue in regular social interaction than just being a little pale and dusty.

Also, you're mixing up a few things. It's not "half damage vs x weapons", it's "DR/5 vs x weapons." Half-damage is an edition or two ago. Also, you didn't mention you only get Weapon Finesse with one weapon.

[Zanos]

Also worth noting that a bone creature is basically never going to be able to hide its undead nature without shenanigans, whereas a necropolitan just needs some makeup and the knowhow to use it right, which I think makes the Necropolitan template useful in a much wider number of circumstances and parties, in terms purely of flavor.
A bone creature could still use the disguise skill just fine. There are associated penalties(properly weight and age category), but any penalties imposed for doing so over necropolitian are purely DM fiat.

[HunterOfJello]

Using a well defined 3.5 source is almost always better than using a hazily defined 3e source that will require a DM ruling from the get-go.

If you try to use the bone template on your PC then you have to go through the process of convincing your DM to allow you to use it with the special circumstance of a designated level adjustment (which will likely not be +0). If you use the Necropolitan, then your DM is the one who has to define why he is changing the well defined rules in the game.

It is also generally bad conduct to answer a poster's plea for assistance with "use this homebrew or 3e material that will instantly require DM artibration just to make it work" when you could easily provide an official, edition appropriate, and already well defined option. If there isn't an official option, then go with homebrew or non-updated 3e material. However, if there is already good 3.5 material that works, go with that.

[Marlowe]

Wow. I didn't even realize that BoVD was 3.0. To think that all this time we've been ignoring it because we thought it was tacky we could have been ignoring it for a perfectly legitimate reason.

[Zanos]

Wow. I didn't even realize that BoVD was 3.0. To think that all this time we've been ignoring it because we thought it was tacky we could have been ignoring it for a perfectly legitimate reason.
3.0 material is still entirely valid in 3.5 by RAW, unless it conflicts or was updated by a 3.5 source.

[Coidzor]

Wow. I didn't even realize that BoVD was 3.0. To think that all this time we've been ignoring it because we thought it was tacky we could have been ignoring it for a perfectly legitimate reason.

IIRC, BoED and BoVD came out while the 3.5 revision was in development, so *some* of the changes from base 3.0 are incorporated but not all of them.

[Nemo_Tu_Novi]

Wow. I didn't even realize that BoVD was 3.0. To think that all this time we've been ignoring it because we thought it was tacky we could have been ignoring it for a perfectly legitimate reason.

Now that was just rude.

[eggynack]

Now that was just rude.
I think he was referring to ignoring BoVD, rather than to ignoring your majig.

[Nemo_Tu_Novi]

I think he was referring to ignoring BoVD, rather than to ignoring your majig.

Well, BoVD has a pretty fun artifact and quite a few fun spells. It also makes contagion a not-quite-as-useless spell should the DM allow it.

Not to mention it has Lich Loved which is very useful despite the squicky-ness it implies.

[eggynack]

Well, BoVD has a pretty fun artifact and quite a few fun spells. It also makes contagion a not-quite-as-useless spell should the DM allow it.

Not to mention it has Lich Loved which is very useful despite the squicky-ness it implies.
The book has its occasional flirtations with reasonableness, certainly. The main issue is that the BoVD goes really all in on that ever-problematic absolutist morality deal that D&D runs off of, along with the fact that it's basically the book of super cool and mature evil, and also wicked sunglasses. Gives off an annoying vibe on occasion. I'm pretty alright with the book though, on the whole. At least it's not serpent kingdoms.

[Zanos]

Well, BoVD has a pretty fun artifact and quite a few fun spells. It also makes contagion a not-quite-as-useless spell should the DM allow it.

Not to mention it has Lich Loved which is very useful despite the squicky-ness it implies.
There's some interesting resources in BoVD, but it's general disposition towards alignment is pretty narrow and in some cases just bizarre. Similar oddness occurs in BoED, actually.
BoVD contains such oddities as masochism being evil, which is just bizzare, and undead being evil even when they're not due to some poorly explained side-effect that negative energy makes the prime material a worse place by sucking all the color of it like some Saturday morning cartoon villian.
BoED contains such oddities as Vow of Peace/Nonviolence only applying to humanoids and monstrous humanoids, making it totally okay to kill planetouched humans, celestials, good constructs and undead, good aligned dragons, etc. It also contains the "totally not undead" deathless.

They're not without merit, but what they imply and in some cases directly outright state about alignment in D&D is ludicrous in many cases.

[Marlowe]

Well, BoVD has a pretty fun artifact and quite a few fun spells. It also makes contagion a not-quite-as-useless spell should the DM allow it.

Not to mention it has Lich Loved which is very useful despite the squicky-ness it implies.

Note that I differentiated "we thought it was tacky", from "entirely legitimate reason".:smallsmile:

[Nemo_Tu_Novi]

Note that I differentiated "we thought it was tacky", from "entirely legitimate reason".:smallsmile:

Well, I'm not denying it's tacky. It has a section entirely dedicated to fetishes. But it's still a pretty fun book, just not worth money.

Frankly, the main reason the Bone Template caught my eye was it lacked an alignment requirement (which, given the subject matter, it's entirely possible it was just forgotten to be put in)

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Considering the Corpsecrafter line of feats in LM, the bonuses from a Dread Necromancer 8, the bonuses from a single level of Wizard with Enhanced Undead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/specialistWizardVariants.htm#necromancerVariants) from UA, and the Fell Energy Spell metamagic feat from Dragon Compendium with Desecrate and an evil altar, any undead template should grant the following benefits in addition to whatever it gives by default:

+4 Enhancement to Strength and Dexterity
+4 Turn Resistance
+1d6 cold damage to natural weapon attacks
+2 Natural Armor
+4 Initiative
+10 ft. land speed
+12 HP per level

Also keep in mind that multiple sources of Turn Resistance stack, so a Necropolitan would have +6 Turn Resistance in addition to whatever any items or feats grant him toward that.

The level loss for becoming a Necropolitan becomes completely irrelevant after just a few levels, since a lower level character gains more experience per encounter and will catch up to the party level. Otherwise you're waiting several levels to buy off your level adjustment and then trying to catch back up, so a Necropolitan automatically comes out ahead of any level adjusted undead template. If a template doesn't list a level adjustment at all, such as Bone Creature, then it's not suitable for use as a PC at all:


Level Adjustment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm)
This line is included in the entries of creatures suitable for use as player characters or as cohorts.

[Zanos]

Considering the Corpsecrafter line of feats in LM, the bonuses from a Dread Necromancer 8, the bonuses from a single level of Wizard with Enhanced Undead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/specialistWizardVariants.htm#necromancerVariants) from UA, and the Fell Energy Spell metamagic feat from Dragon Compendium with Desecrate and an evil altar, any undead template should grant the following benefits in addition to whatever it gives by default:

+4 Enhancement to Strength and Dexterity
+4 Turn Resistance
+1d6 cold damage to natural weapon attacks
+2 Natural Armor
+4 Initiative
+10 ft. land speed
+12 HP per level

Also keep in mind that multiple sources of Turn Resistance stack, so a Necropolitan would have +6 Turn Resistance in addition to whatever any items or feats grant him toward that.

