Lycanthropy. I don't get it.

[Vizzerdrix]

Someone help me understand this. Player's can get it, but their is no listed LA, right? So could you start as a were-whatever if you wanted at level 1? Is that how it works, or will a LA system be forthcoming in the DMG? Is it a thing you can't start with but have to catch? And where are our were-squids dangit!

[Daishain]

I haven't seen evidence of an LA system yet.

However, based on the wording, DMs are encouraged to discourage players from becoming lycanthropes, and are perfectly free to declare that your character is now an NPC if you ignore them. Game over, start making a new character. Starting as a lycanthrope would be even less kosher.

[Logosloki]

Lycanthropy is available only on the DMs call. Talk with your DM before you bring it to the table. Also DBAD and try and get bit if the DM brings one around (unless you discuss it first). They might go for the fullest extent of the RAI and call game-over, roll something new.

If you really want to RIP and TEAR though then why not go druid? or are you more interested in the hybrid forms?

EDIT: as for price, I would consider the lycanthrope template, as long as the DM is letting you play it as opposed to NPCing you, about the same as a rare item and that it takes up an attunement slot. I would also depower it for PC use by delaying or removing the non-magical weapons immunity from the template. I feel at best it should only be resistance to bludgeoning, slashing and piercing of non-magic weapons and only coming online at level 6.

[INDYSTAR188]

It is a powerful option for PC's but comes with some inherent drawbacks:

- You will be noticibly stronger than your party
- The DM is encouraged to assume control of the character during their monthly transformation
- Your alignment changes

I think in my game (this is just my opinion of course) if a PC catches lycanthropy they will be given a certain amount of time to get rid of it, if they don't then the character will 'give in' to their new, baser animal urges. They'll have to roll up a new character. My advise is to be very careful with giving out vampirism or lycanthropy. If there was a situation where a PC wanted it for backstory purposes I would talk to her privately and inform her that if it becomes noticibly abusive or just an excuse to min/max then we'll have to do something to balance that.

[Daishain]

If you really want to RIP and TEAR though then why not go druid? or are you more interested in the hybrid forms?
There are plenty of benefits to being a lycanthrope, especially for the melee classes. It isn't just the transformation ability that is of interest. That strength bonus from being a werebear would alone be incredibly beneficial for most bruisers, even if they never grew fur in combat.

In addition, not everyone that would be interested in animal transformation wants to mess with being a nature lover recluse. Hint: I was a big fan of the old 3.5e Tibbit race for my stealth type characters, but I don't recall ever actually playing a druid.

And then RP wise, I love the idea of having a shapeshifting warrior bringing the strength and ferocity of his animal side to bear in conflicts, but also having to struggle with the instincts that it involves. (of course, the werewolf being pigeonholed into chaotic evil has always pissed me off, if a wolf has any alignment other than true neutral it would be lawful neutral)

So, yeah, plenty of appeal to be had with lycanthropy, but they're actively trying to avoid some characters overshadowing others in a major way, so they're limiting access.

[Eslin]

Ok, people seem to be confusing things a bit. Houseruling is fine, but this is what RAW currently says:

DMs are under no obligation to let a character start as a lycanthrope, or even include them in their game world.
A lycanthrope can either embrace or resist the curse:
If they resist it, they keep their alignment while humanoid but transform into a (likely dm controlled) beast or hybrid when there's a full moon.
If they embrace it, they change to the relevant lycanthrope alignment (and if they change alignment, the dm can choose to have your character become an npc) and can control their transformations, doing so at will.

The important part of that: RAW, if someone is already the same alignment as the lycanthrope animal and they choose to embrace the curse, lycanthropy is a flat boost in ability. Their may be some fluff drawbacks from people liking lycanthrope, but if a true neutral character is bitten by a weretiger and embraces it, they retain full control over their character and gain a significant combat boost.

[Segev]

I like the idea of it taking an atunement slot, myself. In fact, make that what you do to "embrace" it: take the atunement actions to gain control over it.

[archaeo]

Presumably, the DMG will house all the information about accounting for PC power levels in encounter design. Currently, however, the rules seem slanted toward the DM treating these options as powerful, campaign-affecting templates that should be applied more for story purposes than mechanical frippery.

[MustacheFart]

Ok, people seem to be confusing things a bit. Houseruling is fine, but this is what RAW currently says:

DMs are under no obligation to let a character start as a lycanthrope, or even include them in their game world.
A lycanthrope can either embrace or resist the curse:
If they resist it, they keep their alignment while humanoid but transform into a (likely dm controlled) beast or hybrid when there's a full moon.
If they embrace it, they change to the relevant lycanthrope alignment (and if they change alignment, the dm can choose to have your character become an npc) and can control their transformations, doing so at will.

The important part of that: RAW, if someone is already the same alignment as the lycanthrope animal and they choose to embrace the curse, lycanthropy is a flat boost in ability. Their may be some fluff drawbacks from people liking lycanthrope, but if a true neutral character is bitten by a weretiger and embraces it, they retain full control over their character and gain a significant combat boost.

Yep, I've been saying this for a while now.

Though, I've also recognized that the above fact means it will see very little play because under those rules it is pretty much a huge buff without much of a negative.

The idea of playing a lycanthrope is appealing however and should be possible without relinquishing any character to the DM. Obviously, it would need to be worked out to a fair level of detail with the DM prior to such.

As a DM, I would allow a character to start as one under a couple of conditions. The biggest being that their stats have to already be allocated in a way that aligns with whatever lycanthrope they're trying to play. I wouldn't allow any str 8 boosting up to str 19 or whatever it is, cheese. Minimize the min-maxing as much as possible. Also have a plausible backstory. If there backstory is good enough I would probably be more rewarding. Plus I can always keep in check with the introduction of "hunters" who are coming after the character, racial inequality, etc etc.

[Eslin]

Lycanthrope is a character upgrade, and I don't want to go back to the 4e thing of balancing it by making it give no stats and basically do nothing, so I'm probably just going to go back to the 3.5 solution and give it a LA of +2.

Or maybe have it replace some class features. Assuming you buffed all lycanthropes to equal status, what do people think of having lycanthropy in place of sub-class abilities?

Edit: Doing that. I'm going to have it if you're bitten, you transform under the full moon or in great stress and have to make a DC15 wisdom save to act normally each round otherwise you lash at the nearest enemy, and you only get lycanthrope stats and benefits while transformed. You can choose to embrace the curse (no alignment switching because that's stupid, what makes a boar any more evil than a bear?), in which case your primal paths, bard colleges and what have you are replaced by the benefits of lycanthropy.

[MustacheFart]

Lycanthrope is a character upgrade, and I don't want to go back to the 4e thing of balancing it by making it give no stats and basically do nothing, so I'm probably just going to go back to the 3.5 solution and give it a LA of +2.

Or maybe have it replace some class features. Assuming you buffed all lycanthropes to equal status, what do people think of having lycanthropy in place of sub-class abilities?

I'm not sure it's good enough to take in place of sub-class abilities. That feels too harsh.

Btw, I wasn't suggesting give it no stats. I was simply saying that since most give a strength boost then the player character shouldn't show up with an 8 str expecting to take this template and become Hercules. Basically, don't min/max the hell out of the stat upgrade. Keep it within reason.

Personally, I like the idea of giving it to a player later in the game rather than at the start. It allows you to gauge how they currently play their character and if they're likely to abuse it.

[Eslin]

I'm not sure it's good enough to take in place of sub-class abilities. That feels too harsh.

Btw, I wasn't suggesting give it no stats. I was simply saying that since most give a strength boost then the player character shouldn't show up with an 8 str expecting to take this template and become Hercules. Basically, don't min/max the hell out of the stat upgrade. Keep it within reason.

Personally, I like the idea of giving it to a player later in the game rather than at the start. It allows you to gauge how they currently play their character and if they're likely to abuse it.

It's really, really good. Bear gives 19 strength, 2x2d8 claw attacks per attack (so basically improves your damage dice and doubles the amount of attacks you can make), +1 armour and immunity to non silvered non magical weapons, large size, scent, 30ft climb and 40ft movement. Oh and a 2d10 bite attack, great for single attacks like AoOs. That's not worth it for every build (compare to say eldritch knight's features plus four levels of spellcasting), but it's definitely strong enough to be a good option.

[MustacheFart]

It's really, really good. Bear gives 19 strength, 2x2d8 claw attacks per attack (so basically improves your damage dice and doubles the amount of attacks you can make), +1 armour and immunity to non silvered non magical weapons, large size, scent, 30ft climb and 40ft movement. Oh and a 2d10 bite attack, great for single attacks like AoOs. That's not worth it for every build (compare to say eldritch knight's features plus four levels of spellcasting), but it's definitely strong enough to be a good option.

Yeah, I guess but then you'd have to spread it out over levels so there's not dead levels. At that point it begins to feel like racial class levels in 3.5 that just felt...bad. "Oh I just gained a level! I am more of a troll now!" :smallconfused:

[Segev]

Currently, however, the rules seem slanted toward the DM treating these options as powerful, campaign-affecting templates that should be applied more for story purposes than mechanical frippery.

Unfortunately, this is bad game design because it means the DM cannot use it without basically playing favorites (or disfavorites). "It's plot-related" has never once excused a situation where one player gets to play something significantly stronger than the others, and just encourages everybody who cares about relevance/optimization/relative power to optimize their personal backstories/plots. It discourages PCs from being the "interesting normal" because they just play weaker, less effective, more fragile characters than those who come up with the backstory for the superpowered creature-thing. It also invalidates the idea of levels, which is that, at least in theory, everything of a given level is roughly on par with their peers.

"Eh, it's plot, so the DM hands it out when his plot demands" just punishes players and DMs for trying to use it at all. Good game design creates drawbacks to compensate, or allows recalibration of power levels.

It's fine if a DM and group are okay with party disparities in power, but those groups are rare in my experience. Even those who think they are often aren't, really. They just think they have to be to be "good RPers" or "good players" or the like, and so tell themselves they are...and wonder why they're not having fun or why they gravitate towards parties full of "special snowflakes" that just happen to all have super powerful "plot elements" that don't cost anything, mechanically.

[Demonic Spoon]

The templates explicitly give the DM the ability to control the character.

They show up in the monster manual first and foremost as monsters, with some information about players using them as a sidenote.

They show up in an edition which grants a lot more implied power to the DM than in certain past ones.


I'm pretty sure that players showing up to the table with level 1 werewolf characters isn't actually going to be a problem.

[MustacheFart]

The templates explicitly give the DM the ability to control the character.

They show up in the monster manual first and foremost as monsters, with some information about players using them as a sidenote.

They show up in an edition which grants a lot more implied power to the DM than in certain past ones.


I'm pretty sure that players showing up to the table with level 1 werewolf characters isn't actually going to be a problem.

Let's not rebirth that tired debate please.

It won't be a problem at most tables because most DMs won't allow lycanthropy due to the sheer strength vs not much downside.

[archaeo]

Unfortunately, this is bad game design because it means the DM cannot use it without basically playing favorites (or disfavorites). "It's plot-related" has never once excused a situation where one player gets to play something significantly stronger than the others, and just encourages everybody who cares about relevance/optimization/relative power to optimize their personal backstories/plots.

First off, encouraging players to "optimize their personal backstories" just sounds to me like "encouraging players to think about backstories," which is never a bad thing in D&D. Not that I'd let somebody tell me "my background is I was bitten and trained by a Werebear" and get away with it at level 1, but if a player says "I want to see my character deal with becoming a werewolf" I'd find a way to work it in.

Second, the DM always has to "play favorites," so long as you're at all interested in a campaign in which each of the PCs have a good chance for plot-relevant character development. Lyncanthropy has a bunch of mechanical bonuses in exchange for big repercussions in the campaign, ideally. Other techniques eschew straight mechanical benefits for in-world benefits, like making a character the leader of a nation or making a powerful celestial friend. If you give everybody at the table something like this, you just have a richer world in which the PCs feel tied into the setting.


It discourages PCs from being the "interesting normal" because they just play weaker, less effective, more fragile characters than those who come up with the backstory for the superpowered creature-thing.

The easiest way to prevent this is to make the "interesting" part of "interesting normal" actually interesting instead of nominally interesting.


"Eh, it's plot, so the DM hands it out when his plot demands" just punishes players and DMs for trying to use it at all. Good game design creates drawbacks to compensate, or allows recalibration of power levels.

Good game design approaches features and mechanics holistically and not in a vacuum. The MM write-up on lycanthropy is festooned with plot hooks, suggestions for DMs that give a wide variety of options for using templates, and methods for preventing it from being a common player feature. If it was intended to be part of the "normal game balance" for players to become werewolves, it would be in the PHB.

That said, in an edition where spells like shapechange and true polymorph exist, players taking on new forms is not verboten. A good DMG will provide some advice for handling this kind of play. However, like numerous other spells and features, animate dead among them, mechanical drawbacks are eschewed in favor of the heavy suggestion that social or plot-related drawbacks will follow. Fluff is rules too.


It's fine if a DM and group are okay with party disparities in power, but those groups are rare in my experience. Even those who think they are often aren't, really. They just think they have to be to be "good RPers" or "good players" or the like, and so tell themselves they are...and wonder why they're not having fun or why they gravitate towards parties full of "special snowflakes" that just happen to all have super powerful "plot elements" that don't cost anything, mechanically.

I think you're kidding yourself if you think that parties filled with "special snowflakes" are rare. The PHB and the MM leave the door open for a lot of crazy high-power antics, should that be the kind of game you want to run. It's also full of language and suggestions that make it easy for a DM to prevent it.

Hopefully, the DMG will provide good guidance on the subject, but if not, it's still hardly super difficult to just not have werewolves in your game, or exert a lot of DM control and plot power over bitten PCs.

[Eslin]

The templates explicitly give the DM the ability to control the character.

They show up in the monster manual first and foremost as monsters, with some information about players using them as a sidenote.

They show up in an edition which grants a lot more implied power to the DM than in certain past ones.


I'm pretty sure that players showing up to the table with level 1 werewolf characters isn't actually going to be a problem.

Obviously starting with a werewolf is unlikely, anything not in the PHB you'll need dm approval for.

But the templates only give the DM control if the player's alignment changes, which can be easily circumvented by starting the alignment of the lycanthrope.

[Eslin]

First off, encouraging players to "optimize their personal backstories" just sounds to me like "encouraging players to think about backstories," which is never a bad thing in D&D. Not that I'd let somebody tell me "my background is I was bitten and trained by a Werebear" and get away with it at level 1, but if a player says "I want to see my character deal with becoming a werewolf" I'd find a way to work it in.

Second, the DM always has to "play favorites," so long as you're at all interested in a campaign in which each of the PCs have a good chance for plot-relevant character development. Lyncanthropy has a bunch of mechanical bonuses in exchange for big repercussions in the campaign, ideally. Other techniques eschew straight mechanical benefits for in-world benefits, like making a character the leader of a nation or making a powerful celestial friend. If you give everybody at the table something like this, you just have a richer world in which the PCs feel tied into the setting.



The easiest way to prevent this is to make the "interesting" part of "interesting normal" actually interesting instead of nominally interesting.



Good game design approaches features and mechanics holistically and not in a vacuum. The MM write-up on lycanthropy is festooned with plot hooks, suggestions for DMs that give a wide variety of options for using templates, and methods for preventing it from being a common player feature. If it was intended to be part of the "normal game balance" for players to become werewolves, it would be in the PHB.

