Three things that affect players in the monster manual....

[CyberThread]

Certain Monsters can be made familiars, this is a variant rule, which means they could be given to folks who are not casters.


Players can be Lycanthropes , by DM fiat or a failed roll. They cost nothing, so should be careful about balance.

Psychic Oozes, they can eat your brains now.

[Corinath]

Certain Monsters can be made familiars, this is a variant rule, which means they could be given to folks who are not casters.


Players can be Lycanthropes , by DM fiat or a failed roll. They cost nothing, so should be careful about balance.

Psychic Oozes, they can eat your brains now.

Care to elaborate on the Lycanthrope bit? Like, benefits/disadvantages?

[Inevitability]

Certain Monsters can be made familiars, this is a variant rule, which means they could be given to folks who are not casters.

I like this.


Players can be Lycanthropes , by DM fiat or a failed roll. They cost nothing, so should be careful about balance.

I wonder... If one of the party members is underpresenting, be it because of bad rolls or a bad character; would Lycanthropy fix it?


Psychic Oozes, they can eat your brains now.

:smalleek: AW YEAH

[CyberThread]

{{Scrubbed}}

[D1ng]

Any idea if the quasit rules apply to a Warlock pact of chain familiar? Because sharing magic resistance is pretty sweet

[Inevitability]

Aw yeah. I'm definitely going to use a psychic ooze someday.

[Jacob.Tyr]

Lycanthrope rules seem a bit schizophrenic. On one hand, they seem to follow the classical "You go insane, kill people" with a chance to not remember any of it. On the other, lycanthropes might live in groups, and wererat thieves guilds seem to be a thing still.

There are also rules for becoming a vampire. Basically your physical stats become 18, you gain damage resistance, vampire traits and actions.

[MustacheFart]

Thanks CyberThread for the pictures. Unfortunately, you can't see all the stats for either to actually determine the advantages/disadvantages.

It sounds like there is no level adjustment anymore.


Hmm...I don't suppose there is a wereboar or werebear anywhere in the HOTDQ module is there?

[Freelance GM]

People are leaving out a very important detail of the Vampire/Lycanthrope thing:

"The character's Alignment becomes evil, and the DM might take control of the character until the vampirism is reversed with a wish spell, or the character is killed and brought back to life."
"The DM is free to decide that a change in alignment places the character under DM control until the curse of Lycanthropy is removed."
So, it gives the DM the authority to say "roleplay the character the way I tell you to, or I'll roleplay it for you!"

As for the Warlock "Chain Pact" thing...

Any spellcaster can negotiate with a Quasit, Imp, Pseudodragon, or Sprite via roleplaying to convince them to serve as a temporary Familiar, but only the Chain Pact Warlock can actually summon those creatures with the Find Familiar spell.

The Find Familiar spell specifically says, "Your familiar acts independently of you, but it always obeys your commands."

So, a Quasit serving a Wizard, Sorcerer, or anyone who takes the Magic Initiate feat can (and probably will) betray their master, and end their bond at any time. However, a Quasit serving a Chain Pact warlock is actually compelled to obey that Warlock's commands until the Warlock finds a new familiar. Including commands such as, "Stay close, shut up, and understand that my Patron will not be amused if you betray me."

[MustacheFart]

People are leaving out a very important detail of the Vampire/Lycanthrope thing:

"The character's Alignment becomes evil, and the DM might take control of the character until the vampirism is reversed with a wish spell, or the character is killed and brought back to life."
"The DM is free to decide that a change in alignment places the character under DM control until the curse of Lycanthropy is removed."
So, it gives the DM the authority to say "roleplay the character the way I tell you to, or I'll roleplay it for you!"


I don't put too much stock in any of that. The DM is already free to decide that he can take control of a character. He's the DM! He can decide whatever he wants. Some little "permission"-based statement doesn't change that.

Also no DM has a right to tell a player "roleplay the character the way I tell you to, or I'll roleplay it for you!" whether they have some statement saying the can take control or not. Dnd typically requires a DM and players. It's about social interaction and fun. So just as the DM has the right to roleplay or DM how he wants so does the player. It's about them just as much as the DM. If they can't work together then that's a whole separate issue.