The level loss for becoming a Necropolitan becomes completely irrelevant after just a few levels, since a lower level character gains more experience per encounter and will catch up to the party level. Otherwise you're waiting several levels to buy off your level adjustment and then trying to catch back up, so a Necropolitan automatically comes out ahead of any level adjusted undead template. If a template doesn't list a level adjustment at all, such as Bone Creature, then it's not suitable for use as a PC at all:
Doesn't work for necropolitians. They very specifically only function on necromancy spells.

[Coidzor]

On top of that, a Bone Creature is automatically under its creator's control, so you would be making a PC who's a permanent servant, willing or not, of an NPC or another PC.

It does give a reason for a Necromancer type to actually ever cast Create Undead though, I suppose, aside from filling one's spare Rebuking HD while waiting for better loot undead/Greater Create Undead.

I'll need to check Corpse Creatures too and see if they're also similarly controlled...

Or, would if it worked. Alas.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Doesn't work for necropolitians. They very specifically only function on necromancy spells.

This again?


Each undead you raise or create with any necromancy spell gains...

The Ritual of Crucimigration which creates a Necropolitan is extremely vague and unspecific, but nowhere is it stated that it does not involve any necromancy spells. It's more like an Incantation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/incantations.htm) than anything, which do have schools and function as spells in most ways, and if it creates an undead creature then it cannot be anything but necromancy. Simply put, there's no RAW to support that it doesn't work, and plenty of RAI that says it does.

[Zanos]

It does give a reason for a Necromancer type to actually ever cast Create Undead though, I suppose, aside from filling one's spare Rebuking HD while waiting for better loot undead/Greater Create Undead.

I'll need to check Corpse Creatures too and see if they're also similarly controlled...
I can't find anything in either creature's entry that indicates they're automatically controlled. Since they're made with Create (Greater) Undead I think the opposite is true.


The Ritual of Crucimigration which creates a Dread Necromancer is extremely vague and unspecific, but nowhere is it stated that it does not involve any necromancy spells. It's more like an Incantation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/incantations.htm) than anything, which do have schools and function as spells in most ways, and if it creates an undead creature then it cannot be anything but necromancy. Simply put, there's no RAW to support that it doesn't work, and plenty of RAI that says it does.
Seriously? It doesn't say it's not so it is? That's not how the rules work. Unless the rules say the Ritual is a necromancy spell it's not.

[Nemo_Tu_Novi]

On top of that, a Bone Creature is automatically under its creator's control, so you would be making a PC who's a permanent servant, willing or not, of an NPC or another PC.

Okay, not once in the Bone Creature's description does it say that they're under control of their creator and the writing of Create Undead explicitly states that the created undead are not under control of the creator.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

That was my mistake, I was thinking the Create Undead line of spells allowed you to control the creatures created the same way Animate Dead does, but it actually says the opposite.

[Wacky89]

yeah and create undead specifically says:
Doing this may be a good idea, because created undead are not automatically under the control of their animator.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Regardless of the matter of controlling the created undead, my other points still stand. The benefits of any given undead template are often secondary to the benefits of having a powerful creator, so the most important thing about whatever undead template you use is how it affects your character's acquisition of class levels. Losing a few thousand xp and then catching back up is better than taking a level adjustment, even if you're able to buy it off.

[Nemo_Tu_Novi]

Regardless of the matter of controlling the created undead, my other points still stand. The benefits of any given undead template are often secondary to the benefits of having a powerful creator, so the most important thing about whatever undead template you use is how it affects your character's acquisition of class levels. Losing a few thousand xp and then catching back up is better than taking a level adjustment, even if you're able to buy it off.

But the truth is, as it stands, the Bone Template doesn't have written level adjustment, therefore it has no level adjustment. I've been trying to avoid saying this to avoid starting a flame war on my first post, but there I said it.

[Coidzor]

I can't find anything in either creature's entry that indicates they're automatically controlled. Since they're made with Create (Greater) Undead I think the opposite is true.

Alas. Ah, well, no real loss. I was wondering why they never came up in the context of competing with Dread Warriors, since it didn't seem likely that such would be overlooked, and if it was just the... less than 3.5ness of them.


Seriously? It doesn't say it's not so it is? That's not how the rules work. Unless the rules say the Ritual is a necromancy spell it's not.

The rules don't specify, ask your DM. :smallbiggrin:

[eggynack]

But the truth is, as it stands, the Bone Template doesn't have written level adjustment, therefore it has no level adjustment. I've been trying to avoid saying this to avoid starting a flame war on my first post, but there I said it.
Exactly. It has no level adjustment. That means that you can't use it. Problem solved. You shouldn't worry too much about starting flame wars with stuff on that scale, incidentally. If you really want a Giantitp style flame war, you really want to say something about monks, tiers, VoP, the FAQ, IHS, or any number of other things on that scale. The LA issues of this template don't really rate, by comparison.

Edit: Sample flame thread: "How does the indisputable fact that dragonwrought kobold, as shown in some place in the FAQ, makes you a true dragon, impact the already underrated tier of VoP monks?"

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

But the truth is, as it stands, the Bone Template doesn't have written level adjustment, therefore it has no level adjustment. I've been trying to avoid saying this to avoid starting a flame war on my first post, but there I said it.

I'll say it again:


Level Adjustment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm)
This line is included in the entries of creatures suitable for use as player characters or as cohorts.

A given race or template is only usable as a PC or cohort if it has a Level Adjustment line. No level adjustment entry doesn't mean no level adjustment, it means it's not capable of gaining experience or leveling up.

[Thurbane]

The Bone Creature template is pretty much superior to Necropolitan for enemy NPCs though.

[Necroticplague]

I'll say it again:



A given race or template is only usable as a PC or cohort if it has a Level Adjustment line. No level adjustment entry doesn't mean no level adjustment, it means it's not capable of gaining experience or leveling up.

That sections is talking about creatures in general, not templates in specific. Let's go to a specific section about templates:

A template’s description provides a set of instructions for altering an existing creature, known as the base creature. The changes that a template might cause to each line of a creature ’s statistics block are discussed below. Generally, if a template does not cause a change to a certain statistic, that entry is missing from the template description. For clarity, the entry for a statistic or attribute that is not changed is sometimes given as “Same as the base creature.”
So not listing an la= "same as base creature". Its pretty stupid, but thats the rules.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

That sections is talking about creatures in general, not templates in specific. Let's go to a specific section about templates:

So not listing an la= "same as base creature". Its pretty stupid, but thats the rules.

"Generally" is the keyword there. You've referenced a sometimes-rule, which may or may not apply in the case of a level adjustment entry. Specific only trumps general when they come into conflict, and the possibility of that not applying to a level adjustment entry means that it's not in conflict. The rule regarding a lack of level adjustment stands.

[Vaz]

This again?



The Ritual of Crucimigration which creates a Necropolitan is extremely vague and unspecific, but nowhere is it stated that it does not involve any necromancy spells. It's more like an Incantation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/incantations.htm) than anything, which do have schools and function as spells in most ways, and if it creates an undead creature then it cannot be anything but necromancy. Simply put, there's no RAW to support that it doesn't work, and plenty of RAI that says it does.

What necromancy spell creates or raises a Necropolitan?

That's RAW support.

It's like saying "I can throw Banana's at this target for 10d6 damage, but I have apples, they're similar, can I use that as well?"