That said, in an edition where spells like shapechange and true polymorph exist, players taking on new forms is not verboten. A good DMG will provide some advice for handling this kind of play. However, like numerous other spells and features, animate dead among them, mechanical drawbacks are eschewed in favor of the heavy suggestion that social or plot-related drawbacks will follow. Fluff is rules too.



I think you're kidding yourself if you think that parties filled with "special snowflakes" are rare. The PHB and the MM leave the door open for a lot of crazy high-power antics, should that be the kind of game you want to run. It's also full of language and suggestions that make it easy for a DM to prevent it.

Hopefully, the DMG will provide good guidance on the subject, but if not, it's still hardly super difficult to just not have werewolves in your game, or exert a lot of DM control and plot power over bitten PCs.

Honestly, you seem to be overestimating the plot effects of lycanthropy. Lycanthropy, if embraced, basically just works like an alternate form - it's basically 3.5's inherited vs applied lycanthropy except you get to choose which one you want to be.

[Triclinium]

Obviously starting with a werewolf is unlikely, anything not in the PHB you'll need dm approval for.

But the templates only give the DM control if the player's alignment changes, which can be easily circumvented by starting the alignment of the lycanthrope.

That's making a pretty bold assumption that the table is playing by pure RAW. That's neither guaranteed nor suggested by the design philosophy of 5e.


Honestly, you seem to be overestimating the plot effects of lycanthropy. Lycanthropy, if embraced, basically just works like an alternate form - it's basically 3.5's inherited vs applied lycanthropy except you get to choose which one you want to be.

Really? You can't think of a plot related consequence of a character sometimes turning into a were-beast? Because that's the kind of thing that would really put people off

[archaeo]

Honestly, you seem to be overestimating the plot effects of lycanthropy. Lycanthropy, if embraced, basically just works like an alternate form - it's basically 3.5's inherited vs applied lycanthropy except you get to choose which one you want to be.

I just don't find lycanthropy all that interesting if you just slap it on as a template that confers nothing but mechanical benefits. You're leaving a bunch of plot on the table that way.

Lycanthropy's a boring no-brainer template for any melee character if you strip away all the plot hooks and fluff.

[Eslin]

That's making a pretty bold assumption that the table is playing by pure RAW. That's neither guaranteed nor suggested by the design philosophy of 5e.



Really? You can't think of a plot related consequence of a character sometimes turning into a were-beast? Because that's the kind of thing that would really put people off

Really? Playing things according to the book isn't the default? I mean yeah, tables alter things, but assuming people are playing by the rules is a bold assumption?

And plot wise, if you've embraced it and can control your transformations, then there won't be any animal transformation problems that your party druid isn't incurring.


I just don't find lycanthropy all that interesting if you just slap it on as a template that confers nothing but mechanical benefits. You're leaving a bunch of plot on the table that way.

Lycanthropy's a boring no-brainer template for any melee character if you strip away all the plot hooks and fluff.

That's kind of what the thread's about - it is possible to play it without many complications, and if so it's a huge buff.

I like my way better, give it a level adjustment or have it replace the sub-class.

[Objulen]

Lycanthropy's main issue is that, without a LA, you're going to be more powerful than the rest of the party. However, if you play a pure caster or a Beastmaster Ranger (since your Lycanthropy won't improve your animal companion's attack stats), the effects will be less pronounced. Essentially, minimize your own synergy with the Lycanthropy bonuses to make it more about fluff than munchkining.

As far as alignment goes, this could be an issue, depending on the game setting and your DM. If it's handwaived, you're ok, but unless the game allows evil alignments, you'll be limited to werebear and weretiger.

Also, don't be surprised if the DM makes your life harder if you are infected. Torch wielding mobs aren't fond of creatures who are supposed to go ax (or claw, in this case) crazy once a month and eat their kids, so PR may be very important for you.

[Soular]

Personally, I think this is where some serious house-ruling comes in.

In our games, in the past editions of D&D, a lycanthrope is not a PC. Once you fully succumb, you are an NPC forever. However, there was once an allowance made for a character who got a partial cure (he wanted a full cure, but it failed). He and the DM sat down and hashed out what abilities he was able to retain (not all of them for sure), and what disabilities he gained. He played like that for a few months until he finally got the cure he wanted.

In short, players should not be going out of their way to use this as a fast track to power up their characters. Lycanthrope is extremely dangerous and may have consequences that are not in the book, and can not be quantified numerically.

[Valraukar]

Really? Playing things according to the book isn't the default? I mean yeah, tables alter things, but assuming people are playing by the rules is a bold assumption?

And plot wise, if you've embraced it and can control your transformations, then there won't be any animal transformation problems that your party druid isn't incurring.



That's kind of what the thread's about - it is possible to play it without many complications, and if so it's a huge buff.

I like my way better, give it a level adjustment or have it replace the sub-class.

No but assuming people are playing by strict RAW is a bold assumption. A table operating under strict RAW is towards the extreme end of the spectrum.

If NPCs know about your status as a lycanthrope, I don't think the prejudiced ones will care whether or not you've embraced it and are in control. Stevie the Friendly Vampire, Albert the Valiant Werebear, & Drizzzzzt the Good and Misunderstood Drow will all be judged and mistreated simply for being what they are. I certainly don't think npcs will equate Druidism and Lycanthropy.

It's what this thread has become about. And it's such a potent advantage that you'd be foolish to pass it up if it were available to you as a player, no strings attached (and if you & your DM have no problem disregarding the rp implications of that decision.) Without consequences or drawbacks (And I don't mean level adjustment or an equivalent tweak) this approaches Weremunchkinry.

[Eslin]

Personally, I think this is where some serious house-ruling comes in.

In our games, in the past editions of D&D, a lycanthrope is not a PC. Once you fully succumb, you are an NPC forever. However, there was once an allowance made for a character who got a partial cure (he wanted a full cure, but it failed). He and the DM sat down and hashed out what abilities he was able to retain (not all of them for sure), and what disabilities he gained. He played like that for a few months until he finally got the cure he wanted.

In short, players should not be going out of their way to use this as a fast track to power up their characters. Lycanthrope is extremely dangerous and may have consequences that are not in the book, and can not be quantified numerically.

That's fine if you make it clear to your players that that is the way you do things, just like the 'your simulacrum starts drifting out of your control' solution in the other thread.
However, RAW, lycanthropy (werebear in particular) is a straight upgrade. As mentioned before, any good character I make that is sufficiently logical will automatically attempt to become a werebear at some point in order to get more powerful and protect the innocent.

That's the other trouble with something-for-nothing benefits like this - if it's a form of power quantifiable in game, people are going to want it, and that's not metagaming or out of character or anything. People want power for free or cheap, whether for selfish or selfless purposes - you'll notice you are surrounded by ads telling you you can make lots of money/gain muscle/lose weight/whatever with this one trick or these three easy steps etc, those exist because that's how people work. If werebears are a thing, and being a werebear makes you lawful good and very strong, people will want to become a werebear. The same kind of people who would want to become a paladin will do so, actually.

[Sartharina]

I need to figure out how to turn my players into Weretigers because damn those things are nice.

[Triclinium]

Really? Playing things according to the book isn't the default? I mean yeah, tables alter things, but assuming people are playing by the rules is a bold assumption?

And plot wise, if you've embraced it and can control your transformations, then there won't be any animal transformation problems that your party druid isn't incurring.



That's kind of what the thread's about - it is possible to play it without many complications, and if so it's a huge buff.

I like my way better, give it a level adjustment or have it replace the sub-class.

With the emphasis this edition places on DM fiat, I don't think it's safe to assume that a table will be playing exclusively by the written rules.

Mechanically I agree the template is strong. I'm not sure it's "remove your subclass" strong, but anything is better than LA.

[Valraukar]

That's the other trouble with something-for-nothing benefits like this - if it's a form of power quantifiable in game, people are going to want it, and that's not metagaming or out of character or anything. People want power for free or cheap, whether for selfish or selfless purposes - you'll notice you are surrounded by ads telling you you can make lots of money/gain muscle/lose weight/whatever with this one trick or these three easy steps etc, those exist because that's how people work. If werebears are a thing, and being a werebear makes you lawful good and very strong, people will want to become a werebear. The same kind of people who would want to become a paladin will do so, actually.

As worded, I think this makes a sweeping and untrue assumption about a population. While I think this is true of some, possibly even many people, it certainly does not describe everyone. Some cultures even frowned upon and actively discourage that type of behavior and thinking (Scandinavia comes to mind.)

[archaeo]

However, RAW, lycanthropy (werebear in particular) is a straight upgrade. As mentioned before, any good character I make that is sufficiently logical will automatically attempt to become a werebear at some point in order to get more powerful and protect the innocent.

That's the other trouble with something-for-nothing benefits like this - if it's a form of power quantifiable in game, people are going to want it, and that's not metagaming or out of character or anything. People want power for free or cheap, whether for selfish or selfless purposes - you'll notice you are surrounded by ads telling you you can make lots of money/gain muscle/lose weight/whatever with this one trick or these three easy steps etc, those exist because that's how people work. If werebears are a thing, and being a werebear makes you lawful good and very strong, people will want to become a werebear. The same kind of people who would want to become a paladin will do so, actually.

That's what people are trying to say, Eslin. It's only "something-for-nothing" if you use your very particular reading of RAW, in which taking the werebear template is easy and consequence-free. Compare this, if you will, with raising huge undead armies with animate dead. The potential is there for any DMs who want to play with it, but there's also ample fluff supporting DMs who want to either a) keep it from happening in the first place, b) reign it in if it gets out of control, or c) deploy it in a limited fashion for plot purposes.

This is pretty admirable flexibility, in my opinion, not the strict death-of-balance-by-RAW you seem to see.

[MustacheFart]

I need to figure out how to turn my players into Weretigers because damn those things are nice.

Hah, you and your cat races... :smallwink:


Honestly, the most interesting option to me, fluff-wise, is the were-rat. I really think it would be a lot of fun to play a were-rat rogue given how much plot they've included along with that option (ie. the guild of wererat thieves who hunt down other wererats, etc).

On a mechanical note, these templates fall into the same problem as PrC's in 3.5 If you take one, despite the downsides, you will be significantly stronger than your companions. That alone is reason enough for a DM to say no to them.

[Valraukar]

That's what people are trying to say, Eslin. It's only "something-for-nothing" if you use your very particular reading of RAW, in which taking the werebear template is easy and consequence-free. Compare this, if you will, with raising huge undead armies with animate dead. The potential is there for any DMs who want to play with it, but there's also ample fluff supporting DMs who want to either a) keep it from happening in the first place, b) reign it in if it gets out of control, or c) deploy it in a limited fashion for plot purposes.

This is pretty admirable flexibility, in my opinion, not the strict death-of-balance-by-RAW you seem to see.

Emphasis mine. Spot on.

[Eslin]

That's what people are trying to say, Eslin. It's only "something-for-nothing" if you use your very particular reading of RAW, in which taking the werebear template is easy and consequence-free. Compare this, if you will, with raising huge undead armies with animate dead. The potential is there for any DMs who want to play with it, but there's also ample fluff supporting DMs who want to either a) keep it from happening in the first place, b) reign it in if it gets out of control, or c) deploy it in a limited fashion for plot purposes.

This is pretty admirable flexibility, in my opinion, not the strict death-of-balance-by-RAW you seem to see.

It's still something for nothing in a mechanical sense. As a DM, I would do exactly that and have it cause problems in the same way that an army of undead do, but it's still remains almost the only option in 5e that is flat out power for free.

Though fluff wise, the werebears as loners thing is really confusing me - sure, some would be, but as soon as one gets it in his head to turn it into a tradition they're gonna be all over the place, since lawful good tends towards maintenance of tradition and this one's got a really easy means of spreading.

[archaeo]

It's still something for nothing in a mechanical sense. As a DM, I would do exactly that and have it cause problems in the same way that an army of undead do, but it's still remains almost the only option in 5e that is flat out power for free.

The MM gives you abundant ways to prevent this from being a something-for-nothing template. This is a pretty good example of the disadvantages of divorcing "mechanics" from "fluff."


Though fluff wise, the werebears as loners thing is really confusing me - sure, some would be, but as soon as one gets it in his head to turn it into a tradition they're gonna be all over the place, since lawful good tends towards maintenance of tradition and this one's got a really easy means of spreading.

The werebear fluff suggests that controlling the curse is a relatively difficult feat that requires considerable dedication and training, and even then, a cautious werebear is always aware of the fine line between power and savagery. Lawful good doesn't have to mean missionary zeal, and not all good-aligned creatures have the same goals. Think of being inducted into werebearhood as taking an oath every bit as important as a Paladin's; you would have to make a pledge to do a lot of things that don't really jive well with being an adventurer, like protecting a single place or avoiding contact with others to protect them from the curse.

A society or secret order run by werebears who have taken this whole "greater good" thing seriously, however, is an amazing plot hook.

[MaxWilson]

I would just say that "embrace the curse" doesn't free you from going loony once a month--it just allows you to trigger extra transformations at will. Werebears, PC and NPC, still need to lock themselves up for the full moon (like Earl Harbinger from Monster Hunter) or run out into the forest, lest they kill somebody in their savage bloodlust. It's mostly a fluff disadvantage but it's enough to both explain the werebears' angst and prevent most paladins from actively seeking out the curse.

Every once in a while it could become a real disadvantage if an emergency happens on the night of the full moon, and your guy is out of commission with raging bear bloodlust. Also, it leaves an interesting plot hook for some king with werebear guards, and assassins will try to strike on the night of the full moon when the guards aren't available.

[Soular]

That's fine if you make it clear to your players that that is the way you do things, just like the 'your simulacrum starts drifting out of your control' solution in the other thread.
However, RAW, lycanthropy (werebear in particular) is a straight upgrade. As mentioned before, any good character I make that is sufficiently logical will automatically attempt to become a werebear at some point in order to get more powerful and protect the innocent.

That's the other trouble with something-for-nothing benefits like this - if it's a form of power quantifiable in game, people are going to want it, and that's not metagaming or out of character or anything. People want power for free or cheap, whether for selfish or selfless purposes - you'll notice you are surrounded by ads telling you you can make lots of money/gain muscle/lose weight/whatever with this one trick or these three easy steps etc, those exist because that's how people work. If werebears are a thing, and being a werebear makes you lawful good and very strong, people will want to become a werebear. The same kind of people who would want to become a paladin will do so, actually.

Well, since werebears are loaners, and don't hang ads for free lycanthropy on their asses when out in public, you'll have a devilishly difficult time finding one. And then, once you do, you will have proven to him that you are NOT the type of person he should entrust with that curse.

At the end of the day, lycanthropy is a curse. This is a role-playing game, not a 4E power-grind to raise your damage output in some imaginary arms race. Characters should always see lycanthropy as a curse, not a get pumped for free card. It's like main-lining 'roids. Yeah, you can get cut pretty fast, but are you willing to sacrifice you heart, balls and grow moobs to do it? Some people are, and most pay the price in varying degrees. That is how lycanthropy should work.

If becoming a werebear is not absolutely terrifying for the players, then someone has failed as a DM.