DM fiat is one thing. A DM telling me that he'll take my character if I don't roleplay how he wants would receive the response of "Well, watch me roleplay walking out the door." as I get up and leave.

[Steel Mirror]

DM fiat is one thing. A DM telling me that he'll take my character if I don't roleplay how he wants would receive the response of "Well, watch me roleplay walking out the door." as I get up and leave.In which case you'd be well advised to avoid being bitten by a lycanthrope, or perhaps to seek a cure as quickly as possible before your character is forced into some truly life-altering situation as a result of his affliction.

I get what you are saying, it could certainly be obnoxious if handled poorly. On the other hand it's probably best that being bitten by a werebear doesn't become the first thing on every adventuring party's to-do list thanks to a list of stat buffs with no drawbacks at all. Best would be an understanding between DM and players: if you get bit by a were-llama, there will be serious in-game fallout from that, and as a result we should either agree as a group not to open the door to the possibility, or agree as a group that if anyone does get infected, there will be a rough patch ahead for them IC.

[Sartharina]

I don't put too much stock in any of that. The DM is already free to decide that he can take control of a character. He's the DM! He can decide whatever he wants. Some little "permission"-based statement doesn't change that.

Also no DM has a right to tell a player "roleplay the character the way I tell you to, or I'll roleplay it for you!" whether they have some statement saying the can take control or not. Dnd typically requires a DM and players. It's about social interaction and fun. So just as the DM has the right to roleplay or DM how he wants so does the player. It's about them just as much as the DM. If they can't work together then that's a whole separate issue.

DM fiat is one thing. A DM telling me that he'll take my character if I don't roleplay how he wants would receive the response of "Well, watch me roleplay walking out the door." as I get up and leave.
If you don't want a chance of losing control of your character, don't put your character in situations you can lose control of him. The DM does have the right to tell a player that the way they play their character needs to change if something happens in-game to cause it. Your stance sounds like the same as the guy who makes a character in GURPS and takes a bunch of extreme behavior-governing flaws, and then ignores them in-game because "I have the right to play my character a I want."

of course, if you permanently lose control of your character, equate it with character death, and roll up a new guy (or wait until the party heals/restores him). Unless you're the type of player who also reacts to being told your character died by saying "okay, but the Dead condition doesn't actually do anything, so I'm gonna keep playing him like I want."

[Slipperychicken]

DM fiat is one thing. A DM telling me that he'll take my character if I don't roleplay how he wants would receive the response of "Well, watch me roleplay walking out the door." as I get up and leave.

Not having control while in werewolf-mode is pretty much definitive for the popular-culture werewolf.


If it was me DMing that, I'd just mention something like:

"Yeah, if you become a werewolf, you lose control in hybrid form, just like in the movies and stories. When the full moon comes out, a lycan becomes a big hairy monster, then flips out, kills and eats people at random all night, and has no memory of what happened after transforming. A lycan will most likely wake up the next morning naked, exhausted, and covered in blood in a gutter. That is, assuming nobody manages to kill or subdue him that night. That's especially relevant because bounty hunters and law-enforcement know what happens on a full moon, and will get a pretty big reward for taking down monsters like werewolves and vampires. So being a werewolf is an extremely bad thing".

[Jacob.Tyr]

Not having control while in werewolf-mode is pretty much definitive for the popular-culture werewolf.


If it was me DMing that, I'd just mention something like:

"Yeah, if you become a werewolf, you lose control in hybrid form, just like in the movies and stories. When the full moon comes out, a lycan becomes a big hairy monster, then flips out, kills and eats people at random all night, and has no memory of what happened after transforming. A lycan will most likely wake up the next morning naked, exhausted, and covered in blood in a gutter. That is, assuming nobody manages to kill or subdue him that night. That's especially relevant because bounty hunters and law-enforcement know what happens on a full moon, and will get a pretty big reward for taking down monsters like werewolves and vampires. So being a werewolf is an extremely bad thing".
You'd be hard pressed to run a city that functions on those rules where the morning after every full moon a handful of bounty hunters don't show up with dead homeless guys.

[Slipperychicken]

You'd be hard pressed to run a city that functions on those rules where the morning after every full moon a handful of bounty hunters don't show up with dead homeless guys.