And in regards to the template, generally doesn't mean sometimes, it means "in most cases", and is taken within the english common speech to denote "unless noted otherwise". It's not even a matter of specific trumping general, it's a matter of relevance. The first is talking regarding creatures, the second is regarding templates, a template is not a creature (by form and function within the rules), so cannot have the rules which are applicable to creatures applied to it.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

What necromancy spell creates or raises a Necropolitan?

That's RAW support.

It's like saying "I can throw Banana's at this target for 10d6 damage, but I have apples, they're similar, can I use that as well?"

And in regards to the template, generally doesn't mean sometimes, it means "in most cases", and is taken within the english common speech to denote "unless noted otherwise". It's not even a matter of specific trumping general, it's a matter of relevance. The first is talking regarding creatures, the second is regarding templates, a template is not a creature (by form and function within the rules), so cannot have the rules which are applicable to creatures applied to it.

If there were rules to support a PC performing the ritual to create a Necropolitan, it would most certainly include some type of necromancy spell. The designers intentionally left it ambiguous so that its use is determined by the DM. If we're going by the English language definitions of words, the description of the Ritual of Crucimigration exactly fits the English definition of a spell. By your own reasoning it is one, unless you're only selectively applying the English language to the rules where it benefits your argument.

The section on reading the monster entries which I quoted is used for all monster entries, both base creatures and templates. The section on templates which Necroticplague quoted is from the Improving Monsters (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/improvingMonsters.htm) portion of the Monster Manual/SRD, which is not used for PCs at all. The section I quoted is relevant to all monster entries, including templates. The section that's purported to conflict with it is only used for monsters, not for PCs.

[Beardbarian]

A Bone Creature doesn't retain any Ex ability (like wings or breath weapon) but Necropolitan does

[Vaz]

If there were rules to support a PC performing the ritual to create a Necropolitan, it would most certainly include some type of necromancy spell. The designers intentionally left it ambiguous so that its use is determined by the DM. If we're going by the English language definitions of words, the description of the Ritual of Crucimigration exactly fits the English definition of a spell. By your own reasoning it is one, unless you're only selectively applying the English language to the rules where it benefits your argument.
What spell?


Any living humanoid or monstrous humanoid can petition for consideration to undergo the Ritual of Crucimigration, which (if successful) enables the creature to become a necropolitan. The petition for consideration requires a fee of 3,000 gp and a written plea.

The Ritual: The first part of the ritual requires the placement of the petitioner on a standing pole. Cursed nails are used to affix the petitioner, and then the pole is lifted into place. The resultant excruciating pain that shoots like molten metal through the petitioner’s fi ngers and up the arms is not what finally ends the petitioner’s mortal life, however, since death usually comes from asphyxiation and heart failure. As petitioners feel death’s chill enter their bodies, many have second thoughts, but it is far too late to go back—the cursed nails and chanting of the ritual ensures that the Crucimigration is completed.

The ceremony that lasts for 24 hours—the usual time it takes for the petitioner to perish. During this period, two or three zombie servitors keep up a chant initiated by the ritual leader when the petitioner is fi rst placed into position. Upon hearing the petitioner’s last breath, the ritual leader calls forth the names of evil powers and gods to forge a link with the Negative Energy Plane, and then impales the petitioner. Dying, the petitioner is reborn as a necropolitan, dead but animate.
Nowhere is spell mentioned. I'm not the one being selective here. In regards to what defines a spell in d&d, it doesn't match anything. There's no defined spell, there's no mention of magic whatsoever (it can even be done inside an Antimagic Field/Dead magic zone etc), and there's no mention of any necromancy spell. It could be a transformation spell, or whatever that's cast (apart from, you know, there's no mention anywhere of casting, spells, or magic, or anything that you'd expect from spellcasting as seen under the entries for spellcasting classes).

This is what we call "homebrew", where you make up your own houserules because it makes sense or you prefer that way for whatever reason. It's cool, I mean I do it, but when talking about what the rules actually say... Yeah. Nope.


The section on reading the monster entries which I quoted is used for all monster entries, both base creatures and templates. The section on templates which Necroticplague quoted is from the Improving Monsters (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/improvingMonsters.htm) portion of the Monster Manual/SRD, which is not used for PCs at all. The section I quoted is relevant to all monster entries, including templates. The section that's purported to conflict with it is only used for monsters, not for PCs.

A template is not a monster. All player races with the exception of humans are located within some source book somewhere. Templates are nowhere classified as monsters. They are templates.


MM1 - pg 6
Monsters that can be used as player characters have level adjustments and other information to expedite such play, and we’ve reworked all monsters so that they gain feats and skills the same way that player characters do. We’ve added extensive information on how to advance, customize, and design monsters.


MM1 - pg 7
This line is included in the entries of creatures suitable for use as player characters or as cohorts (usually creatures with Intelligence scores of at least 3 and possessing opposable thumbs).

Monsters can explicitly be Player Characters. There's no conflict there.

@Bearbarian - Um... nope?

[Thurbane]

One issue with treating a template with no mention of level adjustment the same as LA +0, is that everyone can grab templates like Paragon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/paragonCreature.htm) for free.

RAW or not, no sane DM is going to let that fly.

[Karnith]

One issue with treating a template with no mention of level adjustment the same as LA +0, is that everyone can grab templates like Paragon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/paragonCreature.htm) for free.
Though it bears mentioning that the ELH templates (Paragon, Pseudonatural, Worm that Walks, etc.) have implied level adjustments, because of the table on page 156 of that book, which lists the ECLs of the sample creatures provided in the template descriptions. Said table was, for whatever reason, not put in the SRD.

[Elderand]

In addition to gaining the Undead subtype, the Necropolitan Template gives a +2 bonus on saving throws against Control Undead, and Turn Resistance, along with the ability to regain HP naturally.

The Turn bonuses can be easily replaced with relatively cheap Magic Items (Boo) and most people who will be using it will be either Clerics or Dread Necromancers (which can heal themselves indefinitely)

So I have to adress this part because either you mispoke or you don't understand what turn resistance bonus does.


The Turn bonuses can be easily replaced with relatively cheap Magic Items (Boo) and most people who will be using it will be either Clerics or Dread Necromancers

This part specificly seems to indicate that you think the turn bonus is a boost to cleric or dread necromancer necropolitant to their own turn attempts. But that's not what it does.
The Turn resistance bonus is a bonus to any and all necropolitan checks to avoid being turned by clerics/dread necromancers.

[Vaz]

One issue with treating a template with no mention of level adjustment the same as LA +0, is that everyone can grab templates like Paragon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/paragonCreature.htm) for free.

RAW or not, no sane DM is going to let that fly.

That's a 3.0 template, and, like the Bone Creature, is subject to DM modification as stated earlier. And you don't need any of that to create Pun Pun either, and no DM would let that fly.

[OldTrees1]

Though it bears mentioning that the ELH templates (Paragon, Pseudonatural, Worm that Walks, etc.) have implied level adjustments, because of the table on page 156 of that book, which lists the ECLs of the sample creatures provided in the template descriptions. Said table was, for whatever reason, not put in the SRD.

Good thing to mention.
Honestly I think this supports the claim that "templates lacking an LA section cannot be assumed to have LA +0".