[MustacheFart]

Well, since werebears are loaners, and don't hang ads for free lycanthropy on their asses when out in public, you'll have a devilishly difficult time finding one. And then, once you do, you will have proven to him that you are NOT the type of person he should entrust with that curse.

At the end of the day, lycanthropy is a curse. This is a role-playing game, not a 4E power-grind to raise your damage output in some imaginary arms race. Characters should always see lycanthropy as a curse, not a get pumped for free card. It's like main-lining 'roids. Yeah, you can get cut pretty fast, but are you willing to sacrifice you heart, balls and grow moobs to do it? Some people are, and most pay the price in varying degrees. That is how lycanthropy should work.

If becoming a werebear is not absolutely terrifying for the players, then someone has failed as a DM.

I agree and I disagree with you. You're kind of contradicting yourself by stating one moment that players shouldn't pursue lycanthropy as it is a curse but then the next using a steroids analogy where you openly admit some do go after it.

I agree for the most part that it should be taken with heavy consideration and all that. Where I disagree is the imaginary arms race part of it. People often have a problem with optimizing but to be completely honest, there are fluff/in-character reasons to do such. This is a point that I don't see brought up nearly as much as just flat out anger/hatred/despise against optimizers/min-maxers/etc.

Here's the fluff behind it: Who is your character? At his or her core, he or she is an adventurer. Before anything else, in D&D you are choosing to play an adventurer. What does it mean to be an adventurer? Well the short of it is risking your life. If you're risking your life wouldn't you want to take that adventuring serious enough that you would want to become as powerful as you can in one way or another? Since you're automatically adventuring in a world where not being powerful enough means potential death this is a very real and fair argument.

I mean how many players genuinely think about what their characters are doing? Oh the governor wants you to exit the keep and take on an army of cultists to rescue townsfolk? "OKAY SURE NP! As long as I get gold!" "What, you want me to sneak into that cave and destroy the dragon? Okay!"

My point is, given the circumstances automatically placed upon players' characters it is only fair to assume that any one character will strive to become as strong as they can in whatever way possible (by their own morals, ideals, and codes of course). That "way" should be determined by the DM. The DM shapes the world and decides what is attainable or realistic for players' characters.

If the DM decides lycanthropes exist then who's to say that a player's character with looser morals, ideals, and codes might decide "Dang... I've seen what these were creatures can do. This is the type of strength I need to drive out the raiding forces in my homeland. I'm going to go after this power!"

[Forum Explorer]

On the whole 'if you don't change alignment you DM can't make you an NPC' thing there's this in the monster manual


The alignment specified in a monster's stat block 'is·
the default. Feel free to depart from it and' change a
monster's alignment to suit the needs of your campaign. If you
want a good-aligned green dragon or an evil storm ·
giant, there's nothing stopping you.



So the DM is basically always free to say your alignment changed (and thus NPC that character) because by RAW the alignment of the lycanthrope is whatever he wants it to be.

[Steel Mirror]

Just to throw in my 2 cp, in my opinion Lycanthropy as a condition applied to a player character is potentially disruptive, but only in the sme way that handing out magical loot is potentially disruptive. In fact, I would basically treat Lycanthropy (assuming we are talking here about a player who is more or less in control of the condition, perhaps with certain plot complications) like I do magic items. There is, after all, an item that makes a player's Strength 19. Just use common DM sense in giving out lycanthropy; if player A is a werebear and player B is feeling overshadowed, compensate by leaving some sweet magical loot around that player B's character gets a nice boost from. Alternatively, if player C has managed to rack up some sweet magical armor and gear over the campaign and player D is falling behind but has a known interest in catfolk, let player D become a weretiger and then work that into the game.

In short, lycanthrope PCs don't really present any problems to DMs that we don't already deal with. We just need to think about them in the same terms as magic items and other power-boosting bling available to the PCs, and plan accordingly.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Maybe lycanthropes shouldn't be able to attune to items at all. The nature of their curse or somesuch.

i like the plot potential of counter-alignment lycanthropy resulting in the possible setting up of no-win situations. A Joker setup like being able to save someone you love but only if you embrace your curse and therefore lose your alignment (/soul).

[Soular]

I agree and I disagree with you. You're kind of contradicting yourself by stating one moment that players shouldn't pursue lycanthropy as it is a curse but then the next using a steroids analogy where you openly admit some do go after it.

I agree for the most part that it should be taken with heavy consideration and all that. Where I disagree is the imaginary arms race part of it. People often have a problem with optimizing but to be completely honest, there are fluff/in-character reasons to do such. This is a point that I don't see brought up nearly as much as just flat out anger/hatred/despise against optimizers/min-maxers/etc.

Here's the fluff behind it: Who is your character? At his or her core, he or she is an adventurer. Before anything else, in D&D you are choosing to play an adventurer. What does it mean to be an adventurer? Well the short of it is risking your life. If you're risking your life wouldn't you want to take that adventuring serious enough that you would want to become as powerful as you can in one way or another? Since you're automatically adventuring in a world where not being powerful enough means potential death this is a very real and fair argument.

I mean how many players genuinely think about what their characters are doing? Oh the governor wants you to exit the keep and take on an army of cultists to rescue townsfolk? "OKAY SURE NP! As long as I get gold!" "What, you want me to sneak into that cave and destroy the dragon? Okay!"

My point is, given the circumstances automatically placed upon players' characters it is only fair to assume that any one character will strive to become as strong as they can in whatever way possible (by their own morals, ideals, and codes of course). That "way" should be determined by the DM. The DM shapes the world and decides what is attainable or realistic for players' characters.

If the DM decides lycanthropes exist then who's to say that a player's character with looser morals, ideals, and codes might decide "Dang... I've seen what these were creatures can do. This is the type of strength I need to drive out the raiding forces in my homeland. I'm going to go after this power!"

It seems to me that you are just making excuses to utilize every advantage that you as a player would know about, but that your character would not. A character in the D&D world would be scared sh!tless of lycanthropes. Only a very select unhinged few would be willing to let one chew on him in the hopes of getting a disease. It's called a disease for a reason, no? There would be numerous stories about murderous half-beasts slaying villagers during the full moon. For sure a hell of a lot more than about a mythical werebear that no one ever sees because he lives deep in the forest, alone, guarding some shrine or something that no one cares about. Any character that would risk that in an attempt to gain power the easy way is also tempting me to ax him in the back, as most good aligned characters would.

Do I think it is wrong to have a lycanthrope in the party? Hell no! In fact, I think that it brings a metric ton of role-playing hooks to a character. But I, as a DM would make it stupendously difficult for a player to actually achieve it. In fact, it is one of the chips I would hold close to my chest in case power disparity begins to creep into the party. If one of the martial classes was really down on survivability, or found that they were being overshadowed by other players, I might try to work this angle to make them more relevant in the combat department.

At any rate, it is the DM's game, as you rightly pointed out. And all he has to do is make the werebear impossible for players to find, as is his prerogative. But I for one would keep the werebear in my tool chest for a rainy day.

I agree with archeo in that the MM gives the DM plenty of ways to counter this easy power-grab. You wanna be a werebear, find one. OK, you found one, but he deems you unworthy until you reach at least 10th level. He won't pass his curse onto any schmuck after all. Made it back at 10th level, good! Now swear to guard this termite infested log deep in the untamed forest, forever, because he wants you to be his successor at his lifelong mission to guard the divine ass-scratching post after he dies. Oh, and be prepared to be his padawan for the next few years until he decides you are "ready" for the actual bite.

And wouldn't it be hilarious after all that when an enemy cleric discerns the nature of your abilities and casts a third level remove curse on you, and basically leaves you all the way back at square one?

Is the werebear OP? Well at low levels, when you can really benefit from the buff, yes lycanthrope is quite OP. At later levels the buff is a lot less useful, and it is remarkably easy to be cured.


Deep in the dungeons beneath the dread castle Queefstank, Mustachefart leads an intrepid group of explorers on their weeks-long trek through the dark, damp, torchlit tunnels. Suddenly, he drops his torch and groans in despair as he feels the blood-lust of his werebear curse begin to rise up in him! And then just as suddenly as it appeared, the bestial fury is gone.

The cleric, Nunofthat, smiles bemusedly at nothing in particular as she thinks to herself, "I should've done that months ago."

[Eslin]

A few thoughts:

Lycanthropy can be removed with remove curse, so if you want to stay a lycanthrope get mage slayer to make sure that no-one can hit you with the (touch range) spell

There are a large variety of ways to react to the curse - I've had a player kill herself rather than remain cursed and another player just accept the curse and use it benefits while treating it as no more interesting than his belt of giant strength. There is no set way your character has to act (unless he's embraced it and it was a different alignment, natch), whether it's a curse or blessing is up to you.

On that note, it really can be a blessing. Whether it's a curse like Remus Lupin or something you embrace like Finn's grass sword, how it is treated is based on the campaign and your character - no-one is allowed to tell you that your character doesn't enjoy being cursed or that it does.

Kind of sick of the 'everyone would be terrified of becoming a lycanthrope' attitude. Adventurers are not the norm, and well known for their desire for power. Information on the curse wouldn't be too difficult to find (though some might question why you're looking), and there should be werebears out there who want to spread it - again, lawful good tends towards tradition and community, so even if most are recluses some will form orders or societies dedicated to spreading the curse to those worthy and willing to protect the innocent.

There is already a lawful good order of people willing to take sacrifices and dedicate themselves to protecting the weak who gain power for doing so, and we call them paladins. Someone becomes a paladin in the knowledge that they will be drawn to conflict for the rest of their lives, throwing themselves into battle against powerful foes to protect the weak - some may be naive about it, but most are aware that they will die in battle the day there are innocents to defend from a foe they cannot beat. That is the exact attitude that would be appropriate to spreading the curse to those willing to use it to do the right thing.

[Triclinium]

Kind of sick of the 'everyone would be terrified of becoming a lycanthrope' attitude. Adventurers are not the norm, and well known for their desire for power. Information on the curse wouldn't be too difficult to find (though some might question why you're looking), and there should be werebears out there who want to spread it - again, lawful good tends towards tradition and community, so even if most are recluses some will form orders or societies dedicated to spreading the curse to those worthy and willing to protect the innocent.

See the idea that people should be terrified of becoming a lycanthrope stems from the fact that this is a "real" monster. At bare minimum it is one that people believed in at one point. In any case, given the fear and biases that people in real life exhibit based on mere skin color, think how people would react to someone who gains claws, teeth, fur, and muscle mass on a regular basis. I mean, some people are afraid of dogs, so wolf-men? It is reasonable to expect people to react with fear to lycanthropes existing around them. Especially given that the very first sentence describing them says, "lycanthropy can transform the most civilized humanoid into a ravening beast."

As for fear of becoming one, it's pretty well established that fighting the bestial instincts of the were-beast isn't easy. In fact, "Most lycanthropes that embrace their bestial natures succumb to bloodlust." People don't really like the idea of something fundamentally altering the way they think, or who they believe they are. And at a basic level that's exactly what lycanthropy does. This is not to say that nobody would willingly embrace lycanthropy or even that those who do are all evil, but they are by far in the minority.

Yeah, adventurers might be lured in by the power granted, but it certainly won't be common.

[Eslin]

See the idea that people should be terrified of becoming a lycanthrope stems from the fact that this is a "real" monster. At bare minimum it is one that people believed in at one point. In any case, given the fear and biases that people in real life exhibit based on mere skin color, think how people would react to someone who gains claws, teeth, fur, and muscle mass on a regular basis. I mean, some people are afraid of dogs, so wolf-men? It is reasonable to expect people to react with fear to lycanthropes existing around them. Especially given that the very first sentence describing them says, "lycanthropy can transform the most civilized humanoid into a ravening beast."

As for fear of becoming one, it's pretty well established that fighting the bestial instincts of the were-beast isn't easy. In fact, "Most lycanthropes that embrace their bestial natures succumb to bloodlust." People don't really like the idea of something fundamentally altering the way they think, or who they believe they are. And at a basic level that's exactly what lycanthropy does. This is not to say that nobody would willingly embrace lycanthropy or even that those who do are all evil, but they are by far in the minority.

Yeah, adventurers might be lured in by the power granted, but it certainly won't be common.

Except it can (and logically would) be made common. If you embrace werebear-ism, it changes your alignment to lawful good. Some werebears get together, share techniques for controlling yourself (likely monk or druid levels) and decide to share their strength. They travel around using their strength to defend the innocent and bite those who request it and guide them through embracing and controlling their transformations, and remove the curse from those who cannot control it - remember that remove curse is only a third level spell. In fact, they'd probably be experts at tracking down and decursing lycanthropes in general, considering they can't be cursed themselves since they're already lycanthropes and lycanthropes are immune to the damage from each other.

And the thing is, this concept is self perpetuating. If a thousand werebears stay reclusive and one werebear decides to spread it as a tradition dedicated to peacekeeping, pretty soon that one werebear will have a lot more doing the same thing.

[Vizzerdrix]

So I should take that as a No on the LA thing as of yet. I'll let my player know he'll have to wait a bit then. Either for a few levels or the DMG to come out.

Thanks to those that answered my question.

[Triclinium]

Except it can (and logically would) be made common. If you embrace werebear-ism, it changes your alignment to lawful good. Some werebears get together, share techniques for controlling yourself (likely monk or druid levels) and decide to share their strength. They travel around using their strength to defend the innocent and bite those who request it and guide them through embracing and controlling their transformations, and remove the curse from those who cannot control it - remember that remove curse is only a third level spell. In fact, they'd probably be experts at tracking down and decursing lycanthropes in general, considering they can't be cursed themselves since they're already lycanthropes and lycanthropes are immune to the damage from each other.

And the thing is, this concept is self perpetuating. If a thousand werebears stay reclusive and one werebear decides to spread it as a tradition dedicated to peacekeeping, pretty soon that one werebear will have a lot more doing the same thing.

Actually that's a hell of a faction/plot hook to use in any campaign setting. I don't agree with the binary morality associated with any of the lycanthropes, but establishing each type as a separate faction would allow for conflicts and alliances and that all just sounds great. That said, I still don't see many people voluntarily giving in to something that has always been described as a curse. Default fluff definitely suggests that even the "good" werebears do have trouble controlling themselves in beast form.

[Eslin]

Actually that's a hell of a faction/plot hook to use in any campaign setting. I don't agree with the binary morality associated with any of the lycanthropes, but establishing each type as a separate faction would allow for conflicts and alliances and that all just sounds great. That said, I still don't see many people voluntarily giving in to something that has always been described as a curse. Default fluff definitely suggests that even the "good" werebears do have trouble controlling themselves in beast form.

I hate the binary morality in general, lycanthropy should have no moral component. There should be a behavioral aspect, wisdom or charisma saves to keep yourself under control, but no 'wereboar means you're evil now'.

And curse wise, it's pretty easy - bite people, teach them to control it, if they can't just remove the curse.

[Sartharina]

if they can't just remove the curse.Easier said than done.

[Eslin]

Easier said than done.

Remove curse is a third level spell, takes one action and there is no save.

[Sartharina]

Remove curse is a third level spell, takes one action and there is no save.

Where are you finding a 5th-level spellcaster who knows it?

[Eslin]

Where are you finding a 5th-level spellcaster who knows it?