I'd imagine there would be some reasonable test to see if the guy was a werewolf. Like seeing how the flesh reacts to silver.

[MustacheFart]

In which case you'd be well advised to avoid being bitten by a lycanthrope, or perhaps to seek a cure as quickly as possible before your character is forced into some truly life-altering situation as a result of his affliction.

I get what you are saying, it could certainly be obnoxious if handled poorly. On the other hand it's probably best that being bitten by a werebear doesn't become the first thing on every adventuring party's to-do list thanks to a list of stat buffs with no drawbacks at all. Best would be an understanding between DM and players: if you get bit by a were-llama, there will be serious in-game fallout from that, and as a result we should either agree as a group not to open the door to the possibility, or agree as a group that if anyone does get infected, there will be a rough patch ahead for them IC.

Hmm... you state that a character should seek a cure as quickly as possible if they're inflicted before they're forced into some truly life-altering situation. Two questions regarding that.

1) Who says the truly life-altering situation has to be bad? Does a character not experience these all the time as they both roleplay their character and level it? To have a character that doesn't experience life-altering situations could be rather boring.

2) Did you not read the description of werebear? They're a very controlled case of lycanthropy much like the wererats except good rather than thieving (and evil). It states that a werebear does not bite under almost all conditions so as to not needlessly pass on his lycanthropy. Instead he reserves his bite for someone he's deemed worthy of the gift and/or sees as an apprentice. He then spends time with them until he's taught them to master it.

How is that at all bad? Really that's no different than learning anything that requires training on your character. To learn proficiency in a certain tool you can spend gold and A LOT of time according to the PHB. This is the same case except instead of learning to play that lute you are learning to control your shape shifting.


If you don't want a chance of losing control of your character, don't put your character in situations you can lose control of him.

That's a ridiculous statement. Often such situations are not a player's choice. So I'm not even going to grant that statement with further response.


The DM does have the right to tell a player that the way they play their character needs to change if something happens in-game to cause it. Your stance sounds like the same as the guy who makes a character in GURPS and takes a bunch of extreme behavior-governing flaws, and then ignores them in-game because "I have the right to play my character a I want."

of course, if you permanently lose control of your character, equate it with character death, and roll up a new guy (or wait until the party heals/restores him). Unless you're the type of player who also reacts to being told your character died by saying "okay, but the Dead condition doesn't actually do anything, so I'm gonna keep playing him like I want."

Once again, more ridiculous extremes. Because I stated that I don't believe a DM should tell a player how to roleplay their character you took that to ridiculous proportions concluding that I must ignore all flaws and defy character death through roleplay. LOL Your character being dead isn't the GM telling you how to roleplay. Your character is dead so you can't even roleplay him if you wanted. There's a huge difference between a character dying and a GM forcing a player to behave a certain way. You're smart enough to know that.

One last thing. The DM certainly has EVERY right to implement consequences for how a player chooses to roleplay his character. That's the right way to do it. That's also not at all the same as telling them how to roleplay.

For instance, here's a ridiculous extreme. An intolerant king known for being fairly hard on his subjects invites the party to a party. The crude dwarf barbarian tells the party he's going to walk right up to the king during the party and crop dust him. You know fart right on him. He justifies this because that's how he greats everyone!

He does this and he is immediately thrown in jail. He's found guilty shortly after and is sentenced to death.

That's fine! He made his bed so he can lie in it.

I'm done.

[Jacob.Tyr]

For instance, here's a ridiculous extreme. An intolerant king known for being fairly hard on his subjects invites the party to a party. The crude dwarf barbarian tells the party he's going to walk right up to the king during the party and crop dust him. You know fart right on him. He justifies this because that's how he greats everyone!

He does this and he is immediately thrown in jail. He's found guilty shortly after and is sentenced to death.

That's fine! He made his bed so he can lie in it.

I'm done.

wut? I no longer have any idea what side of what argument you're even on anymore.

[Steel Mirror]

Hmm... you state that a character should seek a cure as quickly as possible if they're inflicted before they're forced into some truly life-altering situation. Two questions regarding that.