[Fax Celestis]

A given race or template is only usable as a PC or cohort if it has a Level Adjustment line. No level adjustment entry doesn't mean no level adjustment, it means it's not capable of gaining experience or leveling up.

Incorrect. Monsters have an advancement line, and level adjustment is separate from it.

[PraxisVetli]

Exactly. It has no level adjustment. That means that you can't use it. Problem solved. You shouldn't worry too much about starting flame wars with stuff on that scale, incidentally. If you really want a Giantitp style flame war, you really want to say something about monks, tiers, VoP, the FAQ, IHS, or any number of other things on that scale. The LA issues of this template don't really rate, by comparison.

Edit: Sample flame thread: "How does the indisputable fact that dragonwrought kobold, as shown in some place in the FAQ, makes you a true dragon, impact the already underrated tier of VoP monks?"

Omg, I want to watch that thread.
The absolutely shenanigans that would ensue!

[Nemo_Tu_Novi]

So I have to adress this part because either you mispoke or you don't understand what turn resistance bonus does.



This part specificly seems to indicate that you think the turn bonus is a boost to cleric or dread necromancer necropolitant to their own turn attempts. But that's not what it does.
The Turn resistance bonus is a bonus to any and all necropolitan checks to avoid being turned by clerics/dread necromancers.

I meant bonuses to resist being turned. I misspoke.

[atemu1234]

3.0 material is still entirely valid in 3.5 by RAW, unless it conflicts or was updated by a 3.5 source.

I don't think so. In either case, Savage Species gives you basic rules for how to stick LA on things that don't have a printed one, so go through the templates you want and use that to provide LA.

[AugustNights]

Though it bears mentioning that the ELH templates (Paragon, Pseudonatural, Worm that Walks, etc.) have implied level adjustments, because of the table on page 156 of that book, which lists the ECLs of the sample creatures provided in the template descriptions. Said table was, for whatever reason, not put in the SRD.


Am I right in assuming that the Ruin Swarm, the Hunefer, and the Atropal were probably mislabeled, as that they seem to have -25, -23, and -22 Level Adjustment, respectively?

[Lord Vukodlak]

Alright something that has been overlooked about 3.0 material is... not only does the bone creature template completely lack a line "level adjustment" but every monster printed before The Savage Species lacks a "level adjustment" that concept wasn't created until The Savage Species and was carried over into 3.5.

So if you have a 3.0 monster and you use it in 3.5 the DM has to decide on what if any its LA is because that concept didn't exist until after it was printed. By default they'd have a level adjustment of — as that's the symbol for a non-ability making them unplayable. To be playable they need an LA of at least +0

If you convert a large [long] creature to 3.5 do you keep its space as 5ft by 10ft because that's what it says in the entry or do you change it to 10ft by 10ft because that's how the system works in 3.5.

[Story]

Frankly, the main reason the Bone Template caught my eye was it lacked an alignment requirement (which, given the subject matter, it's entirely possible it was just forgotten to be put in)

Necropolitan has no alignment restriction either. :smallbiggrin: In fact, I once played a Good aligned Necropolitan.


Re Corpsecrafter shenanigans: I think there's enough ambiguity that it's entirely up to the DM. At the very least, there's no explicit RAW support for it. I wouldn't allow it in any game I've been in, but if you're playing at something closer to Tippy level, it's probably just assumed as standard practice.

Am I right in assuming that the Ruin Swarm, the Hunefer, and the Atropal were probably mislabeled, as that they seem to have -25, -23, and -22 Level Adjustment, respectively?

I think they have negative LA to partially cancel out the large amount of RHD.

[Doc_Maynot]

Just my two cents on the matter at hand, the nails being driven into the person, have to be cursed. There is only one way to curse something that I can recall, (Greater) Bestow Curse. Both are Necromancy as of Spell Compendium.

[Coidzor]

Just my two cents on the matter at hand, the nails being driven into the person, have to be cursed. There is only one way to curse something that I can recall, (Greater) Bestow Curse. Both are Necromancy as of Spell Compendium.

There's ways to craft cursed items, too, but most of those are unique items or applying the properties of those unique items to something else, IIRC.

[AugustNights]

Just my two cents on the matter at hand, the nails being driven into the person, have to be cursed. There is only one way to curse something that I can recall, (Greater) Bestow Curse. Both are Necromancy as of Spell Compendium.

Unless you're using Animated Nails (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/animatedObject.htm) (which could work I suppose), you can't curse them with (Greater) Bestow Curse by RAW, as that they only target Creatures... But animated nails are still nails, so find some really big nails... (so that they are [Tiny] sized)...

[Psyren]

BoVD has a number of rules elements that simply must be gone over by the DM to be used in 3.5. A big example is Hive Minds, which exist because 3.0 didn't have rules for swarms and also because they sampled everything under the bathroom sink before releasing that edition without playtesting it.

[Curmudgeon]

3.0 material is still entirely valid in 3.5 by RAW, unless it conflicts or was updated by a 3.5 source.
I don't know where you're getting that idea, but it's not what the RAW says.
This is an upgrade of the d20 System, not a new edition of the game. This revision is compatible with all existing products, and those products can be used with the revision with only minor adjustments.
Your DM deciding that the Bone Template merits a +2 level adjustment for their 3.5 game would be a minor adjustment. Your claim that the Bone Template is "entirely valid in 3.5 by RAW" is at odds with this stipulation to make any necessary minor adjustments.

[Mithril Leaf]

One should also note that if you're going to be using a +0 LA template (because in fact all templates that lack level adjustment entries are +0 LA due to the way that templates work by RAW) from 3.0 with a bunch of feats and optimal conditions to make yourself a super powerful undead, there are better options than Bone Creature. My favorite choice is Silveraith from City of the Spider Queen. Perks include:

Deflection bonus to AC equal to 5+Cha.
Glorious incorpreality.
Free fly speed with a minimum of 30, or equal to your previous speed, all with perfect maneuverability.
You convert all your old natural attacks to incorporeal touch attacks that deal 3d8+1 damage per level (max 10).
You are explicity created by a necromancy spell (if you want to be) and can create uncontrolled spawn easily.
You function as a living Rod of Absorbtion.
+2 to all your mental stats.

[Lord Vukodlak]

One should also note that if you're going to be using a +0 LA template (because in fact all templates that lack level adjustment entries are +0 LA due to the way that templates work by RAW)
Excuse me but where do you get this? how do you presume that the default LA is +0. A Level Adjustment of +0 is still a level adjustment, its just zero. Like having a strength score of 10 gives you no strength modifier.

A Level Adjustment of — is non-existent and thus unsuitable for PC's, Its a non-ability. The Bone Creature and Silveraiath templates have no level adjustment listed at all thus its also a non-ability.

[Thurbane]

Argument A: A template with no level adjustment listed is the same as LA --, as is not usable by PCs.

Argument B: Any stats or aspects not mentioned in a template remain as the base creature - this extends to LA (essentially making it the same as LA +0).

[Pan151]

Am I right in assuming that the Ruin Swarm, the Hunefer, and the Atropal were probably mislabeled, as that they seem to have -25, -23, and -22 Level Adjustment, respectively?