If you're an organisation of werebears dedicated to granting the power to those with the will and goodness to wield it and defending the people from evil, you'd be pretty stupid not to have several on hand. Hell, this kind of thing would draw in paladins particularly and they have remove curse too. At the very least you'd have a few scrolls of remove curse handy if you were intending to spread lycanthropy to those who would use it to do righteous deeds, that's the responsible thing to do and lawful good types are all about responsibility.

[Sartharina]

If you're an organisation of werebears dedicated to granting the power to those with the will and goodness to wield it and defending the people from evil, you'd be pretty stupid not to have several on hand. Hell, this kind of thing would draw in paladins particularly and they have remove curse too.At a much higher level. You are overestimating the proliferation of casters and mid-level characters.

[Eslin]

At a much higher level. You are overestimating the proliferation of casters and mid-level characters.

And you're underestimating them. Such an endeavor would naturally attract mid level characters to help, and even if it didn't the problem contains its own solution. Being a werebear gives you great strength and resistance to damage, gaining a few levels would not be particularly difficult. With immunity to nonmagical and nonsilvered weapons all a werebear needs to do to gain a few levels is go out, find some dinosaurs or umber hulks or what have you and eviscerate them.

And again, just buy a bunch of scrolls. You're an organisation that regularly drives off invading forces and helps people in need, goodwill and money will be easy to obtain after you've had enough time for people to see how much help you are.

[Forum Explorer]

I hate the binary morality in general, lycanthropy should have no moral component. There should be a behavioral aspect, wisdom or charisma saves to keep yourself under control, but no 'wereboar means you're evil now'.

And curse wise, it's pretty easy - bite people, teach them to control it, if they can't just remove the curse.

Agreed. I'd treat it more as if you fail your save in certain situations then you go berserk and are NPC'd for the scene. If you make your save you still transform (or not if you choose) but you get to stay in control.


For that plan it seems by Werebear's fluff that it doesn't work because they work so hard on training your control before they'll even bite you. If you bit them first they'd likely go on a rampage first thing.


Also, Werebears are neutral good, not lawful good according to their entry.

[Eslin]

Haha how did I miss that? Someone said lawful good a while ago and I guess it just stuck, it is indeed neutral good.

[Objulen]

The idea that an organization of werebears would have a cleric they know who would cast remove curse, even at a price, isn't that much of a stretch unless the world is built around characters being low level all around (like Eberron).

[Logosloki]

The idea that an organization of werebears would have a cleric they know who would cast remove curse, even at a price, isn't that much of a stretch unless the world is built around characters being low level all around (like Eberron).

If HotDQ is an indicator Fifth level is about right for someone to be the overseer of a camp and trustworthy enough to be in the inner circle or close enough to it of a leader's organisation and/or trust them with delicate tasks. Then again that is a campaign for levels 1-4.

Frankly the only reason to make fifth level NPCs scarce in a campaign or setting would be if you are deliberately trying to make things difficult for your players. I would consider at least the leader of the local church in a town of the fifth level and I would consider the hypothetical werebear organisation local church level in membership and capabilities.

The only thing I find funny though is that you don't even need to NPC the player. Just Tom Bombadil them with a remove curse.

[Theodoxus]

Haha how did I miss that? Someone said lawful good a while ago and I guess it just stuck, it is indeed neutral good.

Thank goodness, that was driving me crazy as I was reading the thread. In 3.5, bears were indeed LG - but now that they're NG, I don't think they'd be so altruistic that they'd go around biting people to turn them into avengers. WotC went back to the Bjorn concept of werebears. I like that, very much.

I've never been a fan of lycanthropy in D&D - if you want to play lycans, play WoD ;) Gothic horror is great to battle, much less fun to play - imo, of course.

[Eslin]

If HotDQ is an indicator Fifth level is about right for someone to be the overseer of a camp and trustworthy enough to be in the inner circle or close enough to it of a leader's organisation and/or trust them with delicate tasks. Then again that is a campaign for levels 1-4.

Frankly the only reason to make fifth level NPCs scarce in a campaign or setting would be if you are deliberately trying to make things difficult for your players. I would consider at least the leader of the local church in a town of the fifth level and I would consider the hypothetical werebear organisation local church level in membership and capabilities.

The only thing I find funny though is that you don't even need to NPC the player. Just Tom Bombadil them with a remove curse.

Agreed, but there's an additional reason - it's not just that a fifth level NPC isn't that huge a deal, but an organisation of werebears would naturally gravitate to mid-level. A werebear gets enormous physical strength and immunity to conventional weaponry and signs up to this kind of thing so he can use it to protect those in need (and is quite possibly already a hero in his own right). A large proportion of werebears in such a society will have a few levels under their belt, I'm having trouble figuring out what kind of organisation would have a higher average level. Kingsguard perhaps?


Thank goodness, that was driving me crazy as I was reading the thread. In 3.5, bears were indeed LG - but now that they're NG, I don't think they'd be so altruistic that they'd go around biting people to turn them into avengers. WotC went back to the Bjorn concept of werebears. I like that, very much.

I've never been a fan of lycanthropy in D&D - if you want to play lycans, play WoD ;) Gothic horror is great to battle, much less fun to play - imo, of course.

You're not getting away from lycanthropy in D&D, D&D is kitchen sink fantasy. Werewolves, dragons, vampires, hydras, orcs, phoenixes, dinosaurs, angels, demons, zombies, you name it.

And NG is if anything more altruistic than LG, neutral good is just good unfettered by any other considerations. At it's weakest it is a tendency towards right action, at it's strongest it is constant striving for the greatest good - which lends itself very well to 'here, this curse might be hard to manage but you can use it to save lives'.

[Soular]

It seems like Eslin is just searching for a way to make a player's power-grab somehow okay fluff-wise. Only it's not. No good aligned character would willfully seek out a disease that makes him hulk out and possibly lose control, potentially killing innocents. And that is the price paid for failing to control this disease. Courting the possibility of murdering people is not an acceptable trade-off for a fast track to personal power in the eyes of a good aligned character. That kind of justification lies solely in the camp of evil.

A werebear passing the disease along I can get behind. But he isn't just gonna infect some schmuck that looked him up in the Yellow Pages and shows up at his door proclaiming his good intentions. Indeed, what we understand of the potential consequences assures us that the mere fact that someone looked him up to be purposely infected virtually guarantees that the PC is not the type of person the werebear would entrust with his curse. Likely, the bear would approach someone he has been watching for some time with the idea. Then take said character deep in the forest, where he won't harm anyone when he loses control. And then take the months or years that it would take to teach the new werebear how to control the curse. After all, the curse strikes only once a month, and he can't expect his new padawan to get it right the first time, can he?

For any good aligned character, about the worst thing you can do is murder some innocent character. Any PC that willfully would seek out this curse and then try to go adventuring has obviously chosen the wrong alignment. Werebears tend to be good, and that's why they lead solitary, hermitic lives - far away from civilization. Any good aligned group would not be playing their characters correctly if they knowingly walked around with such a player and did not attempt to cure him, or put him down at the earliest opportunity.

So by all means keep trying, but the fluff does not support the idea of good characters intentionally seeking to be infected with lycanthropy. And good aligned werebears would never be foolish enough to purposely infect the kind of character that does.

Eslin is just trying to re-write fluff to support his lycanthropy fantasy, but it doesn't. A Kingsguard made up of werebears? Haha! Only if the entire town is made up of werebears too. Or if they are evil aligned, and the occasional dead peasant is considered an acceptable loss. Obviously if good aligned werebears shun society to live alone in the forest, the possibility always exists that they may lose control on occasion.

The idea of using lycanthropy is okay because "you can save lives" is a fallacy. You can use a gun to save lives. But a gun does not cause you to go berserk and potentially go on a murdering spree once a month, no matter what the news might lead you to believe. And what of the adventurer, is he not capable of "saving lives?" How is it that he thinks that he needs to be cursed to do his job, if that's the case, then he really wasn't cut out to be an adventurer in the first place.

Sorry Eslin, none of your arguments hold water because almost all of them require a complete re-write of the published fluff of werebear activities and the good alignments - and they fly in the face of logic and simple common sense. Sorry, but no.

[Eslin]

It seems like Eslin is just searching for a way to make a player's power-grab somehow okay fluff-wise. Only it's not. No good aligned character would willfully seek out a disease that makes him hulk out and possibly lose control, potentially killing innocents. And that is the price paid for failing to control this disease. Courting the possibility of murdering people is not an acceptable trade-off for a fast track to personal power in the eyes of a good aligned character. That kind of justification lies solely in the camp of evil.

A werebear passing the disease along I can get behind. But he isn't just gonna infect some schmuck that looked him up in the Yellow Pages and shows up at his door proclaiming his good intentions. Indeed, what we understand of the potential consequences assures us that the mere fact that someone looked him up to be purposely infected virtually guarantees that the PC is not the type of person the werebear would entrust with his curse. Likely, the bear would approach someone he has been watching for some time with the idea. Then take said character deep in the forest, where he won't harm anyone when he loses control. And then take the months or years that it would take to teach the new werebear how to control the curse. After all, the curse strikes only once a month, and he can't expect his new padawan to get it right the first time, can he?

For any good aligned character, about the worst thing you can do is murder some innocent character. Any PC that willfully would seek out this curse and then try to go adventuring has obviously chosen the wrong alignment. Werebears tend to be good, and that's why they lead solitary, hermitic lives - far away from civilization. Any good aligned group would not be playing their characters correctly if they knowingly walked around with such a player and did not attempt to cure him, or put him down at the earliest opportunity.

So by all means keep trying, but the fluff does not support the idea of good characters intentionally seeking to be infected with lycanthropy. And good aligned werebears would never be foolish enough to purposely infect the kind of character that does.

Eslin is just trying to re-write fluff to support his lycanthropy fantasy, but it doesn't. A Kingsguard made up of werebears? Haha! Only if the entire town is made up of werebears too. Or if they are evil aligned, and the occasional dead peasant is considered an acceptable loss. Obviously if good aligned werebears shun society to live alone in the forest, the possibility always exists that they may lose control on occasion.

The idea of using lycanthropy is okay because "you can save lives" is a fallacy. You can use a gun to save lives. But a gun does not cause you to go berserk and potentially go on a murdering spree once a month, no matter what the news might lead you to believe. And what of the adventurer, is he not capable of "saving lives?" How is it that he thinks that he needs to be cursed to do his job, if that's the case, then he really wasn't cut out to be an adventurer in the first place.

Sorry Eslin, none of your arguments hold water because almost all of them require a complete re-write of the published fluff of werebear activities and the good alignments - and they fly in the face of logic and simple common sense. Sorry, but no.

I'd love to respond to this, I really really would. It's a big block of text, it's on a topic I'm interested in, you're wrong about pretty much every single thing you said, it's mildly insulting, the works!

You plainly didn't actually listen to what I was saying (example - A Kingsguard made up of werebears? Haha! - wow that's so funny considering that's not even slightly related to anything I've suggested), so I'm going to go ahead and mentally replace everything you just said with a short essay on how stupid telling someone they're entirely wrong based on your harsh reading of fluff deliberately left loose enough in order to let DMs decide whether they want their lycanthropes to like be Harley MacFinn, Beorn or Oz is.

Please come back once you're interested in an actual discussion.

[pwykersotz]

I like all these ideas that have been mentioned. Here's a few ways I see them unfolding:

1: Werebears are good because they are enlightened, and are loners because they still become monsters when they take damage or when they are under the full moon. As they have no wish to inflict harm, the seclude themselves, master themselves, and use their power in secret ways to safeguard the land.

2. Werebears are good because the disease twists their mind and makes savagery unpalatable to them. They are peaceful druids and guardians, always attempting discourse before resorting to power.

3. Werebears are enlightened by this divine twist on an ancient curse. They have all the power and greatness of nature and all the reason of man. They spread the word, giving their blessing to any who can prove themselves. Soon the righteous inherit the earth, and then turn their focus to the secret places of the universe, seeking to end evil once and for all.

There are a whole lot more varieties, naturally, but I like all of them for different campaign settings. I think the first one is what the devs were thinking of when these were designed, but that's supposition.

[INDYSTAR188]

This is a role-playing game, not a 4E power-grind to raise your damage output in some imaginary arms race.

I resent the implication that 4E games are only 'power-grinds' and somehow not a role-playing game.


My point is, given the circumstances automatically placed upon players' characters it is only fair to assume that any one character will strive to become as strong as they can in whatever way possible (by their own morals, ideals, and codes of course).

This is represented through characters gaining levels is it not? New class features, feats, and spells and whatnot. By your logic you could claim a character wanting to become a lich or vampire would seem reasonable because of how dangerous adventuring is (with the caveat that it fits within their morals, ideals and codes). I think the chances of your character even knowing enough about lycanthropy, let alone that there even IS a 'good' type, are entirely dependent on the campaign and very unlikely (perhaps if you were the victem of a lycanthrope attack or a sage who had studied extensive literature on the subject or a druid charged with hunting down evil lycanthropes).

[Eslin]

I resent the implication that 4E games are only 'power-grinds' and somehow not a role-playing game.



This is represented through characters gaining levels is it not? New class features, feats, and spells and whatnot. By your logic you could claim a character wanting to become a lich or vampire would seem reasonable because of how dangerous adventuring is (with the caveat that it fits within their morals, ideals and codes). I think the chances of your character even knowing enough about lycanthropy, let alone that there even IS a 'good' type, are entirely dependent on the campaign and very unlikely (perhaps if you were the victem of a lycanthrope attack or a sage who had studied extensive literature on the subject or a druid charged with hunting down evil lycanthropes).

Ditto regarding 4E, though it's understandable why some people think of it like that considering its focus on combat and lack of verisimilitude.

But regarding vampires and lichs, the logic doesn't hold sound. A vampire automatically turns evil and depends on draining the life out of others to live, by becoming a vampire you are doing evil. If the alignment changes weren't in place, becoming a vampire would be fine so long as you just drank animal blood. And whether attempting to gain power is fair or not is pretty easily solvable - if it makes sense in game, it's fair go. Trying to reduce your level adjustment is a purely meta game concept, so you have to acknowledge it as trying to make your character stronger. Becoming a werebear is an obvious increase in power from your character's perspective, so if doing so fits their personality you should go for it.

And I really don't agree that the chances of your character knowing about lycanthropes are 'very unlikely'. Lore checks exist, folklore exists, going out and asking someone exists. I bet priests of Bharrai are all over this kind of thing, considering she's a neutral good bear god whose followers specialise in turning into bears.

[CyberThread]

To really simplify this. Selune having good aligned were creatures is a huge thing. Forgotten realms is littered with multiple gods having good and neutral aligned things.

Never say never. The setting makes a world of difference.


He he he

[Sartharina]

... I could see Selune having good-aligned Weretigers...

[Eslin]

Honestly, I'd just cut the alignment thing out entirely. If you don't embrace it you keep your mind as-is but go furry and uncontrolled during the full moon. If you embrace it you can control your transformations, but you take on traits of the animal, both positive and negative. I'd also even them out, make them approximately equal in power rather than having bear be the best by a large margin.

No boar is neutral evil, just things like you become stubborn, irritable and unwilling to compromise but steadfast and honest.
Rat becomes furtive, cleanly, cunning and puts himself first.
Wolf is a team player, protective of friends and helpful but untrusting and uncaring of strangers.
Bears become lazy and easygoing, protective of those under their charge but short sighted.
Tiger is self impressed and daring, brash and reacting quickly but often without thought.