1) Who says the truly life-altering situation has to be bad? Does a character not experience these all the time as they both roleplay their character and level it? To have a character that doesn't experience life-altering situations could be rather boring.I was responding specifically to your concern, RE: being forced to RP a character change that you don't want to deal with. To wit:
Also no DM has a right to tell a player "roleplay the character the way I tell you to, or I'll roleplay it for you!" whether they have some statement saying the can take control or not.If you want to RP the change to being a lycanthrope of whatever variety, then happy day! The DM is happy with you, you are happy with you, there is no conflict. I think we both agree that this situation isn't a big deal.

I was just saying that, if you DON'T want to be a lycanthrope, then the story becomes about you trying to seek a cure or find a way to control your condition. Any of those can be a good time, but I think the DM is well within his rights to insist that you respond somehow to becoming a hairy monstrous rampaging demon once per month. Letting it pass without comment seems a bit ridiculous.


2) Did you not read the description of werebear? They're a very controlled case of lycanthropy much like the wererats except good rather than thieving (and evil). It states that a werebear does not bite under almost all conditions so as to not needlessly pass on his lycanthropy. Instead he reserves his bite for someone he's deemed worthy of the gift and/or sees as an apprentice. He then spends time with them until he's taught them to master it.

How is that at all bad? Really that's no different than learning anything that requires training on your character. To learn proficiency in a certain tool you can spend gold and A LOT of time according to the PHB. This is the same case except instead of learning to play that lute you are learning to control your shape shifting.It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is a major change in your character. Again, I was responding to your concern that being bitten by a lycanthrope forces a change on your character that you may not have planned. I think this is true whether the change is that you wake up after full moons naked and covered in blood, or you now have a big jolly man following you around everywhere teaching you how to fish for salmon with your teeth. Either way, there are going to be changes, and I think it is entirely acceptable for the DM to insist that your RP reflects that.

EDIT: And if it is something that you really, really don't want to deal with, it's probably best to settle that with the GM OOC so that you can have some way to cure your lycanthropy and stop the derailment of your character, rather than try to play tug-of-war with your DM IC and insisting that you don't want to RP being a were-whatever.

[MustacheFart]

wut? I no longer have any idea what side of what argument you're even on anymore.

Heh, I'll break it down once more. I'm against a DM dictating how a player should roleplay their character. I'm not against a DM putting consequences in place as a response to how a player is roleplaying. Pretty simple.

[Freelance GM]

Wow, wasn't expecting this to start this much of an argument. Oops. I have created a monster. :smalleek:

The important thing to remember is that it is left to the GM's discretion. Normally, yes, the GM saying, "play your character the way I want you to" would be a huge party foul, but lycanthropy is sort of the exception.

Normally, the Lawful Good Paladin wouldn't run through the streets slaughtering people, but the GM can say he will while he's in Chaotic Evil Werewolf mode. That's the intent of the rule.

Werebear or wererat characters- who have more control in their alternate forms- are a different matter, and the GM probably wouldn't have to override any of your roleplaying decisions there.

But it's ultimately up to the GM to decide. As a GM, I'd probably let the player have some degree of control in Hybrid form. Maybe a DC10 or 15 CHA check, depending on the actions taken, to assert their personality over the beastial one every turn they're a Hybrid. On a failure, I control that PC for their next turn only.)
Monster form is trickier. I'd probably take control of their PC until they decided whether or not to cure or embrace the curse. If they choose to resist the Curse, I'd keep control of the monster form. If not, I'd gradually give them back the reins. Same thing for Vampires, in this case.

Also, on a fairly unrelated note, I feel like a risk of surrendering your character to the GM makes certain players less likely to become a Vampire or Werewolf purely for power-gaming reasons.

[CyberThread]

Jesssh, you guys are ........

[Sartharina]

Heh, I'll break it down once more. I'm against a DM dictating how a player should roleplay their character. I'm not against a DM putting consequences in place as a response to how a player is roleplaying. Pretty simple.

Once a character gets infected with Lycanthropy, vampirism, or some other mind-altering spell or monstrous transformation, it stops being the player's character.

[D1ng]

I think there's considerable difference between "take temporary control of" and "permanently removing you from the game":
I'd be upset if a DM took a character away from me entirely because i failed a save to resist vampirism/lycanthropy. However if I just let my Lawful Good character wander around making no attempts to cure or control his condition because he loves having 19 str then I can imagine the DM is well within his rights to temporarily (once a full moon say) take it out of my control until I either go fully evil or I start tracking down a priest. Otherwise every optimized build will start with 8 strength and a shopping list of #1 get bitten by lycanthrope.