Nah, given the sheer number of Hit Dice those creatures have they would only be balanced with these LAs. Remember, as the game goes to higher level your racial and template bonuses mean less and less compaired to those you get from class levels, and by the time you reach 60+ RHD like some of those creatures the lack of class levels massively outweighs your other bonuses to such a point that a negative LA is required. I mean, compare an Atropal to a Wizard 30 and you'll see that they probably needed LAs even further into the negatives...

PS. As for the corpsecrafter shenanigans: if the DM allows it for the necropolitan, then by the same token he has to allow the fighter to begin play at lv1 with a +5 vopal brilliant energy greatsword and a +5 heavy fortification full plate and items of +8 to all stats, simply because he comes from a family of high-level artificers. And also allow the lv1 rogue to bring with him several lv20 wizards cohorts, because again, backstory.

If you want to get all these bonuses tacked into your backstory, then you have to pay an appropriate amount from your starting wealth for spellcaster services and what have you. If you want it all for free, then find a way to do it in the actual campaign.

[Vaz]

Excuse me but where do you get this? how do you presume that the default LA is +0. A Level Adjustment of +0 is still a level adjustment, its just zero. Like having a strength score of 10 gives you no strength modifier.

A Level Adjustment of — is non-existent and thus unsuitable for PC's, Its a non-ability. The Bone Creature and Silveraiath templates have no level adjustment listed at all thus its also a non-ability.

So templates which do not modify ability scores change all ability scores to non ability scores then?

Templates which don't change speed means that the creature becomes speed 0ft?

And noone is saying that no mention of LA means it is LA+0, but instead that it does not change the base LA of the creature.

In regards to 3.0 templates such as bone creature or paragon or silveraith (a personal favourite of mine for the purposes of wu jen spirit binding), this creates problems from grandfathering in rules from another edition, something which is addressed within the 3.5th edition DMG regarding the DM making changes they deem necessary.

In 3.5th edition, especially later on, they tend to become a bit better making mention of unchanged from the base creature.

[Divide by Zero]

Do you realize how many templates there are with no listed LA? And how many of those would be ridiculously overpowered at +0? That's a road that not even TO goes down because it's so blatantly wrong.

[Vaz]

You don't do much TO do you?

Neither is it wrong, simply mostly irrelevant for the purposes of it. When NI is or Arbritrily high abilities are achievable with very little effort, what does taking Paragon Template do for you?

And sorry, it isn't my fault that the designers do not follow their own rules. Just look at how many examples are incorrect with the RAW, or how many spells do not function in accordance with the base rules due to how range and area interact.

[Lord Vukodlak]

So templates which do not modify ability scores change all ability scores to non ability scores then?

Templates which don't change speed means that the creature becomes speed 0ft? They still have a line that says "abilities" followed by "same as base creature"

My point is THAT Level Adjustment DID NOT EXIST until The Savage Species, five months before they published the first 3.5 books. Every monster or template in 3.5 has a "level adjustment" line so just like you have to change facing/reach to match 3.5 rules. You have to add a level adjustment line to 3.0 creatures you're converting, by default none of those creatures or templates in 3.0 (prior to the Savage Species) have an LA thus its a non-ability. If the default LA for 3.0 material is +0 then you could be a Silverath Spellweaver and only count as level 10 cast spells as a 12th level sorcerer and multiple spells a round.


And noone is saying that no mention of LA means it is LA+0, but instead that it does not change the base LA of the creature.
Yes they are... a template with an LA of +0 would not modify the LA of the base creature. A template without any level adjustment would be "LA —" thus unplayable.

[Karnith]

My point is THAT Level Adjustment DID NOT EXIST until The Savage Species, five months before they published the first 3.5 books. Every monster or template in 3.5 has a "level adjustment" line so just like you have to change facing/reach to match 3.5 rules. You have to add a level adjustment line to 3.0 creatures you're converting, by default none of those creatures or templates in 3.0 (prior to the Savage Species) have an LA thus its a non-ability. If the default LA for 3.0 material is +0 then you could be a Silverath Spellweaver and only count as level 10 cast spells as a 12th level sorcerer and multiple spells a round.
LA was not a standard part of creatures' stat-blocks until Savage Species, but LA existed since at least Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting (or mid-2001), and possibly earlier. Most 3.0 books with monsters (e.g. MMII) included an ECL adjustment in lieu of a LA adjustment for monstrous characters, leaving it to the player to figure out the level adjustment, while races actually got a LA listed separately.

Additionally, there's at least one template in 3.5 without a LA line - Spell-Stitched, from Complete Arcane.

[atemu1234]

So templates which do not modify ability scores change all ability scores to non ability scores then?

Templates which don't change speed means that the creature becomes speed 0ft?

And noone is saying that no mention of LA means it is LA+0, but instead that it does not change the base LA of the creature.

In regards to 3.0 templates such as bone creature or paragon or silveraith (a personal favourite of mine for the purposes of wu jen spirit binding), this creates problems from grandfathering in rules from another edition, something which is addressed within the 3.5th edition DMG regarding the DM making changes they deem necessary.

In 3.5th edition, especially later on, they tend to become a bit better making mention of unchanged from the base creature.

Apples to oranges. It would be worse for them to be LA +0 because every PC and their grandmother would have 59 templates just because they can.

[Mithril Leaf]

Yes they are... a template with an LA of +0 would not modify the LA of the base creature. A template without any level adjustment would be "LA —" thus unplayable.

Except for that fact that what you are saying is very much not how templates work. It's not a matter of preference or silliness, it's purely RAW that this statement isn't true. Look at Reading a Template (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#readingATemplate), which is transcribed from the first Monster Manual onto the SRD for your convenience.

Generally, if a template does not cause a change to a certain statistic, that entry is missing from the template description.
This means that if a template totally lacks an LA entry (not one that has an entry which is LA: - ) it means that the template itself is LA: +0, as that merely means that the base LA is unchanged by this template, as specified in reading a template. The creature may be unplayable for a variety of other reasons, but lacking any LA entry in a template merely means that LA is unchanged. Also, Paragon and the like do have LA in the Epic Level Handbook, it's around 10 if I recall correctly.

[Vaz]

Mathematics basics. If you add zero, you are making the operation of adding zero. The result is unchanged.

It is like how la+2 added to la+3 is making the operation of adding 2.

The thing about mathematics is that it doesn't care about what the numeric value of the operation is, but the operation is completed, just modified by the numerical value.

However, mathematics is lazy. It will default to the simplest method. So a creature with LA+0 with a LA+0 has LA+0+0, simplfied to LA+0.

And consequently, with those which do not change from the base creature - they do change the base creature by the application of the template, because that is what the rules for applying templates says so. It just so happens that it doesn't change because that is what the template states.

Confused? Welcome to the ruleset that even the designers don't know what they wrote.

And atemu1234, why would they have all those templates? For the trick you are TOing, most templates are completely irrelevant. This is where TOing is like maths. It uses the least possible amount of resources - hence why PunPun has come from being a Psion 12 to Paladin 1 for example.

And Mithril: there is a table which contains the ECL for creatures, including the example Templated ones, which enables you to work it out if you choose to use that source in addition to the core template.

Finay, just want to make sure you (everyone) is aware we are discussing nonmention of LA as opposed to LA-. There is a difference.

[Lord Vukodlak]

This means that if a template totally lacks an LA entry (not one that has an entry which is LA: - ) it means that the template itself is LA: +0, as that merely means that the base LA is unchanged by this template, as specified in reading a template.