[Valraukar]

Ditto regarding 4E, though it's understandable why some people think of it like that considering its focus on combat and lack of verisimilitude.

But regarding vampires and lichs, the logic doesn't hold sound. A vampire automatically turns evil and depends on draining the life out of others to live, by becoming a vampire you are doing evil. If the alignment changes weren't in place, becoming a vampire would be fine so long as you just drank animal blood. And whether attempting to gain power is fair or not is pretty easily solvable - if it makes sense in game, it's fair go. Trying to reduce your level adjustment is a purely meta game concept, so you have to acknowledge it as trying to make your character stronger. Becoming a werebear is an obvious increase in power from your character's perspective, so if doing so fits their personality you should go for it.

And I really don't agree that the chances of your character knowing about lycanthropes are 'very unlikely'. Lore checks exist, folklore exists, going out and asking someone exists. I bet priests of Bharrai are all over this kind of thing, considering she's a neutral good bear god whose followers specialise in turning into bears.

As far as the likelihood of a character knowing about lycanthropy, entirely setting dependent; if the DM says that their world is like that, then it is so.

Anyone can model their character's personality to fit their meta-gaming goals; nothing necessarily wrong with that, in fact when I DM I ask each player to provide me with meta game goals, game goals, & character goals. While personally I find a blatant meta power grab with wafer-thin character justifications to be in poor taste, and in fact would strongly agree with Soular's point of view (if not the way he delivered it,) to each his own.

I'd like to know how you would handle the effect lycanthropy would have on the balance of power within a party, particularly if you do not intend to attenuate the benefits of this curse with LA/stat or Xp penalties/etc? I've found that few things detract from player satisfaction more than being far outshined by more powerful peers. This could get way out of hand in 3.5. 5e seems to have a much more equal baseline level of power across all the core classes. Have you run any 5e games with lycanthrope characters? If so have you found that it disrupted that balance of power? I'd be interested to know.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Honestly, I'd just cut the alignment thing out entirely. If you don't embrace it you keep your mind as-is but go furry and uncontrolled during the full moon. I
@Eslin - It seems to me that the entire thrust of your argument of the mechanical benefits of lycanthropy is based on that embracing the curse protects one from the 'moon rage' and thus there are only upsides. You can't understand arguments against you because you've ruled out the moon rage, and other posters can't understand your arguments because they are assuming moon rage.

[Eslin]

As far as the likelihood of a character knowing about lycanthropy, entirely setting dependent; if the DM says that their world is like that, then it is so.

Anyone can model their character's personality to fit their meta-gaming goals; nothing necessarily wrong with that, in fact when I DM I ask each player to provide me with meta game goals, game goals, & character goals. While personally I find a blatant meta power grab with wafer-thin character justifications to be in poor taste, and in fact would strongly agree with Soular's point of view (if not the way he delivered it,) to each his own.

I'd like to know how you would handle the effect lycanthropy would have on the balance of power within a party, particularly if you do not intend to attenuate the benefits of this curse with LA/stat or Xp penalties/etc? I've found that few things detract from player satisfaction more than being far outshined by more powerful peers. This could get way out of hand in 3.5. 5e seems to have a much more equal baseline level of power across all the core classes. Have you run any 5e games with lycanthrope characters? If so have you found that it disrupted that balance of power? I'd be interested to know.

It did, so I recently ruled that it replaced the player's sub class if they embrace it (as instead of specialising, they had to spend their time working towards mastery of the curse). I've tried it out, and it seems to work fine game balance wise.

[Valraukar]

It did, so I recently ruled that it replaced the player's sub class if they embrace it (as instead of specialising, they had to spend their time working towards mastery of the curse). I've tried it out, and it seems to work fine game balance wise.

Do they receive additional benefits/abilities as they would with a subclass as they progress in level?

[Eslin]

Do they receive additional benefits/abilities as they would with a subclass as they progress in level?

To even the abilities out, werewolf gets CR/3 wolf companions and can exchange three wolf companions for a dire wolf. Any lost companion is replaced after a week.

Strength 19 (bear, tiger) constitution/strength 17 (boar), strength/dexterity 17 (wolf), dexterity 19 (rat) in all forms at 3, hybrid form at 7, the ability to replace one of their attacks with a multiattack at 11, resistance to weapons that aren't both silvered and magic at 15, +1 armour, +10 speed and +2 str/dex/con (may reach 22) in all forms at 20.

[MukkTB]

I like the attunement fix. You got lychanthropy and you're happy with your alignment as affected by the curse? Good for you. You can carry two additional magic items + your inbuilt one. Fred who doesn't have lycanthropy can carry three. Because it doesn't use attunement, the raw way of dealing with it seems to fall to DM storytelling. However I don't understand why we're suddenly assuming parties of squeaky clean heroes. The guys I play with wouldn't hesitate to rub lycanthropy all over themselves. They all occupy the dingy side of neutral at best. On most days they have a tendency to wallow in the very shallow end of the pool of evil.

[Eslin]

I like the attunement fix. You got lychanthropy and you're happy with your alignment as affected by the curse? Good for you. You can carry two additional magic items + your inbuilt one. Fred who doesn't have lycanthropy can carry three. Because it doesn't use attunement, the raw way of dealing with it seems to fall to DM storytelling. However I don't understand why we're suddenly assuming parties of squeaky clean heroes. The guys I play with wouldn't hesitate to rub lycanthropy all over themselves. They all occupy the dingy side of neutral at best. On most days they have a tendency to wallow in the very shallow end of the pool of evil.

Because we were talking werebears, and if your alignment changes the DM can take control of your character. For that kind of party, tiger or boar sounds more appropriate.

[Rallicus]

LA, mechanics... ugh.

Can't a game add something without crunch behind it? Why does everything in tabletop need to be spelled out in numbers and mechanics now. I'm almost dreading the release of the DMG because then players will inevitably be correcting my rulings at every turn. Yes, of course, DM fiat and all that -- and almost all of my players abide by this -- but it doesn't stop them from bringing it up. "Rule here says X, DM."

Last session they wasted 10 minutes mulling over jumping rules, to see if a type of vertical jump was possible. I nearly fell asleep.

I despise this mindset and I wish that it would stop already. But I think most DMs share in this sentiment, as it slows the pace of a game and sometimes hampers creativity.

[Eslin]

LA, mechanics... ugh.

Can't a game add something without crunch behind it? Why does everything in tabletop need to be spelled out in numbers and mechanics now. I'm almost dreading the release of the DMG because then players will inevitably be correcting my rulings at every turn. Yes, of course, DM fiat and all that -- and almost all of my players abide by this -- but it doesn't stop them from bringing it up. "Rule here says X, DM."

Last session they wasted 10 minutes mulling over jumping rules, to see if a type of vertical jump was possible. I nearly fell asleep.

I despise this mindset and I wish that it would stop already. But I think most DMs share in this sentiment, as it slows the pace of a game and sometimes hampers creativity.

Vertical jumping is 3 feet + 1 foot per strength mod, add half your height to your possible reach. I didn't have to look that up, but if no-one remembers just wing it, this edition's all about rulings. How did you waste 10 minutes? Just make a note to go back and check the rules for whatever you made a ruling on so you can be more consistent in future and after a few sessions everything will be natural.

And regarding adding something without crunch behind it - if what is being added actually changes any stats or abilities, it should have crunch behind it. That's what crunch is. If you want freeform, go play freeform, but don't complain when the three hundred page rulebook has rules in it.

[INDYSTAR188]

But regarding vampires and lichs, the logic doesn't hold sound. A vampire automatically turns evil and depends on draining the life out of others to live, by becoming a vampire you are doing evil. If the alignment changes weren't in place, becoming a vampire would be fine so long as you just drank animal blood. And whether attempting to gain power is fair or not is pretty easily solvable - if it makes sense in game, it's fair go. Trying to reduce your level adjustment is a purely meta game concept, so you have to acknowledge it as trying to make your character stronger. Becoming a werebear is an obvious increase in power from your character's perspective, so if doing so fits their personality you should go for it.

And I really don't agree that the chances of your character knowing about lycanthropes are 'very unlikely'. Lore checks exist, folklore exists, going out and asking someone exists. I bet priests of Bharrai are all over this kind of thing, considering she's a neutral good bear god whose followers specialise in turning into bears.

The bolded part is what really matters in this discussion. It is entirely DM/party and campaign setting dependent. I'm not trying to say you're wrong, because at the end of the day, the beautiful thing about RPG's is that you can play them however you like. In my opinion though, I find it distasteful to seek out things like lycanthropy or lich templates. It feels very meta-gamey and there is party balance to consider too. I think if the group wants to play that type of game then of course it's fine.

Regarding the knowledge being unlikely or not, a player who came to me with that would make me question if they were even attempting to seperate what the player knows from what the character knows. Now, as you say, there are perfectly logical and reasonable situations where a PC would know about lycanthropes of all sizes but my inclination is to think that the vast majority of people would only have some rudimentary knowledge of the disease at best and would be incredibly fearful of those inflicted with the curse.


As far as the likelihood of a character knowing about lycanthropy, entirely setting dependent; if the DM says that their world is like that, then it is so.

Anyone can model their character's personality to fit their meta-gaming goals; nothing necessarily wrong with that, in fact when I DM I ask each player to provide me with meta game goals, game goals, & character goals. While personally I find a blatant meta power grab with wafer-thin character justifications to be in poor taste, and in fact would strongly agree with Soular's point of view (if not the way he delivered it,) to each his own.

I'd like to know how you would handle the effect lycanthropy would have on the balance of power within a party, particularly if you do not intend to attenuate the benefits of this curse with LA/stat or Xp penalties/etc? I've found that few things detract from player satisfaction more than being far outshined by more powerful peers. This could get way out of hand in 3.5. 5e seems to have a much more equal baseline level of power across all the core classes. Have you run any 5e games with lycanthrope characters? If so have you found that it disrupted that balance of power? I'd be interested to know.

I completely agree with this statement, especially the bolded part. If I could 'like' this post I would.

[MukkTB]

Because we were talking werebears, and if your alignment changes the DM can take control of your character. For that kind of party, tiger or boar sounds more appropriate.

Are we only talking werebears? TBH my reading of the MM on werebears indicated that they wouldn't use their lycanthropy inflicting attack on their enemies. The same seems to go for wererats. For either of them, it seems like you would have to legitimately be a disciple, or coerce them into giving you lycanthropy. Weretigers have a similar thing, but not so extreme. It feels like if you're just adventuring, you're most likely to be randomly bitten by a werewolf or a wereboar. You might fight the other things, but they probably wouldn't try to afflict you.

[Eslin]

Are we only talking werebears? TBH my reading of the MM on werebears indicated that they wouldn't use their lycanthropy inflicting attack on their enemies. The same seems to go for wererats. For either of them, it seems like you would have to legitimately be a disciple, or coerce them into giving you lycanthropy. Weretigers have a similar thing, but not so extreme. It feels like if you're just adventuring, you're most likely to be randomly bitten by a werewolf or a wereboar. You might fight the other things, but they probably wouldn't try to afflict you.

Almost certainly, especially since using their bite attack is inefficient for damage. The other half to this thread was specifically going out and getting bitten by a werebear for the greater good though.


The bolded part is what really matters in this discussion. It is entirely DM/party and campaign setting dependent. I'm not trying to say you're wrong, because at the end of the day, the beautiful thing about RPG's is that you can play them however you like. In my opinion though, I find it distasteful to seek out things like lycanthropy or lich templates. It feels very meta-gamey and there is party balance to consider too. I think if the group wants to play that type of game then of course it's fine.

Regarding the knowledge being unlikely or not, a player who came to me with that would make me question if they were even attempting to seperate what the player knows from what the character knows. Now, as you say, there are perfectly logical and reasonable situations where a PC would know about lycanthropes of all sizes but my inclination is to think that the vast majority of people would only have some rudimentary knowledge of the disease at best and would be incredibly fearful of those inflicted with the curse.

Seeking becoming a lich isn't meta gaming. It's something people in the setting do all the time. If there is a route to power available in the setting, taking it is rarely meta-gaming. People are naturally attracted to easy power, that's why you see all those simple tricks to look younger or earn money ads around.

My main problem is they included lycanthropy without any balancing element like 3.5's level adjustment. Just because LA was usually badly calculated doesn't mean the basic reason behind its necessity isn't there. Which again is why I'm having it replace their sub-class for my players.

[thereaper]

I don't see any logical problem with a PC who has proved himself intentionally seeking out a werebear. Obviously, if somebody the Werebear has never heard of comes knocking, he's going to refuse. But if the PC is a famous hero, has some downtime to learn, and hears that there is a way he can safely gain the power of a lycanthrope, I see no reason he or she wouldn't do so other than being squeamish or doubtful of the idea (which most would be, but we only need one for this example).

If I was a Werebear and Superman knocked on my door asking for the power of Lycanthropy as long as I taught him to control it first, I wouldn't say no. Maybe some other werebears would, but that doesn't matter, because he only needs one of us to say yes.

The real problem with lycanthropy is that it is a blatant power grab. And a big one, too, since very few monsters are going to have silvered claws or teeth. In fact, lycanthropes are a big problem in general, because they should logically be everywhere, simply due to the fact that only a tiny portion of the monsters in the world can do anything to them.

[Eslin]

Yup. I'd have given them resistance to magical/silver weapons and minor regeneration, not immunity. And there needed to be some form of mechanical cost like LA for lycanthropy.

[thereaper]

I fully agree. Even if it was just LA +1, at least there would be some mechanical drawback.

[Eslin]

I fully agree. Even if it was just LA +1, at least there would be some mechanical drawback.

Yup. It'd be fine if it was an alternative - you become a lycanthrope or a vampire or you get some form of bonus for staying human, but that moves it too central to the mechanics of the game. My best idea is it should replace something - have it replace the subclass, have it count as several levels of class on its own (nothing but D8 hit die and proficiency increase), have it replace several ability score boosts, something.

The class level replacement thing's not the worst idea - have rat and wolf replace 3, tiger and boar replace 4 and bear replace 5. Does that sound balanced?

[infinitetech]

you could give the template at start but divide the abilities over their 20 lvl progression, requiring them to gain exp as if multi-classing, and they can make will checks to control changes and fort checks against damage during the change equal to their lvl when turning into the bear or equal to the hoursx2 they were in that form, also if they fail the will check they gain "primal counters" when those are greater than their level they go on a wild hunt and dont rest until they are KO'd from fatigue

[Jane_Doe]

My main problem is they included lycanthropy without any balancing element like 3.5's level adjustment. Just because LA was usually badly calculated doesn't mean the basic reason behind its necessity isn't there. Which again is why I'm having it replace their sub-class for my players.

The balancing element was intended to be that it fundamentally changes the essence of your character to something that you did not desire, and that npcs will be inclined to view you with fear and distrust. These are already significant tradeoffs for the sorts of stories lycanthropy is intended for, which could easily be rendered moot if additional penalties were incured... "I can have great power to do good if I'm willing to compromise my belief in the law and hide my nature" is an interesting character dilemma, but it loses it's impact if no real power is actually gained - it's a no-brainer to refuse the curse in such a situation.