Its another matter to get bitten by a werebear ofc, but as someone said above that also should take considerable RP investment

[andhaira]

There are already rules for Quasit, Imp, Pseudodragon etc familiars in the PHB along with stats for the critters. However, I don't recall familiars being able to share magic resistance, but those rules also don't apply to the familiar cutting the bond by itself. Note there is no exception for the warlock in this 'variant' familiar rule.

This is really stupid. Why are they giving conflicting rules?

[Beleriphon]

There are already rules for Quasit, Imp, Pseudodragon etc familiars in the PHB along with stats for the critters. However, I don't recall familiars being able to share magic resistance, but those rules also don't apply to the familiar cutting the bond by itself. Note there is no exception for the warlock in this 'variant' familiar rule.

This is really stupid. Why are they giving conflicting rules?

Because the familiar via warlock is not the same as gaining the familiar this way. Remember that the warlock familiar looks like the creature but isn't one, while this way you can form a familiar's bond with a creature. Note that the rules for the familiar don't stipulate needing to have the ability to cast spells. So the party rogue could get a pseudodragon familiar... somehow.

[andhaira]

This is ridiculous. If a Warlock calls down an imp as a familiar, you can bet it will be a fiend. What DM in their right mind would allow a celestial to be called in the form of an imp? Furthermore logic dictates that say a Warlock with the fiend pact would be rewarded with a fiend familiar, not a spirit in the shape of a fiend. That doesn't make any sense. Why send a spirit (are there any spirits wandering about in the abyss btw?) in the shape of an imp, when you can just send an imp to reward a loyal Warlock (and keep an eye on him and serve as a messenger if need be)

I think I will just use the magic resistance rules from the MM, but the rest follows the rules for Pact of the Chain for Warlocks.

[pwykersotz]

This is ridiculous. If a Warlock calls down an imp as a familiar, you can bet it will be a fiend. What DM in their right mind would allow a celestial to be called in the form of an imp? Furthermore logic dictates that say a Warlock with the fiend pact would be rewarded with a fiend familiar, not a spirit in the shape of a fiend. That doesn't make any sense. Why send a spirit (are there any spirits wandering about in the abyss btw?) in the shape of an imp, when you can just send an imp to reward a loyal Warlock (and keep an eye on him and serve as a messenger if need be)

I think I will just use the magic resistance rules from the MM, but the rest follows the rules for Pact of the Chain for Warlocks.

A celestial might not, but a fey might.

[Sartharina]

I think there's considerable difference between "take temporary control of" and "permanently removing you from the game"Want to know another effect that can permanently remove someone from the game? Death.

Vampirism/Lycanthropy could very much be alikened to a Save-Or-Die that comes with a new villain/monster attached.

[MustacheFart]

Once a character gets infected with Lycanthropy, vampirism, or some other mind-altering spell or monstrous transformation, it stops being the player's character.


Want to know another effect that can permanently remove someone from the game? Death.

Vampirism/Lycanthropy could very much be alikened to a Save-Or-Die that comes with a new villain/monster attached.

That's your opinion. Nowhere does it say being inflicted with such makes it no longer the player's character. It says DMs can choose to take control but it doesn't say they have to. Technically, they can take control regardless. They don't need that line to do it. They're the DM.

Anyway, suffering such an infliction doesn't automatically mean loss of character. This isn't even my opinion vs yours. This is RAW vs yours. By RAW it says a DM "CAN" take control it doesn't say he has to. Give it up.

[Sartharina]

That's your opinion. Nowhere does it say being inflicted with such makes it no longer the player's character. It says DMs can choose to take control but it doesn't say they have to. Technically, they can take control regardless. They don't need that line to do it. They're the DM. No, a DM cannot take control of a player character without some in-game force like domination or lycanthropy or undeadification. DMs that break this rule are breaking the rules of the game.


Anyway, suffering such an infliction doesn't automatically mean loss of character. This isn't even my opinion vs yours. This is RAW vs yours. By RAW it says a DM "CAN" take control it doesn't say he has to. Give it up.If the DM does choose to, it's effectively a save-or-die.