The rules of reading the templates or even monsters don't all apply when looking at older editions due to rule changes. In 3.0 playable templates or monsters would list there ECL either at the end of the descriptive text or on a table somewhere in the book, if the creature or template lacked that information it was unplayable. So when converting an unplayable template from 3.0 to 3.5 it remains unplayable unless the DM decides to add a level adjustment. The rules for readings changed thus it must be taken into account for all readings.


Also, Paragon and the like do have LA in the Epic Level Handbook, it's around 10 if I recall correctly.
The epic level handbook was released after the Savage Species there is even a text entry referring to the savage species within the Epic Level Handbook.

[Karnith]

The epic level handbook was released after the Savage Species there is even a text entry referring to the savage species within the Epic Level Handbook.
The Epic Level Handbook was released in July of 2002, Savage Species in February 2003.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Except for that fact that what you are saying is very much not how templates work. It's not a matter of preference or silliness, it's purely RAW that this statement isn't true. Look at Reading a Template (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#readingATemplate), which is transcribed from the first Monster Manual onto the SRD for your convenience.

This means that if a template totally lacks an LA entry (not one that has an entry which is LA: - ) it means that the template itself is LA: +0, as that merely means that the base LA is unchanged by this template, as specified in reading a template. The creature may be unplayable for a variety of other reasons, but lacking any LA entry in a template merely means that LA is unchanged. Also, Paragon and the like do have LA in the Epic Level Handbook, it's around 10 if I recall correctly.

That's from "Improving Monsters (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/improvingMonsters.htm)" section, which does not pertain to PCs.

The section on reading monster entries (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm) is used for all monster entries, both base creatures and templates, and states that a lack of a Level Adjustment entry (on both base creatures and templates) indicates that it's not suitable for use as a PC or cohort.

The general rule is found in reading monster entries. The more specific rule for using a template to improve a non-PC monster overrides this section only for its specific application of improving monsters. For PCs, there is not a more specific rule and thus the general rule which states that a lack of a Level Adjustment entry indicates it's unsuitable for a PC or cohort still stands.

[Lord Vukodlak]

The Epic Level Handbook was released in July of 2002, Savage Species in February 2003.

Well clearly Savage Species was written first because the Epic Level Handbook refers to it in past tense like the book already exists. Or perhaps later printings of the Epic Level handbook added material that wasn't there to begin with.


The section on reading monster entries (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm) is used for all monster entries, both base creatures and templates, and states that a lack of a Level Adjustment entry (on both base creatures and templates) indicates that it's not suitable for use as a PC or cohort.
Thank you Biff.

[Rubik]

Doesn't work for necropolitians. They very specifically only function on necromancy spells.IIRC, Savage Species allows for Wishes to give templates and turn you into another creature. Just do the Efreeti Wish Tango for a scroll of Wish, which was crafted by a dread necromancer with all those feats and who used Extra Spell to nab Wish.

[Necroticplague]

IIRC, Savage Species allows for Wishes to give templates and turn you into another creature. Just do the Efreeti Wish Tango for a scroll of Wish, which was crafted by a dread necromancer with all those feats and who used Extra Spell to nab Wish.

Doesn't fix Wish not being a necromancy spell.

[Rubik]

Doesn't fix Wish not being a necromancy spell.Then use your EWT to Wish for one that is.

[Thurbane]

Extra Spell won't add Wish to a Dread Necro's spell list if you believe the official FAQ.

[Psyren]

IIRC, Savage Species allows for Wishes to give templates and turn you into another creature. Just do the Efreeti Wish Tango for a scroll of Wish, which was crafted by a dread necromancer with all those feats and who used Extra Spell to nab Wish.

SS explicitly states this use of Wish falls into DM screw territory.

[Karnith]

Well clearly Savage Species was written first because the Epic Level Handbook refers to it in past tense like the book already exists. Or perhaps later printings of the Epic Level handbook added material that wasn't there to begin with.
WotC also occasionally referred to forthcoming books (e.g. FRCS mentions the ELH). What/where is the reference? EDIT: Found it in a sidebar on page 25. I'm fairly certain that my ELH is an original printing, so I'd guess that it was a reference to an upcoming book.

[Mithril Leaf]

That's from "Improving Monsters (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/improvingMonsters.htm)" section, which does not pertain to PCs.

The section on reading monster entries (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm) is used for all monster entries, both base creatures and templates, and states that a lack of a Level Adjustment entry (on both base creatures and templates) indicates that it's not suitable for use as a PC or cohort.

The general rule is found in reading monster entries. The more specific rule for using a template to improve a non-PC monster overrides this section only for its specific application of improving monsters. For PCs, there is not a more specific rule and thus the general rule which states that a lack of a Level Adjustment entry indicates it's unsuitable for a PC or cohort still stands.

Let me quote the relevant text from what you linked:

Level Adjustment
This line is included in the entries of creatures suitable for use as player characters or as cohorts (usually creatures with Intelligence scores of at least 3 and possessing opposable thumbs). Add this number to the creature’s total Hit Dice, including class levels, to get the creature’s effective character level (ECL). A character’s ECL affects the experience the character earns, the amount of experience the character must have before gaining a new level, and the character’s starting equipment.
The line is only included in the entries of creatures suitable for use as a player characters or as cohorts. Templates are in fact not creatures. They are templates. Templates have the separate rules I already pointed out for applying templates in improving monsters, which is how you go about applying a template to anything, including PCs.

[Curmudgeon]

Generally, if a template does not cause a change to a certain statistic, that entry is missing from the template description.
This means that if a template totally lacks an LA entry (not one that has an entry which is LA: - ) it means that the template itself is LA: +0, as that merely means that the base LA is unchanged by this template, as specified in reading a template.
If the rule didn't start with that qualifier your conclusion would be correct. Instead, the RAW makes it a matter for individual DM adjudication.

[Mithril Leaf]

If the rule didn't start with that qualifier your conclusion would be correct. Instead, the RAW makes it a matter for individual DM adjudication.

Unless we suddenly get a universally applicable DM on these forums, we're just going to typically use the general rule no?

[Curmudgeon]

Unless we suddenly get a universally applicable DM on these forums, we're just going to typically use the general rule no?
The general rule in this case is: ask your DM.

[Mithril Leaf]

The general rule in this case is: ask your DM.

The general rule actually specifies that you assume it to be unchanged. Unless your DM specifies otherwise, that's the rule you use. We have no DM here, so we'll have to use the general rule for the purpose of discussion.

[Pan151]

The general rule actually specifies that you assume it to be unchanged. Unless your DM specifies otherwise, that's the rule you use. We have no DM here, so we'll have to use the general rule for the purpose of discussion.

The general rule specifies that you have to ask your DM.

[Chronos]

"Specific trumps general" doesn't mean that you ignore the general rule entirely, or that you have to ask your DM every time you encounter a general rule. A rule that starts with "generally, do this..." means "...unless some other rule tells you otherwise".

Now, in this case, it's a really stupid rule, and it would be perfectly reasonable for a DM to houserule it. But that is a houserule, and until a DM does so houserule, the rule is that a template that doesn't mention LA is effectively +0.

[Pan151]

"Specific trumps general" doesn't mean that you ignore the general rule entirely, or that you have to ask your DM every time you encounter a general rule. A rule that starts with "generally, do this..." means "...unless some other rule tells you otherwise".