If these aren't an issue for a given campaign (say the person trying to become a weretiger was already pretty tigery, and the campaign takes place entirely in a remote, uninhabited wilderness), then of course the DM ought rule that there are no weretigers near where they are, and that it can't be taken before character creation.

That said, how many players out there do you expect to ask their DMs if they can become werewhatevers as a cheap power grab in the first place? I just don't see it as a problem for the vast majority of players.

tl;dr version: Treat "lycanthropy" the same way you'd treat "The Artifact of Doom"; if your players actively want it, it's probably the wrong story for it.

[Eslin]

The balancing element was intended to be that it fundamentally changes the essence of your character to something that you did not desire, and that npcs will be inclined to view you with fear and distrust. These are already significant tradeoffs for the sorts of stories lycanthropy is intended for, which could easily be rendered moot if additional penalties were incured... "I can have great power to do good if I'm willing to compromise my belief in the law and hide my nature" is an interesting character dilemma, but it loses it's impact if no real power is actually gained - it's a no-brainer to refuse the curse in such a situation.

If these aren't an issue for a given campaign (say the person trying to become a weretiger was already pretty tigery, and the campaign takes place entirely in a remote, uninhabited wilderness), then of course the DM ought rule that there are no weretigers near where they are, and that it can't be taken before character creation.

That said, how many players out there do you expect to ask their DMs if they can become werewhatevers as a cheap power grab in the first place? I just don't see it as a problem for the vast majority of players.

tl;dr version: Treat "lycanthropy" the same way you'd treat "The Artifact of Doom"; if your players actively want it, it's probably the wrong story for it.

So you change the NPCs mind, and if they're still prejudiced then **** 'em. Same reason I always create orc or hobgoblin characters.

[Jane_Doe]

So you change the NPCs mind, and if they're still prejudiced then **** 'em. Same reason I always create orc or hobgoblin characters.

"So take the ring and throw it into the fires of Mt. Doom", if you'll pardon me being flippant.

You can certainly summarize the plot of one possible response to the curse in a single sentence, but "Earning the trust of the city" could plausibly be an entire campaign of its own - and as you note, there will still be those who remain unconvinced.

Were I in charge of such a game, I would expect something in the range of "saved the city from a very public disaster"(fended off an invasion, stopped demons rampaging demons in the streets, interrupted a very public ritual of a mad wizard - that level of thing), coupled with "Showed great restraint in the face of vicious provocation" (faced an angry mob without killing anyone, watched your peace emissary be killed in front of you, be shamed in a very public way, that sort of thing), before I would decide they'd overcome most prejudices in the city. Completing half would only modify the prejudice ("She's a great hero, but... What if she, you know, tigers out on us one day?" or "Well, she's not nutso like those other weres, but why the hell is she still here? What if more of them come here?").

Of course, the character will eventually overcome said prejudice (For that city... Unless dealing with foreigners), but one expects a reward for completing their character arc. "My otherwise powerful character is no longer hated, and can live normally" seems within the same range as, say, a disgraced noble having her ancestral lands returned to her, a common enough plotline.

[Eslin]

"So take the ring and throw it into the fires of Mt. Doom", if you'll pardon me being flippant.

You can certainly summarize the plot of one possible response to the curse in a single sentence, but "Earning the trust of the city" could plausibly be an entire campaign of its own - and as you note, there will still be those who remain unconvinced.

Were I in charge of such a game, I would expect something in the range of "saved the city from a very public disaster"(fended off an invasion, stopped demons rampaging demons in the streets, interrupted a very public ritual of a mad wizard - that level of thing), coupled with "Showed great restraint in the face of vicious provocation" (faced an angry mob without killing anyone, watched your peace emissary be killed in front of you, be shamed in a very public way, that sort of thing), before I would decide they'd overcome most prejudices in the city. Completing half would only modify the prejudice ("She's a great hero, but... What if she, you know, tigers out on us one day?" or "Well, she's not nutso like those other weres, but why the hell is she still here? What if more of them come here?").

Of course, the character will eventually overcome said prejudice (For that city... Unless dealing with foreigners), but one expects a reward for completing their character arc. "My otherwise powerful character is no longer hated, and can live normally" seems within the same range as, say, a disgraced noble having her ancestral lands returned to her, a common enough plotline.

I get what you're saying, but a large majority of the characters I've created don't really care what people think of them. One was an orc used to being mistrusted anyway, another a lawful evil knight who only cared about the word of his lord, another a chaotic good elf ranger who didn't really care what anyone who wasn't an animal had to say, etc. It's only a penalty if your character wants to be trusted by people he doesn't care about.

Being a warlock involves fluff penalties (some powerful patron wants you to do their bidding) with no mechanical power in exchange (wizards are still better at everything). This edition is happy to give you fluff penalties without any benefits to even them out, lycanthropes need a mechanical penalty for them to be fair in most games.

Edit: Though being a werebear trying to win people's trust does sound hella fun, I'd play that.

[Forum Explorer]

I get what you're saying, but a large majority of the characters I've created don't really care what people think of them. One was an orc used to being mistrusted anyway, another a lawful evil knight who only cared about the word of his lord, another a chaotic good elf ranger who didn't really care what anyone who wasn't an animal had to say, etc. It's only a penalty if your character wants to be trusted by people he doesn't care about.

Being a warlock involves fluff penalties (some powerful patron wants you to do their bidding) with no mechanical power in exchange (wizards are still better at everything). This edition is happy to give you fluff penalties without any benefits to even them out, lycanthropes need a mechanical penalty for them to be fair in most games.

Edit: Though being a werebear trying to win people's trust does sound hella fun, I'd play that.

Lycanthropes have a huge mechanical penalty. If the DM wants he can NPC your character at pretty much any time.

[Eslin]

Lycanthropes have a huge mechanical penalty. If the DM wants he can NPC your character at pretty much any time.

Not if you embrace the curse and don't change alignment. If you're neutral good and embrace your werebear curse, the DM has no more grounds to NPC you than he does the human fighter next to you.

[Abithrios]

The balancing element was intended to be that it fundamentally changes the essence of your character to something that you did not desire, and that npcs will be inclined to view you with fear and distrust. These are already significant tradeoffs for the sorts of stories lycanthropy is intended for, which could easily be rendered moot if additional penalties were incured... "I can have great power to do good if I'm willing to compromise my belief in the law and hide my nature" is an interesting character dilemma, but it loses it's impact if no real power is actually gained - it's a no-brainer to refuse the curse in such a situation.

If these aren't an issue for a given campaign (say the person trying to become a weretiger was already pretty tigery, and the campaign takes place entirely in a remote, uninhabited wilderness), then of course the DM ought rule that there are no weretigers near where they are, and that it can't be taken before character creation.

That said, how many players out there do you expect to ask their DMs if they can become werewhatevers as a cheap power grab in the first place? I just don't see it as a problem for the vast majority of players.

tl;dr version: Treat "lycanthropy" the same way you'd treat "The Artifact of Doom"; if your players actively want it, it's probably the wrong story for it.

Trading something you want less for something you want more can be done in a balanced way. For example, you can choose to give up on shooting magic beams from your fingers to be better at swinging swords by taking all your levels in fighter instead of warlock. People who want to swing swords will take that trade. Similarly, if the benefits and drawbacks specialize the character, it can be a nontrivial choice.

Honestly, that tiger themed character sounds like exactly the person to let become a weretiger. I think it is generally good practice to let players have some degree of control over their character concepts.

As it stands, the decision seems trivial. Either you care more about published fluff and lycanthropy is terrible or you care more about being more effective in your quest and lycanthropy is awesome.

I do not think the mechanical problems and the fluff problems cancel out, I think they double up. I feel like I would have to say no to a player asking to be a lycanthrope because it would both cause balance problems and role playing problems.

No is universally more boring than yes. I want crunch I can say yes to. Fluff I can rewrite myself with the help of players. That comes from the magic of collaborative story telling.



Lycanthropes have a huge mechanical penalty. If the DM wants he can NPC your character at pretty much any time.

Such a binary drawback sounds terrible for actually controlling balance because it does nothing until the DM actually pulls the trigger. Then it causes huge amounts of unhappiness.

[Eslin]

Trading something you want less for something you want more can be done in a balanced way. For example, you can choose to give up on shooting magic beams from your fingers to be better at swinging swords by taking all your levels in fighter instead of warlock. People who want to swing swords will take that trade. Similarly, if the benefits and drawbacks specialize the character, it can be a nontrivial choice.

Honestly, that tiger themed character sounds like exactly the person to let become a weretiger. I think it is generally good practice to let players have some degree of control over their character concepts.

As it stands, the decision seems trivial. Either you care more about published fluff and lycanthropy is terrible or you care more about being more effective in your quest and lycanthropy is awesome.

I do not think the mechanical problems and the fluff problems cancel out, I think they double up. I feel like I would have to say no to a player asking to be a lycanthrope because it would both cause balance problems and role playing problems.

No is universally more boring than yes. I want crunch I can say yes to. Fluff I can rewrite myself with the help of players. That comes from the magic of collaborative story telling.

Amen. I want to set weretigers on my players without spending hours worrying about the balance if they get bitten, and I want to be able to let them if they try to track down a werebear to use its strength to defend people. At least in this instance I now have solutions thanks to this thread, but it would be much better if they'd balanced this kind of thing for player use properly.

[Logosloki]

Lycanthropes have a huge mechanical penalty. If the DM wants he can NPC your character at pretty much any time.

Why bench them when any 5th level cleric/warlock/wizard or a 9th level paladin or a 6th level lore bard, can end their lycanthropy? Oh look Adventurer-nim, you have a terrible curse on you! here, let me fix that. The only reason players get lycanthropy is you are prepared for the consequences or you are running a one-shot/mini-campaign and it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things what happens there.

If you want to fiat in mechanical penalty then I did say earlier that the were templates are worth about an attuned rare item...if you remove the physical damage immunity and give them physical resistance. So then the rest party could be offered either the same option (were form) and then you go on a RIP and TEAR adventure of awesome or they get a rare item of fancy doodad, if they want. As long as someone isn't gaming the system (I'd almost make a requirement of 13 str but my players know better) and as long as the party is happy then who cares? juggle a few fights to be harder, make a couple of non-combat and combat encounters around the fact you have lycan(s). It isn't particularly game breaking (maybe the immunity, but that's what casters are for).

If I could be bothered I would make up a sub-class design so that you can on-line particular benefits at various points but I don't actually have a problem any more with the were-templates.


Amen. I want to set weretigers on my players without spending hours worrying about the balance if they get bitten, and I want to be able to let them if they try to track down a werebear to use its strength to defend people. At least in this instance I now have solutions thanks to this thread, but it would be much better if they'd balanced this kind of thing for player use properly.

Require a full moon for the effect of lycanthropy to take place, this is a folklore element I see come up now and then (and one goosebumps book I think, though that was about skin-shapers). Have the full moon just have been story-wise so that they have x days until the next full moon. Instead of a full moon, require some kind of conjunction. They have the curse but it requires a ritual to be enacted on them by the being that bit them, if this doesn't happen then the curse fades or they simply are a thrall to the lycan (this comes up in modern fantasy and genre fiction, usually a trait of vampirism than lycanthropy but roll with it). Instead of it being passed automatically on wound the lycan must make a concious decision to pass it (werewolves probably won't apply for this, they are usually shown as frenzied by their affliction). They succeed~! but the werebear requires them to be a disciple for some time so they can learn what they must do for being honoured with this curse, they get their player back...later in the campaign (not a personal fan of this, but if they are happy for late game power for the price of not having it mid game, that's cool)

[Eslin]

Why bench them when any 5th level cleric/warlock/wizard or a 9th level paladin or a 6th level lore bard, can end their lycanthropy? Oh look Adventurer-nim, you have a terrible curse on you! here, let me fix that. The only reason players get lycanthropy is you are prepared for the consequences or you are running a one-shot/mini-campaign and it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things what happens there.

If you want to fiat in mechanical penalty then I did say earlier that the were templates are worth about an attuned rare item...if you remove the physical damage immunity and give them physical resistance. So then the rest party could be offered either the same option (were form) and then you go on a RIP and TEAR adventure of awesome or they get a rare item of fancy doodad, if they want. As long as someone isn't gaming the system (I'd almost make a requirement of 13 str but my players know better) and as long as the party is happy then who cares? juggle a few fights to be harder, make a couple of non-combat and combat encounters around the fact you have lycan(s). It isn't particularly game breaking (maybe the immunity, but that's what casters are for).

If I could be bothered I would make up a sub-class design so that you can on-line particular benefits at various points but I don't actually have a problem any more with the were-templates.

Remove curse is touch range, so if you want to stay cursed then take mage slayer and eviscerate anyone who tries it.

[Jane_Doe]

I get what you're saying, but a large majority of the characters I've created don't really care what people think of them. One was an orc used to being mistrusted anyway, another a lawful evil knight who only cared about the word of his lord, another a chaotic good elf ranger who didn't really care what anyone who wasn't an animal had to say, etc. It's only a penalty if your character wants to be trusted by people he doesn't care about.

Being a warlock involves fluff penalties (some powerful patron wants you to do their bidding) with no mechanical power in exchange (wizards are still better at everything). This edition is happy to give you fluff penalties without any benefits to even them out, lycanthropes need a mechanical penalty for them to be fair in most games.

Edit: Though being a werebear trying to win people's trust does sound hella fun, I'd play that.

While I didn't elaborate on this, I think it ought go beyond "Other characters are a bit of a jerk to you", and into outright "Important npcs won't meet with you, guards are fishing for an excuse to arrest you, and it's annoying to find places willing to do business with you" territory (at least, insofar as you can manage while still leaving the character playable), and give the rest of the party a bit of an unsavory reputation to boot.

In an actual game, I'd tend to represent this as (assuming a character known to be a lycanthrope, as opposed to one trying to hide her curse) most npcs with any power or status requesting the party not bring her when meeting with them (and being certain to make this an issue in some manner, by ensuring topics come up that only the lycan knew enough about to follow up on, forcing the partyh to proceed with incomplete knowledge), the character is assumed to be guilty and arrested in any case involving violence, regardless of any evidence (also theft, if a wererat), and the character must pay twice as much for any items, for what is usually of inferior quality (although this is largely for flavor, as it's usually trivial for your party to shop on your behalf). There's probably more, but I believe these are what would be pertinent for most campaigns - the general idea being that the character is shut out of most everything social, beyond situations where it is strictly to their detriment.

The party, on the other hand, would be handled as your usual band of grungy adventurers (regardless of heroic they otherwise were) - treated with respect, but not invited to anything nice. Perhaps the occasional NPC making a pointed reference to their poor taste in associates, the nicer ones offering to uncurse the character, and some of the shadier NPCs assuming anyone willing to work with a savage killer like the were would jumpi at how much they'd play for a blatantly evil job.

Basically, I see no reason that a city would tolerate the presence of something they believe dangerous and barely controlled - the only reason I see that they would tolerate one in their city for any length of time is the hope that they'll soon leave, combined with the certainty of several guards dying if they try and force the matter.

That said, you also left out the "fundamentally change your outlook on life" issue, which should be a bigger stumbling block for most, although I recognize that many players might not care... But those aren't players that would appreciate this plot element anyway, I would think.

(A bit more to say shortly, I had to rewrite everything once already when my temperamental internet ate it >< ... It kind of ate the time I budgeted to writing posts >< )

[Logosloki]

Remove curse is touch range, so if you want to stay cursed then take mage slayer and eviscerate anyone who tries it.