[MustacheFart]

No, a DM cannot take control of a player character without some in-game force like domination or lycanthropy or undeadification. DMs that break this rule are breaking the rules of the game.

A DM can do whatever they want. It's not breaking the rules of the game for them to take over a player character. There is no rule for that because generally there doesn't need to be. It's common sense that a DM wouldn't do it unless there was just cause. If he did, he wouldn't have a game to DM much longer.


If the DM does choose to, it's effectively a save-or-die.

And the fact that he has a choice indicates that what you said below is false. Your own posts contradict each other. You've proven yourself wrong.


Once a character gets infected with Lycanthropy, vampirism, or some other mind-altering spell or monstrous transformation, it stops being the player's character.

I'm done. Continue to read hard rules where there are not hard rules.

[pwykersotz]

Come to think of it, how is roleplay going to be affected with regards to these curses (assuming you keep the character) now that alignment has no mechanical benefits/penalties? I suppose it could be played as a loss of free will...forcible alignment shift due to becoming something like that might remove your ability to knowingly choose those the other side...but you might also end up with Chaotic Good or Lawful Evil Werebears if the wrong sort of person tricks them.

[MustacheFart]

Come to think of it, how is roleplay going to be affected with regards to these curses (assuming you keep the character) now that alignment has no mechanical benefits/penalties? I suppose it could be played as a loss of free will...forcible alignment shift due to becoming something like that might remove your ability to knowingly choose those the other side...but you might also end up with Chaotic Good or Lawful Evil Werebears if the wrong sort of person tricks them.

Right. It's completely up to interpretation and really it's a situation that a decent group of roleplaying players should be able to roleplay out without requiring DM intervention to the extent of taking over a character.

Just because a character might become evil doesn't mean he becomes stupid. Intelligence and alignment are two different things. Evil characters accompany good characters all the time. Maybe the character just has different goals now. Maybe the character doesn't know what he wants yet so he continues with his current group until he can figure it out. You don't just become evil and immediately think "AHA I will take over the world! Muwahahaha!"

The only party that would possibly require attention (I say possibly because it could also be skipped over in downtime) would be losing control of yourself when you transform on a full moon. Even then that's only if you choose to resist it. It openly states that if you embrace your curse (for Lycanthropy at least; not sure on vampirism) that you learn to master control of it quickly but yes, you take the alignment change. If you resist it, you do NOT take the alignment change and simply lose control when it's a full moon. Easily handled by the party in either case.

The embracing case means you're now potentially evil but unless you are RPing out the process of learning to control your shifting, there's not much else that needs to be done. You could RP it as much or as little as you want.

It's only resisting the curse that would require additional roleplaying. Though I wonder how easily it could be neutralized with a mere calm emotions. In any case, it's only really a problem if you're a low level and/or do not have a caster in the party who can cast Remove Curse.

From a purely optimization standpoint as these are optimization forums, it makes little sense to NOT accept the curse. I mean it doesn't say when you have to make that choice. So, by the rules you could simply seek out a method of changing your alignment but not removing the curse. Or, you could simply get bit by a werebear and have it be of little consequence. Having another werebear follow you around until you gain control is a trivial cost at best. Even if he was the most annoying NPC ever it would still be until you gained control then you could tell him to screw off.

Unfortunately (or fortunately) to some the way they wrote it will make it easy to optimize assuming your DM throws the creatures at you. Though, because they applied various alignments to them I am sure, just like in 3.5, I will never encounter a werebear. If it were up to me, I would have ALL lycanthropes automatically lose control on a full moon. I'd make no mention of gaining control of it purely to keep it where it should be...on the monsters or as a curse. As it sits, it has the potential to be more of a buff than a curse.

[Sartharina]

A DM can do whatever they want. It's not breaking the rules of the game for them to take over a player character. There is no rule for that because generally there doesn't need to be. It's common sense that a DM wouldn't do it unless there was just cause. If he did, he wouldn't have a game to DM much longer.

By this logic, so can any other player.

[MustacheFart]

By this logic, so can any other player.

And I could toss Mountain Dew all over you to wash away the ugly? lol

A DM has just a little bit more power than a player. That was my logic. I'm done with you sign post.