Now, in this case, it's a really stupid rule, and it would be perfectly reasonable for a DM to houserule it. But that is a houserule, and until a DM does so houserule, the rule is that a template that doesn't mention LA is effectively +0.

The main problem, as people above me have already said, we are dealing with 3.0 material that had different rules from 3.5 regarding playable races/templates, and as such the whole situation falls under the even more general category of "material converted to 3.5 from 3.0, ask your DM".

[Psyren]

The general rule actually specifies that you assume it to be unchanged. Unless your DM specifies otherwise, that's the rule you use.

No, you have it backwards - the general rule for 3.0 material is "your DM has to greenlight this." They have to say it is unchanged.

[Lord Vukodlak]

You know everyone says that 3.0 material is valid in 3.5 unless it conflicts or was updated with a 3.5 book. But is that actually mentioned in the rules anywhere?


The main problem, as people above me have already said, we are dealing with 3.0 material that had different rules from 3.5 regarding playable races/templates, and as such the whole situation falls under the even more general category of "material converted to 3.5 from 3.0, ask your DM".

Exactly people are giving the template something it didn't have, when a template had no level adjustment in 3.0 listed anywhere it meant it was UNPLAYABLE. Now suddenly it becomes LA+0 when you convert it to 3.5?

[squiggit]

I think the "no la = LA0" argument stems from the line in template rules about a template not mentioning variables if they remain unchanged. So following that rule an unlisted LA would mean the LA isn't changed by the template.

[Mithril Leaf]

For everyone who's engaging in a straw man argument, let me clarify exactly what I have been saying. A template that lacks an entry for LA, does not change LA. This is the general rule, as stated in the Reading a Template section of Improving Monsters. I explicitly did not say that you should allow all 3.0 templates, although I did offer my opinion on options should you choose to do so. All I said was that if templates lack an LA entry they are +0 LA by the the Rules As Written. If a creature, which is different than a template, lacks an LA entry it is unplayable. If you import 3.0 templates and decide not to give them an LA where applicable, they would fall under the same rules as all other templates that do not specify LA, which means that they are +0 LA templates.
If you are going to disagree with me, disagree with what I have said: That templates which do not specify LA do not change LA, nothing about 3.0 conversions.

[Necroticplague]

LA: as base creature, not LA +0

[atemu1234]

Mathematics basics. If you add zero, you are making the operation of adding zero. The result is unchanged.

It is like how la+2 added to la+3 is making the operation of adding 2.

The thing about mathematics is that it doesn't care about what the numeric value of the operation is, but the operation is completed, just modified by the numerical value.

However, mathematics is lazy. It will default to the simplest method. So a creature with LA+0 with a LA+0 has LA+0+0, simplfied to LA+0.

And consequently, with those which do not change from the base creature - they do change the base creature by the application of the template, because that is what the rules for applying templates says so. It just so happens that it doesn't change because that is what the template states.

Confused? Welcome to the ruleset that even the designers don't know what they wrote.

And atemu1234, why would they have all those templates? For the trick you are TOing, most templates are completely irrelevant. This is where TOing is like maths. It uses the least possible amount of resources - hence why PunPun has come from being a Psion 12 to Paladin 1 for example.

And Mithril: there is a table which contains the ECL for creatures, including the example Templated ones, which enables you to work it out if you choose to use that source in addition to the core template.

Finay, just want to make sure you (everyone) is aware we are discussing nonmention of LA as opposed to LA-. There is a difference.

So in your book you're either not optimizing or you're Pun-Pun? I have a long series of arguments to that.

Templates have an LA to balance out the features they provide, as do races. You can't justify them not existing by, "well, he could have made Pun-Pun, so I guess it's ok". The guy who made Pun-Pun out and said that it shouldn't be used in any games with any semblance of sanity.

Also, I got optimizing is like math. I've made some builds of my own for optimization and for flavor (not necessarily separate, but occasionally separate in reasons for creation).

Finally, Templates are far from irrelevant. Many unupdated templates with no listed ECL are powerful and they have that power in the shape of a CR adjustment. Therein they are powerful, therein they are useful, and far from irrelevant if you're trying to run a balanced game.

[Mithril Leaf]

LA: as base creature, not LA +0

That's a valid point if you're feeling quite nitpicky, although adding 0 to something doesn't change it.

[Pan151]

For everyone who's engaging in a straw man argument, let me clarify exactly what I have been saying. A template that lacks an entry for LA, does not change LA. This is the general rule, as stated in the Reading a Template section of Improving Monsters. I explicitly did not say that you should allow all 3.0 templates, although I did offer my opinion on options should you choose to do so. All I said was that if templates lack an LA entry they are +0 LA by the the Rules As Written. If a creature, which is different than a template, lacks an LA entry it is unplayable. If you import 3.0 templates and decide not to give them an LA where applicable, they would fall under the same rules as all other templates that do not specify LA, which means that they are +0 LA templates.
If you are going to disagree with me, disagree with what I have said: That templates which do not specify LA do not change LA, nothing about 3.0 conversions.

The rule you're quoting is a 3.5 rule. It applies to 3.5 content.

The template we're discussing is a 3.0 template. It follows 3.0 rules.

[Lord Vukodlak]

The rule you're quoting is a 3.5 rule. It applies to 3.5 content.

The template we're discussing is a 3.0 template. It follows 3.0 rules.

That logic doesn't work on him, I've pointed out repeatedly that a lack of a level adjustment entry in 3.0 means its unplayable.

[Pan151]

That logic doesn't work on him, I've pointed out repeatedly that a lack of a level adjustment entry in 3.0 means its unplayable.

Well, I had to try at least once :smallfrown:

[Mithril Leaf]

The rule you're quoting is a 3.5 rule. It applies to 3.5 content.

The template we're discussing is a 3.0 template. It follows 3.0 rules.

And what I am saying is that if you import 3.0 templates, without adjustment, and they do not have LA, they are technically +0 LA. This is a viable option given the rules for using 3.0 content, although often not the case, as it states in the rules that DMs are to make any needed changes. Also please note where I explicitly point out what I am saying here again.
For a third time:
If you decide to take 3.0 templates.
And then directly import them to 3.5.
Then if they do not have a level adjustment.
You use 3.5 rules, which state that any template which does not have level adjustment does not change the level adjustment of the base creature.

EDIT: If you'd also be so kind as to actually provide the 3.0 rules quote forbidding templates lacking a Level Adjustment or ECL entry, that would be great. Not a general lack of rules regarding such things on templates, but something forbidding their use.

[Pan151]

And what I am saying is that if you import 3.0 templates, without adjustment, and they do not have LA, they are technically +0 LA.

And if we import the AD&D Cleric/Mage, without adjustment, it is technically a regular base class so everything's fine, right?


EDIT: If you'd also be so kind as to actually provide the 3.0 rules quote forbidding templates lacking a Level Adjustment or ECL entry, that would be great. Not a general lack of rules regarding such things on templates, but something forbidding their use.

I will gladly do so, as soon as you find me the relevant 3.5 rules quote forbidding a lv1 human fighter to shoot disintegrating eye rays at will as a free action. Not a general lack of rules regarding such things on eye rays, but something forbidding their use.

