lycanthrope perception help please

[Bellberith]

okay, it says the werewolf has a +4 to perception........

how?

it has from what i can see a 2 proficiency bonus (had to reverse engineer the attack bonus from the +2 str added onto it) and even if it proficient in perception... it doesn't have enough.

[Logosloki]

okay, it says the werewolf has a +4 to perception........

how?

it has from what i can see a 2 proficiency bonus (had to reverse engineer the attack bonus from the +2 str added onto it) and even if it proficient in perception... it doesn't have enough.

They have Passive Perception 14 (under senses, after skills and damage immunities).

EDIT: Now that I think I have a better understanding of what your question is it is because the MM team gave them +4 perception. If you look at the were-bear it has a perception of +7 at CR 5 and the were-boar has +2 at CR 4.

[Bellberith]

They have Passive Perception 14 (under senses, after skills and damage immunities).

no kidding..... now how did they get the +4

[Logosloki]

no kidding..... now how did they get the +4

See my edit.

[Jacob.Tyr]

Looks like they get double proficiency bonus to perception, for all lycanthropes.

[Logosloki]

Looks like they get double proficiency bonus to perception, for all lycanthropes.

After actually reading my MM (I have a nasty habit of just looking at the stat blocks since I :think: that I know what is what) I looked at the introduction again and see that you are right. Perception is wisdom modifier plus the proficiency bonus as per table with some monsters getting double from the table based on whatever the MM team uses. The only one who doesn't follow this, which threw me off, is the were-rat who has advantage on perception but the not double proficiency bonus.

[Bellberith]

Looks like they get double proficiency bonus to perception, for all lycanthropes.

as far as the template goes..... why don't the PCs get that? if all the NPCs do.

Edit: basically, why give a monster something that the template of said monster doesn't give.

[Thrudd]

as far as the template goes..... why don't the PCs get that? if all the NPCs do.

Edit: basically, why give a monster something that the template of said monster doesn't give.

Because monsters aren't PCs. Maybe a PC who contracts lycanthropy doesn't develop the feral senses of a born lycanthrope, or they don't get it until they have completely lost their original personality and given in to the beast (aka are now an NPC/monster instead of a PC).

[Bellberith]

Because monsters aren't PCs. Maybe a PC who contracts lycanthropy doesn't develop the feral senses of a born lycanthrope, or they don't get it until they have completely lost their original personality and given in to the beast (aka are now an NPC/monster instead of a PC).

you lose your original personality, not your mind. chaotic evil is a perfectly playable alignment (for werewolf) but then there is the werebear who is neutral good..... also a very playable alignment.

aside from that, what if a pre-written npc gets infected? and i would assume not ALL of the lycans presented are natural born.... especially since it doesn't have the statistics/template for a natural born lycan.

also, they get the "keen senses" part of lycan.

[MustacheFart]

you lose your original personality, not your mind. chaotic evil is a perfectly playable alignment (for werewolf) but then there is the werebear who is neutral good..... also a very playable alignment.

Tread lightly there. You're bound to start an argument here with that thinking. I made a similar conclusion which resulted in forum torches and pitchforks lol.

[Bellberith]

Tread lightly there. You're bound to start an argument here with that thinking. I made a similar conclusion which resulted in forum torches and pitchforks lol.

how can someone refute that though? it says in the template section


"lf the character embraces the curse, his or her alignment becomes the one defined for the lycanthrope."

^ directly from the MM 5.0

some DMs dont allow CE alignments and might take over the character, okay, i can kind-of understand that.

but werebear is NG so should be fair game. (weretiger is also neutral.... not all lycans are evil)

[Sartharina]

Tread lightly there. You're bound to start an argument here with that thinking. I made a similar conclusion which resulted in forum torches and pitchforks lol.No. That argument was over your assertion that a DM that's willing to take control of a therianthropic/zoanthropic character was a DM who doesn't deserve players.

[MustacheFart]

how can someone refute that though? it says in the template section



^ directly from the MM 5.0

some DMs dont allow CE alignments and might take over the character, okay, i can kind-of understand that.

but werebear is NG so should be fair game. (weretiger is also neutral.... not all lycans are evil)

I will say, the were-bear was around in earlier editions and I have never ever ever run into one. I suspect it is for the reason you'd mentioned. Mechanically it's a pure upgrade and most DMs avoid those for fear of imbalance I'm guessing.

[MustacheFart]

No. That argument was over your assertion that a DM that's willing to take control of a therianthropic/zoanthropic character was a DM who doesn't deserve players.

I'm sorry Bellberith. My pet troll followed me here. She likes to take things I've said across multiple posts and twist them together until she's thoroughly bastardized my words. When you come back at her with solid facts she simply retorts with more twisted falsehoods.

As in her above statement. I had said if a DM took control of my character automatically just because I became a lycanthrope I wouldn't be happy. I believe I said I would walk out. I later (much later in subsequent posts) stated that a DM could take control of any character for any reason as he is the DM but doing so will most likely end in him losing players. Two different statements that she's contorted into one falsehood. The proof is in the thread as to it being two different statements but notice how she's not linked it here. Maybe she lacks reading comprehension or...well it's not appropriate to say here.

Pathetic really. I apologize for muddling your thread. I was merely trying to prevent you from attracting her. It would see my plan backfired.