Sorcerer 3/Warlock 5 can twin a remove curse. (I'm on the don't care side of this argument, I'm only doing this for pure fun with mechanics because I like to find out new and interesting ways to use and abuse rules)

EDIT: Sorcerer 3 gives you Distant spell which makes any touch spell have a range of 30 ft if they spend a point.

[Eslin]

While I didn't elaborate on this, I think it ought go beyond "Other characters are a bit of a jerk to you", and into outright "Important npcs won't meet with you, guards are fishing for an excuse to arrest you, and it's annoying to find places willing to do business with you" territory (at least, insofar as you can manage while still leaving the character playable), and give the rest of the party a bit of an unsavory reputation to boot.

In an actual game, I'd tend to represent this as (assuming a character known to be a lycanthrope, as opposed to one trying to hide her curse) most npcs with any power or status requesting the party not bring her when meeting with them (and being certain to make this an issue in some manner, by ensuring topics come up that only the lycan knew enough about to follow up on, forcing the partyh to proceed with incomplete knowledge), the character is assumed to be guilty and arrested in any case involving violence, regardless of any evidence (also theft, if a wererat), and the character must pay twice as much for any items, for what is usually of inferior quality (although this is largely for flavor, as it's usually trivial for your party to shop on your behalf). There's probably more, but I believe these are what would be pertinent for most campaigns - the general idea being that the character is shut out of most everything social, beyond situations where it is strictly to their detriment.

The party, on the other hand, would be handled as your usual band of grungy adventurers (regardless of heroic they otherwise were) - treated with respect, but not invited to anything nice. Perhaps the occasional NPC making a pointed reference to their poor taste in associates, the nicer ones offering to uncurse the character, and some of the shadier NPCs assuming anyone willing to work with a savage killer like the were would jumpi at how much they'd play for a blatantly evil job.

Basically, I see no reason that a city would tolerate the presence of something they believe dangerous and barely controlled - the only reason I see that they would tolerate one in their city for any length of time is the hope that they'll soon leave, combined with the certainty of several guards dying if they try and force the matter.

That said, you also left out the "fundamentally change your outlook on life" issue, which should be a bigger stumbling block for most, although I recognize that many players might not care... But those aren't players that would appreciate this plot element anyway, I would think.

(A bit more to say shortly, I had to rewrite everything once already when my temperamental internet ate it >< ... It kind of ate the time I budgeted to writing posts >< )

I get that aspect, but if I'm a weretiger, people trying to arrest me despite having done nothing wrong just comes across as a fun challenge. Either I would take pains to make him presentable and clearly civilised, this sorta thing but with more finery - http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2013/036/8/9/lion_warrior_1_by_orochi_spawn-d5tzriv.jpg, or I get to enjoy fighting off people who are arresting me for no reason.
I get what you're saying, I really do, but I can think of at most one or two characters of mine that wouldn't enjoy the whole process.

[Valraukar]

This thread summarized in a series of quotes.


Lycanthropy is available only on the DMs call. Talk with your DM before you bring it to the table. Also DBAD and try and get bit if the DM brings one around (unless you discuss it first). They might go for the fullest extent of the RAI and call game-over, roll something new.

If you really want to RIP and TEAR though then why not go druid? or are you more interested in the hybrid forms?

EDIT: as for price, I would consider the lycanthrope template, as long as the DM is letting you play it as opposed to NPCing you, about the same as a rare item and that it takes up an attunement slot. I would also depower it for PC use by delaying or removing the non-magical weapons immunity from the template. I feel at best it should only be resistance to bludgeoning, slashing and piercing of non-magic weapons and only coming online at level 6.

Plus


Ok, people seem to be confusing things a bit. Houseruling is fine, but this is what RAW currently says:...

....The important part of that: RAW, if someone is already the same alignment as the lycanthrope animal and they choose to embrace the curse, lycanthropy is a flat boost in ability. Their may be some fluff drawbacks from people liking lycanthrope, but if a true neutral character is bitten by a weretiger and embraces it, they retain full control over their character and gain a significant combat boost.

which eventually led to


That's what people are trying to say, Eslin. It's only "something-for-nothing" if you use your very particular reading of RAW, in which taking the werebear template is easy and consequence-free. Compare this, if you will, with raising huge undead armies with animate dead. The potential is there for any DMs who want to play with it, but there's also ample fluff supporting DMs who want to either a) keep it from happening in the first place, b) reign it in if it gets out of control, or c) deploy it in a limited fashion for plot purposes.

This is pretty admirable flexibility, in my opinion, not the strict death-of-balance-by-RAW you seem to see.

and


It seems like Eslin is just searching for a way to make a player's power-grab somehow okay fluff-wise. Only it's not. No good aligned character would willfully seek out a disease that makes him hulk out and possibly lose control, potentially killing innocents. And that is the price paid for failing to control this disease. Courting the possibility of murdering people is not an acceptable trade-off for a fast track to personal power in the eyes of a good aligned character. That kind of justification lies solely in the camp of evil.

which provoked this


You plainly didn't actually listen to what I was saying, so I'm going to go ahead and mentally replace everything you just said with a short essay

At some point, people abandoned reason for madness & Batman was pitted against a group of schoolchildren (or was that another thread?)

and on, and on it goes...{{scrubbed}} Now let's solve real problems like:
And where are our were-squids dangit!

[thereaper]

I think we're missing something here.

Assuming our character doesn't bear out in the middle of town, how is anyone ever going to know that he is a werebear? All they're going to know is that he's inexplicably immune to weapons ("must be some magic spell; you know them adventurers").

[infinitetech]

I get that aspect, but if I'm a weretiger, people trying to arrest me despite having done nothing wrong just comes across as a fun challenge. Either I would take pains to make him presentable and clearly civilised, this sorta thing but with more finery - http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2013/036/8/9/lion_warrior_1_by_orochi_spawn-d5tzriv.jpg, or I get to enjoy fighting off people who are arresting me for no reason.
I get what you're saying, I really do, but I can think of at most one or two characters of mine that wouldn't enjoy the whole process.


thats a were lion...
lol

[Eslin]

I think we're missing something here.

Assuming our character doesn't bear out in the middle of town, how is anyone ever going to know that he is a werebear? All they're going to know is that he's inexplicably immune to weapons ("must be some magic spell; you know them adventurers").

Also that. If someone embraces it they get control over their transformations and they gain a few traits reminiscent of their form (werebears get muscly and hairy for instance), but they're still clearly within the human norm. If they absolutely need to hulk out where others can see them, why wouldn't they just say they were a druid or wizard or something?


thats a were lion...
lol

Most of the useful pictures were from furry sites, I took the first thing that would work and got out as fast as I could. If you want to find a more appropriate image be my guest, I'm not going back in >.<

[Jane_Doe]

This edition is happy to give you fluff penalties without any benefits to even them out, lycanthropes need a mechanical penalty for them to be fair in most games.

This is what I take issue with; I don't believe that it was intended to be used in most games, and I don't believe that many DMs will treat it as though it will. I think it was written as (essentially) an afterthought to a situation that would occur infrequently, so they wrote up a general guideline, and assumed the DM would pencil in the rest.

Now, if a player was actively asking to play as a weretiger, and you were concerned about balance, it's something that could certainly benefit from a few different suggestions for drawbacks - but you seem to feel like this is a major rules issue that needs emergency patching before it's widely abused, instead of a rare situation that might require minor houseruling depending on the story. I just feel like you're exaggerating the severity of the issue.



Trading something you want less for something you want more can be done in a balanced way. For example, you can choose to give up on shooting magic beams from your fingers to be better at swinging swords by taking all your levels in fighter instead of warlock. People who want to swing swords will take that trade. Similarly, if the benefits and drawbacks specialize the character, it can be a nontrivial choice.

Honestly, that tiger themed character sounds like exactly the person to let become a weretiger. I think it is generally good practice to let players have some degree of control over their character concepts.

As it stands, the decision seems trivial. Either you care more about published fluff and lycanthropy is terrible or you care more about being more effective in your quest and lycanthropy is awesome.

I do not think the mechanical problems and the fluff problems cancel out, I think they double up. I feel like I would have to say no to a player asking to be a lycanthrope because it would both cause balance problems and role playing problems.

No is universally more boring than yes. I want crunch I can say yes to. Fluff I can rewrite myself with the help of players. That comes from the magic of collaborative story telling.

I think we're viewing this from opposite ends... I was imaging a circumstance where an existing character was bitten, and needed to decide how to respond to the curse. From this perspective, I need a real carrot to dangle in front of them (power), with real drawbacks to that tasty plot hook (alignment change, having a terrible secret to hide). Mechanical rebalancing would interfere with that, because there would no longer be a reason for them to consider keeping the curse, and may leave them weaker than the rest of the party because I'm (presumably) offering them nice things as well.

For a freshly made character, while it depends on the rest of the party, I'd probably just insist they pay for the physical stats properly, and weaken/remove the DR from all lycanthropes in the setting - it's my understanding (perhaps inaccurate) that werewolves are roughly on par with most high-end melee characters. If that's not enough, I'd continue talking with the player to discuss other ways of weakening the template, while preserving the flavor; "making the werewolf template itself weaker" just feels tidier to me than making it take your subclass, and such.


I get that aspect, but if I'm a weretiger, people trying to arrest me despite having done nothing wrong just comes across as a fun challenge. Either I would take pains to make him presentable and clearly civilised, this sorta thing but with more finery - http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2013/036/8/9/lion_warrior_1_by_orochi_spawn-d5tzriv.jpg, or I get to enjoy fighting off people who are arresting me for no reason.
I get what you're saying, I really do, but I can think of at most one or two characters of mine that wouldn't enjoy the whole process.

That... Just feels unnecessarily disruptive to me :| . And would probably escalate to an angry mob/full might of the city watch/the army hunting you down and killing you, albeit at great cost.

The general idea is that the player should feel mildly irritated until they can finally prove their worth to the city to shut them up, not go on a rampage at the first sign of prejudice.

But, eh, I suppose you'd simply not be a lycanthrope in my game, or hide the condition - such consequences would, of course, be presented to the player beforehand, so you'd not be interested in such a plotline.


I think we're missing something here.

Assuming our character doesn't bear out in the middle of town, how is anyone ever going to know that he is a werebear? All they're going to know is that he's inexplicably immune to weapons ("must be some magic spell; you know them adventurers").

Assuming I was the DM, I'd include a couple of circumstances where it would be much simpler for them to, say, become a tiger and flee pursuers leaping from rooftop to rooftop, rather than face a difficult fight alone. And much later on, perhaps have some (social) antagonists wonder why you seem to disappear on the full moon every month, or similar such oddities.

If you choose to be discreet... Well, as you say, how likely would it be for anyone find out? You could easily become a famous and well-loved figure before anyone found proof, and by that point, you're fairly untouchable, even with your secret exposed.

[Eslin]

This is what I take issue with; I don't believe that it was intended to be used in most games, and I don't believe that many DMs will treat it as though it will. I think it was written as (essentially) an afterthought to a situation that would occur infrequently, so they wrote up a general guideline, and assumed the DM would pencil in the rest.


That... Just feels unnecessarily disruptive to me :| . And would probably escalate to an angry mob/full might of the city watch/the army hunting you down and killing you, albeit at great cost.

The general idea is that the player should feel mildly irritated until they can finally prove their worth to the city to shut them up, not go on a rampage at the first sign of prejudice.

But, eh, I suppose you'd simply not be a lycanthrope in my game, or hide the condition - such consequences would, of course, be presented to the player beforehand, so you'd not be interested in such a plotline.

I didn't say go on a rampage. Just resist arrest if the arrest has no reason behind it. But the thing about 'intended to use in most games' is that any character that is both good and rational enough would automatically start seeking out werebearism in order to use it to better defend the innocent. It's a flat mechanical upgrade, and a pretty easily graspable one (turn into thing, get stronger and hard to kill), so it would make sense for any character that was both good and logical to seek out lycanthropy.

[Jane_Doe]

I didn't say go on a rampage. Just resist arrest if the arrest has no reason behind it.

Well, here's how I interpreted the chain of events - please indicate where you would deviate from my imagined sequence of events.

1. You found yourself in a tavern brawl after the town drunk decided he wanted a new reputation as a weretiger hunter. You, not wanting a new career as a fur rug, easily wrestle him to the ground and tie him up, but only after the bar is smashed up in a dramatic fashion. The city watch is called by a person who missed the beginning, and was reported as a man fightkng a weretiger - everyone assumes the worst.

2. The watch arrives, weapons drawn, and orders you to get on the ground and put on a set of magic shackles and manacles. You, having done nothing wrong, refuse and try to explain yourself. The watch, already stressed by being asked to contain something so dangerous, refuse to hear a word, shouting over you to put on the shackles while you're still lucid.

3. After this continues for several minutes, backup arrives (they had to send runners to bring in other squads); buoyed by their support, they abandon negotiation and rush you. They begin by just trying to restrain you, but after you resist, turn to lethal force. At this point, your own resistance becomes more energetic, inflicting severe injuries before escaping through a window on the third floor.

4. A citywide tiger hunt is called; they've all heard the stories about how much blood a savage were can shed, and they're determined not to let it happen here. Now that you've shown your true colours, they'll burn you out of the city if they must; whether you run or die, they can no longer just hope you leave on your own. You do your best to go to ground (if you leave the city entirely, that works, but... It's essentially retiring the character, given the campaign taking place in the city. Unless everyone else was interested in moving on, that is.)

5. After several hours, the watch is fully mustered, and civilians organized into makeshift militia. Everyone knows you've been staying at the Widow's Hovel, the most rundown inn in the town, but despite paying ten times the going rate, the owner leads them straight to your room, where they confiscate your travelling gear and roughly interrogate your companions, who don't know where you are. They put your friends under watch, and begin searching the city street by street, house by house.

6. You thought you were clever hiding under a pile of turnips in a cellar, but after the first sweep failed, they stationed militia on every street and corner, and left nothing unturned in any building. It took two days, but they finally found you - five of them, between you and the exit. You didn't mean to kill anyone, but pushing one of them down the stairs as you flee leaves him with a broken neck, while the echoes of a furiously blown whistle ring behind you - as you burst out the door, you see searchers pour out of the homes around you, the call being repeated down the streets, as people begin to come around the corners as well. Concentrating street by street like this, there must easily have been a hundred of them within whistle distance.

7. They immediately turn to lethal force the minute they had you surrounded. They're nothing more than militia, so you're easily stronger than them, but they slow you down until real fighters (who were waiting for the militia to flush you out) arrive, these ones armed with silver. You fight bravely, but are soon killed. (If you escape at any point here, they return to searching)

---

Basically, I assume that they'll assume the worst at every step, unless you're in their custody and "safe" (ie, restrained), at which point they'll listen with great skepticism. So while you may not have intended a rampage... Resistance will be viewed as a prelude to one, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as you end facing a terrified mob who think killing you is the only way to save themselves from you.


But the thing about 'intended to use in most games' is that any character that is both good and rational enough would automatically start seeking out werebearism in order to use it to better defend the innocent. It's a flat mechanical upgrade, and a pretty easily graspable one (turn into thing, get stronger and hard to kill), so it would make sense for any character that was both good and logical to seek out lycanthropy.