[Mithril Leaf]

And if we import the AD&D Cleric/Mage, without adjustment, it is technically a regular base class so everything's fine, right?



I will gladly do so, as soon as you find me the relevant 3.5 rules quote forbidding a lv1 human fighter to shoot disintegrating eye rays at will as a free action. Not a general lack of rules regarding such things on eye rays, but something forbidding their use.

Where's the rules allowing you to import the AD&D Cleric/Mage? There are rules that allow you to use 3.0 content in 3.5 after the DM makes any needed minor changes. Assuming the metaphorical DM decides that one thing that does not need to be changed is adding an LA to a given template, which is a valid option by RAW, then we have a template in 3.5 which has no LA. There are existing templates which have no LA mentioned, such as spellstitched. If we take one of these templates, which we have already established can exist by RAW, we can apply the template, by the rules in Improving Monsters, without applying any changes to the base creatures LA.

To address your second point, that is the rule which would disqualify you from directly importing a template to 3.5 with no changes. Additionally, it has been claimed on several occasions that if a template in 3.0 didn't have LA mentioned, it made your character unplayable to possess it. I have not claimed that a level 1 fighter can shoot eye rays. Every single thing I've claimed has had at least some relevant rules text displaying where I've gotten the opinion on the claims I have made.

[aleucard]

Where's the rules allowing you to import the AD&D Cleric/Mage? There are rules that allow you to use 3.0 content in 3.5 after the DM makes any needed minor changes. Assuming the metaphorical DM decides that one thing that does not need to be changed is adding an LA to a given template, which is a valid option by RAW, then we have a template in 3.5 which has no LA. There are existing templates which have no LA mentioned, such as spellstitched. If we take one of these templates, which we have already established can exist by RAW, we can apply the template, by the rules in Improving Monsters, without applying any changes to the base creatures LA.

To address your second point, that is the rule which would disqualify you from directly importing a template to 3.5 with no changes. Additionally, it has been claimed on several occasions that if a template in 3.0 didn't have LA mentioned, it made your character unplayable to possess it. I have not claimed that a level 1 fighter can shoot eye rays. Every single thing I've claimed has had at least some relevant rules text displaying where I've gotten the opinion on the claims I have made.

And your hypothetical DM either will be made to regret their decision to not apply LA to several of these templates in VERY short order or is running Tippy's games.

The assumed state of affairs for general build questions is that if you need to use phrases like 'technically, it's rules-legal' to justify your suggestion, don't make it. If the OP says otherwse, sure, but in general don't make these kinds of assumptions of a DM's cheese tolerance.

[Fax Celestis]

Where's the rules allowing you to import the AD&D Cleric/Mage?

Ahem. (http://www.adnd3egame.com/documents/conversionbook.pdf)

and for any of you who care, that was a free publication on the wizards site that for some reason is now gone.

[Mithril Leaf]

And your hypothetical DM either will be made to regret their decision to not apply LA to several of these templates in VERY short order or is running Tippy's games.

The assumed state of affairs for general build questions is that if you need to use phrases like 'technically, it's rules-legal' to justify your suggestion, don't make it. If the OP says otherwse, sure, but in general don't make these kinds of assumptions of a DM's cheese tolerance.

All I've ever argued though is that technically it's rules legal. It's certainly not for low-op games or anything.

[Vaz]

So in your book you're either not optimizing or you're Pun-Pun? I have a long series of arguments to that.
Optimizing =/= TO. Optimizing is making a choice over doing something and then doing it better. Choosing Weapon Focus (Greatsword) is optimizing if you're wielding a greatsword, for example. However, if you can already hit your targets, +1 to hit isn't much, you might get more return out of Power Attack. Theoretical optimizing is getting the most X you can - say in this case, Strength. Sure, you can stack your Dragonborn Water Orc templates etc all you want, but there's always going to be something that can be theoretically stronger than you - either a Cancer Mage, or Pun Pun.

If you stack 59 templates, and end up with Str 180, cool beans. But it's still not Str NI/Arbitrary. A DM has the final say over everything, and if you're too powerful, he'll say "nope", and whether you're 180 Strength, or NI strength, the result is the same, except the NI strength is better than you, and probably gone through less effort to do so.


Templates have an LA to balance out the features they provide, as do races. You can't justify them not existing by, "well, he could have made Pun-Pun, so I guess it's ok". The guy who made Pun-Pun out and said that it shouldn't be used in any games with any semblance of sanity.
No-one is.


Also, I got optimizing is like math. I've made some builds of my own for optimization and for flavor (not necessarily separate, but occasionally separate in reasons for creation).

Finally, Templates are far from irrelevant. Many unupdated templates with no listed ECL are powerful and they have that power in the shape of a CR adjustment. Therein they are powerful, therein they are useful, and far from irrelevant if you're trying to run a balanced game.
If you're running a balanced game, you wouldn't play a Tier 1 Wizard when playing with Tier 5 Fighters picking up Weapon Specialization. Balance is mutable. Template stacking to get your fighter capable of something that a summon monster spell can't can help alleviate that.

What is undeniable is that the rules for templates state that you do not change from the base creature if the template makes no mention of changing it, it is stated as such in the rules for improving monsters, which all playable characters are.

What is up to a DM is whether unupdated 3.0 content is allowed into play, a1) at all, and b) if so, unchanged. I'll have to dig it out, but I'm fairly sure Curmudgeon made reference to it recently. A DM should be able to look over exactly what is being added to their games, and if not, they can always call in their higher level adventurers/deities/pun pun/falling rocks and say "nope, don't be a douche".

As to why don't players run around with 59 Templates, why don't players run around as Pun Pun?1

[Divide by Zero]

If a template has LA +0, and the benefits of that template are significantly better than its drawbacks, then that template is essentially a free power boost, and taking it is optimal. If there's 59 such templates, then taking all 59 templates is optimal. Have you ever noticed that almost no 3.5 templates have LA +0?

[Vaz]

I've noticed that 3.5 templates do one of the following;

1. Make no mention of LA
2. Explicitly state it's unchanged
3. Reduce by X amount
4. Add by X amount

[Fax Celestis]

I think this argument is stemming largely from people taking the absence of an LA line as equal to LA: --, which to be frank makes the most sense. However, that's not what the rules say to do.

Yet another example of RAW vs RAI vs RAMS.

[aleucard]

All I've ever argued though is that technically it's rules legal. It's certainly not for low-op games or anything.

I imagine that if you made this clear from the start of your argument, you'd find MUCH less hostility. Tippy equals win as we all know, but most of his advice goes over the cheese tolerance of the best of us.

[Zanos]

I don't think Tippy's table actually allows stacking no LA templates as LA 0.

[Vaz]

I imagine that if you made this clear from the start of your argument, you'd find MUCH less hostility. Tippy equals win as we all know, but most of his advice goes over the cheese tolerance of the best of us.

We've been completely clear from the offset?

[Mithril Leaf]

I imagine that if you made this clear from the start of your argument, you'd find MUCH less hostility. Tippy equals win as we all know, but most of his advice goes over the cheese tolerance of the best of us.

Considering that my very first post included a disclaimer indicating that this was pretty much only for high op games with specific circumstances leading to cases where one would be using Bone Creature to exploit Corpse Crafter and the like, and that I was referring to thing by RAW, I had thought I was at least being fairly clear.