Nevertheless, back on topic. I agree that the lycanthropes are interesting and carry not much of a downside. For that reason, it may be unlikely to encounter them. Though werewolves are pretty typical in certain settings so you'd have a much higher chance of encountering one of them I'd think.

[Bellberith]

I'm sorry Bellberith. My pet troll followed me here. She likes to take things I've said across multiple posts and twist them together until she's thoroughly bastardized my words. When you come back at her with solid facts she simply retorts with more twisted falsehoods.

As in her above statement. I had said if a DM took control of my character automatically just because I became a lycanthrope I wouldn't be happy. I believe I said I would walk out. I later (much later in subsequent posts) stated that a DM could take control of any character for any reason as he is the DM but doing so will most likely end in him losing players. Two different statements that she's contorted into one falsehood. The proof is in the thread as to it being two different statements but notice how she's not linked it here. Maybe she lacks reading comprehension or...well it's not appropriate to say here.

Pathetic really. I apologize for muddling your thread. I was merely trying to prevent you from attracting her. It would see my plan backfired.

Nevertheless, back on topic. I agree that the lycanthropes are interesting and carry not much of a downside. For that reason, it may be unlikely to encounter them. Though werewolves are pretty typical in certain settings so you'd have a much higher chance of encountering one of them I'd think.

all good,

but what would you say about the point i brought up? the fact that for some reason lycans gain double proficiency on perception, yet that isnt stated in the template.

did they just forget? or am i missing something and they actually do gain it?

its hard to believe this was on purpose because i just dont see a reason to give a monster something that the template doesn't have. can't be for balance...... because half-dragon and vampire are just plain better to begin with.

[Sartharina]

I'm sorry Bellberith. My pet troll followed me here. She likes to take things I've said across multiple posts and twist them together until she's thoroughly bastardized my words. When you come back at her with solid facts she simply retorts with more twisted falsehoods.It would seem we were talking past each other, then, and you're twisting my words just as much as I'm apparently twisting yours by assuming I believe/think that a player can't continue playing as a Lycanthrope, when I've merely said that the DM has the option of taking control of a lycanthropic character (Your assertation that a DM can take control of a player character is what I took issue with. A DM can no more do that than a Player can arbitrarily take control of the gameworld and NPCs.)

[Baveboi]

MustacheFart, Sartharina, please take it to a private thread or your PMs if it is a personal subject, and if it's not please drop it. It is obvious both of you are quite tired of arguing the same thing over and over, and I can imagine others must be just as bothered. Again, if it is not personal, drop the subject. If it is, take it somewhere private. Like a rap battle thread or something. Can someone endorse a rap battle thread?

On the spirit of contribution: Don't other monsters get extra bonus to perception checks? It was my understanding that some creatures are better at some things than their stat-lines would indicate, like stealth and perception. It was so in the 3.x and it was so in the 4th edition, I imagine they would keep such a die-hard custom around in 5th too.

[MustacheFart]

It would seem we were talking past each other, then, and you're twisting my words just as much as I'm apparently twisting yours by assuming I believe/think that a player can't continue playing as a Lycanthrope, when I've merely said that the DM has the option of taking control of a lycanthropic character (Your assertation that a DM can take control of a player character is what I took issue with. A DM can no more do that than a Player can arbitrarily take control of the gameworld and NPCs.)

My words may have flown over your head to the point that you believed we were talking about the same thing but I was quite aware that we were not. Although I am glad you finally admit to twisting my words, I have not twisted your words. I don't need to! They are as plain as day. Here's how it's done:


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

Once again, you contradict yourself. If it's not a player's character anymore then how can they continue playing it? That's word for word what you said in the other thread. "It stops being the player's character."

As I've clearly demonstrated, your contradictions are not the same as any alleged twisting of words done by me.

I say different things on very related notes. You miss the distinction and also flip flop on your own points. That's all there is to it. Thanks come again.

[MustacheFart]

all good,

but what would you say about the point i brought up? the fact that for some reason lycans gain double proficiency on perception, yet that isnt stated in the template.

did they just forget? or am i missing something and they actually do gain it?

its hard to believe this was on purpose because i just dont see a reason to give a monster something that the template doesn't have. can't be for balance...... because half-dragon and vampire are just plain better to begin with.

It's quite likely that they built the monster stats and the template slightly independent of one another. So, they put what was appropriate for the different monsters but then extrapolated certain details for the template.

Concept-wise I guess you could explain it by the paragraph that mentions being born a lycanthrope versus being infected. It's also quite possible that it was a slip up. I wasn't overly impressed with the amount of detail provided for lycanthrope so it may just be a missed detail. Though, if you have a DM willing to allow lycanthropy I would bet you could make a solid argument for getting the + to perception.

[Thrudd]

I was only trying to give a possible fluff justification for something that is clearly not meant to be part of a PC's build. NPC's and monsters aren't necessarily built the same way PCs are, they don't need to follow the same rules. A PC who gets infected, while they remain in control of the player, follows the rules of PC construction. If/when they become a monster/NPC and are retired as a PC, can have the monster stats.

The way I have run lycanthropy in the past is that the player loses control during the periods when they transform and goes on a killing spree. During those times, they have the stats of the monster. When they are in control, they have their normal stats. It is a curse they should be attempting to remove before it's too late and they lose their humanity.

Werebears, being good, don't try to infect people. They keep to themselves and protect the denizens of the forest (like Beorn). Letting a player play as one, without 3e style level adjustment, is supremely overpowered for most games.