This strikes me as being similar to how, in 3.5, any craftsperson would have been better of studying magic, and using spells to make masterwork goods in a tiny fraction of the time it takes to make them by hand.

That is to say, since there clearly aren't hordes of people seeking to become werebears in almost any 5.0 setting I've heard of, there must be a reason that isn't the case, beyond what the rules say. The "what" is up to the DM - perhaps people assume all lycanthropes are bloodthirsty killing machines, perhaps people consider their humanity (elfinity, gnomity, whatever) divinely granted and consider tainting it to be blasphemous, perhaps they're unimaginative, or perhaps the DM doesn't know, doesn't care, and just wants to move on.

It's an interesting thing to consider, but... It's clearly an unintended consequence. It's better to repair the internal cohesion of the setting by plugging in that "why", rather than open the gates to a world flooded with werebears, since that just leads to even more unintended consequences.

EDIT: Oh, boo, I've been preserving this pixie status for years, but this made me grow >:( . Perhaps I should just make a new account to re-pixiefy myself >< ...

[Eslin]

Well, here's how I interpreted the chain of events - please indicate where you would deviate from my imagined sequence of events.

1. You found yourself in a tavern brawl after the town drunk decided he wanted a new reputation as a weretiger hunter. You, not wanting a new career as a fur rug, easily wrestle him to the ground and tie him up, but only after the bar is smashed up in a dramatic fashion. The city watch is called by a person who missed the beginning, and was reported as a man fightkng a weretiger - everyone assumes the worst.

2. The watch arrives, weapons drawn, and orders you to get on the ground and put on a set of magic shackles and manacles. You, having done nothing wrong, refuse and try to explain yourself. The watch, already stressed by being asked to contain something so dangerous, refuse to hear a word, shouting over you to put on the shackles while you're still lucid.

3. After this continues for several minutes, backup arrives (they had to send runners to bring in other squads); buoyed by their support, they abandon negotiation and rush you. They begin by just trying to restrain you, but after you resist, turn to lethal force. At this point, your own resistance becomes more energetic, inflicting severe injuries before escaping through a window on the third floor.

4. A citywide tiger hunt is called; they've all heard the stories about how much blood a savage were can shed, and they're determined not to let it happen here. Now that you've shown your true colours, they'll burn you out of the city if they must; whether you run or die, they can no longer just hope you leave on your own. You do your best to go to ground (if you leave the city entirely, that works, but... It's essentially retiring the character, given the campaign taking place in the city. Unless everyone else was interested in moving on, that is.)

5. After several hours, the watch is fully mustered, and civilians organized into makeshift militia. Everyone knows you've been staying at the Widow's Hovel, the most rundown inn in the town, but despite paying ten times the going rate, the owner leads them straight to your room, where they confiscate your travelling gear and roughly interrogate your companions, who don't know where you are. They put your friends under watch, and begin searching the city street by street, house by house.

6. You thought you were clever hiding under a pile of turnips in a cellar, but after the first sweep failed, they stationed militia on every street and corner, and left nothing unturned in any building. It took two days, but they finally found you - five of them, between you and the exit. You didn't mean to kill anyone, but pushing one of them down the stairs as you flee leaves him with a broken neck, while the echoes of a furiously blown whistle ring behind you - as you burst out the door, you see searchers pour out of the homes around you, the call being repeated down the streets, as people begin to come around the corners as well. Concentrating street by street like this, there must easily have been a hundred of them within whistle distance.

7. They immediately turn to lethal force the minute they had you surrounded. They're nothing more than militia, so you're easily stronger than them, but they slow you down until real fighters (who were waiting for the militia to flush you out) arrive, these ones armed with silver. You fight bravely, but are soon killed. (If you escape at any point here, they return to searching)

---

Basically, I assume that they'll assume the worst at every step, unless you're in their custody and "safe" (ie, restrained), at which point they'll listen with great skepticism. So while you may not have intended a rampage... Resistance will be viewed as a prelude to one, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as you end facing a terrified mob who think killing you is the only way to save themselves from you.


Sounds entirely reasonable, and I'd quite enjoy that as a game. Only I'd probably concentrate on trying to escape and find a way to come back and kill whoever my character thought was ultimately responsible for it. Then let me be evil is a favourite trope of mine, it's fun to play.

[Soular]

I'd love to respond to this, I really really would. It's a big block of text, it's on a topic I'm interested in, you're wrong about pretty much every single thing you said, it's mildly insulting, the works!

Please come back once you're interested in an actual discussion.

Not if you embrace the curse and don't change alignment. If you're neutral good and embrace your werebear curse, the DM has no more grounds to NPC you than he does the human fighter next to you.

You have been utterly incapable of meeting any of my points head on. So since a wall of text is beyond your reading comprehension, I will simplify:

No "good" character would choose to go on a monthly, uncontrolled, bloodthirsty rampage. No "good" PCs or NPCs would willingly allow such a creature to roam free in populated areas (werebears are hermitic loners).

You can embrace the curse all you want, and regardless of what alignment you are the DM can (and should) take control of your character once a month. And then hand over a list of all the people you managed to kill. Just because the MM didn't write out all of the negative aspects of lycanthropy in painstaking detail doesn't mean that the writers intended for the disease to be the munchkin's path to power with no consequences. They left it in the hands of the DM to judge, which is awesome. It becomes a DM's tool, not a player tool. Any player foolish enough to purposely get bitten is deserving of the full capabilities of the DM's imagination to make his life hell.

It's a disease with horrific consequences, and any DM worth their DM screen would know how to work that. As does everyone in this thread not named "Eslin."

You keep making a case for what you want it to be, not what it is.

[Arzanyos]

Really, I think what Eslin is missing here is although Lycanthropy may not change your alignment(NG, get Werebeared, still NG) this doesn't mean it won't change your personality. For example, if you were Tiree Huger the neutral good elf druid, who loves All the ThingsTM, you will not be the same after getting bitten by a werebear. The bear's aspect will become a part of you, and so you'll probably now feel like hunting down some evildoers and smiting them. Several times, if need be.

[MustacheFart]

Really, I think what Eslin is missing here is although Lycanthropy may not change your alignment(NG, get Werebeared, still NG) this doesn't mean it won't change your personality. For example, if you were Tiree Huger the neutral good elf druid, who loves All the ThingsTM, you will not be the same after getting bitten by a werebear. The bear's aspect will become a part of you, and so you'll probably now feel like hunting down some evildoers and smiting them. Several times, if need be.

What if you're bit by Winnie the (were)Pooh bear? Do you have an uncontrollable thirst for honey?


Seriously though, I wouldn't think a werebear player would feel compelled to hunt down some evildoers. There description pretty much paints them as reclusive hermits who rarely leave their cave.

[Sartharina]

Not if you embrace the curse and don't change alignment. If you're neutral good and embrace your werebear curse, the DM has no more grounds to NPC you than he does the human fighter next to you.No you don't - just because two things share an alignment doesn't mean that they act the same. If you embrace the curse, even if you don't change alignment, you will still become a fundamentally different person.

And - it's also implied that Werebears are still viscious and uncontrolled when transformed (See - Beorn attacking the dwarves in The Hobbit)

[Soular]

Really, I think what Eslin is missing here is...

Pretty much everything about lycanthropy being a curse.

He is trying to sell the idea that players that get bitten can just shrug and say, "I'm cool with it." And now they get all the mechanical benefits of being a were-critter, with none of the RP blow back. Therefore, you'd be playing 5E wrong if you didn't immediately set out to get bitten from day one, because the designers totally intended that you get a huge increase in ability without any drawbacks.

[MukkTB]

Eslin I agree with you that lycanthropy is imbalanced. I agree that WotC's design philosophy is slightly frustrating. A simpler edition should be simpler to balance. In fact many of the worst imbalances aren't from unforeseen interactions, but single things. I agree that lycanthropy is one of these things. The very text of lycanthropy calls for balance through DM fiat. That's a terrible place to be. The game should strive to be good on its own.


I was going to suggest letting it be. I was going to suggest that it was possible to swing the whole thing around by making the argument that a bite by a werewolf or wereboar was essentially a save or die because you lose control of the character. When it happens you have to wait for the party to get you the right mid level cleric magic, or you have to roll up a new character. Its not much more unreasonable than arguing about the stupid ID. So I went through the rules and the fluff to gather information in support of that idea. Instead I got something much worse. The fluff reads that a lycanthrope can resist the curse. They only lose control on the full moon. The fluff doesn't specify, but I'm going to assume that means the DM gets to control the character at that time. No rules specify solar periods, so I'm going to assume the moon is full an average of once a month like in real life. Furthermore the fluff specifies when the moon rises, so I will interpret that as a requirement for a full moon that is in the sky. The day of the full moon doesn't count until the moon is actually in the sky. All the rest of the time the player retains full control of the character.


I'm left with this impression. I'm t/n and adventuring. I get bitten by a werewolf, the most common lycanthrope, and one of the more likely to bite. I don't want to lose control of my character, so I resist the alignment change. I'm not necessarily even power gaming. I could be level 3 and my party could just not have access to remove curse. A werewolf is CR 3 so this isn't unreasonable. Furthermore I can resist the curse indefinitely. There are no saving throws against alignment change. It doesn't slowly eat away at the will somehow. What happens mechanically?
-I gain immunity to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing with non silver, nonmagic weapons.
-I gain keen hearing and smell, advantage on all perception checks depending on those senses.
-My strength rises to 15 if it wasn't already 15 or higher.
-1 night per month I have to be tied up, or ensconced in a dungeon. I have high strength so its probably best if someone keeps an eye on me during this time to prevent my escape. Good rope in large quantities, or a sturdy dungeon door would be pretty important. Maybe I should use a sedative of some sort to force myself into sleep for that duration of time. Manacles would probably be a good investment, both feet and hands. There is the issue that I might slip out of bonds if I shapechange, hmm.

That sounds like a really good deal. The best I have to compare to that would be some homebrewed religion that offered those benefits in exchange for 1 night a month of dedicated prayer to a god that will smite you for forgetting to do it. I would totally outshine the other players in my party. I could just wade into mooks and completely ignore them. In fact the last boss monster I faced didn't have a magic weapon. He had some control spells, and a great big (mundane) sword. I could have just laughed at him instead of going unconscious after he hit me twice. What if the DM starts silvering everyone's weapons? Great. the loot just became much more valuable.


I'm a bit surprised at these results. Why aren't the benefits of lycanthropy tied mechanically to the roleplaying penalty? They should only come into play in the Hybrid or animal form.

[Abithrios]

You have been utterly incapable of meeting any of my points head on. So since a wall of text is beyond your reading comprehension, I will simplify:

No "good" character would choose to go on a monthly, uncontrolled, bloodthirsty rampage. No "good" PCs or NPCs would willingly allow such a creature to roam free in populated areas (werebears are hermitic loners).

You can embrace the curse all you want, and regardless of what alignment you are the DM can (and should) take control of your character once a month. And then hand over a list of all the people you managed to kill. Just because the MM didn't write out all of the negative aspects of lycanthropy in painstaking detail doesn't mean that the writers intended for the disease to be the munchkin's path to power with no consequences. They left it in the hands of the DM to judge, which is awesome. It becomes a DM's tool, not a player tool. Any player foolish enough to purposely get bitten is deserving of the full capabilities of the DM's imagination to make his life hell.

It's a disease with horrific consequences, and any DM worth their DM screen would know how to work that. As does everyone in this thread not named "eslin."

You keep making a case for what you want it to be, not what it is.

1. My name is not eslin.

2. Mike Mearls is not my DM. I am using the tools he provided, but there is absolutely no reason that I have to use them exactly the way he says I should.

3. I would put forward as an axiom that a tool that is good for multiple purposes is better than one only for one purpose, and a tool that is good for no purpose is even worse.

4. On the other hand, this tool is poorly suited to the kind of stories my table would like to tell. Either you play with the RP consequences and ruin and/or murder the character and the player hates you and is not having fun. Or, you could let them play a lycanthrope and suddenly the player is overpowered, which may cause the other party members to start to hate you and have less fun. Or you can do both and make everyone hate you.
I suppose the second problem could be solved by giving everyone a power boost and increase the power of their enemies.

5. I offer a second axiom that doing things that makes your players have less fun is bad.

6. You may be tempted to tell me never to use lycanthropes. Doing so is akin to admitting that this tool is fairly well useless.


I think most of you will agree that it is practically impossible to use mechanics to fix bad fluff. I think that it works the other way too. Fluff cannot solve problems with mechanics.

[infinitetech]

people, this "curse" of yours,
1 it isn't always once a month, that's just for wolves,
2 there is no reason why someone couldn't already have the mindset of their beast side
3 implement a will save to control the form if not chained up
4 not all were forms are aggressive when they change by nature, some are neutral or even peaceful/skittish,
5 some forms leave more or less impact on those infected while they are "human"
6 use the old chance to die from magical disease table if an npc get infected by accident, the regular death by disease if on purpose, and the recovery table if aided through the infection by both a were of your type with more that 1 year of shifting (or another type of were with 5 or more years) lived through and a doctor around (plus a way to restrain you)
7 people have historical searched out things like this to gain power, they are usually causes of rumors, fear, distrust, or envy by commoners, but they arent immediately killed for it, that only happens when either their past is worse than the curse or they get the curse and kill innocents and can be proven to do so
8 weres are a part of life in D&D, old man withershins in the market is one for hecks sake, horny old lagomorph anyway
9 almost all arguments are based on worst case senarious
10 people who are weak in one way or another, the dolt who wants to understand, the child of pox who wishes to play, the burnt man who cant live in a bubble any more, the hunter, blinded by a branch, the woman whose facial marks keep her from matching her personality, or the grandfather who cant tie a lie after a stroke, they all might seek out a were infection in order to help them
11 make the transformation cost exp equal to a certain number of levels to balance, they are now in exp debt and need to repay it

[archaeo]

I think most of you will agree that it is practically impossible to use mechanics to fix bad fluff. I think that it works the other way too. Fluff cannot solve problems with mechanics.

No, "impossible" is a really strong word, and I disagree with your axioms.

In the case of mechanics "fixing" bad fluff, I point you toward 40 years of lousy DMs telling lousy stories starting in lousy taverns. D&D in particular and TRPGs generally work in large part because playing the game is fun even when the fluff is a complete afterthought.

Fluff "fixing" bad mechanics is not a bad way to go either. "Fluff" can provide a lot more flexibility than "rules;" the lycanthropy fluff is the reason that most DMs will be able to say, "No, Eslin, your character can't be a werebear fanboy who just wants to get bit," while other DMs can say "Hell yes, Eslin, your Fighter totally goes on a quest to become a werebear, that is awesome." I don't really like the word "fix" for what's happening here -- lycanthropy isn't a bad mechanic, just a powerful one to be used with care -- but fluff, in addition to providing a default description for what's happening, also works really well as a guide to using the mechanics in the way the designers thought made the game more fun.

[Soular]

4. On the other hand, this tool is poorly suited to the kind of stories my table would like to tell. Either you play with the RP consequences and ruin and/or murder the character and the player hates you and is not having fun. Or, you could let them play a lycanthrope and suddenly the player is overpowered, which may cause the other party members to start to hate you and have less fun. Or you can do both and make everyone hate you.

I do not think we are talking about the same thing. A character who is bitten unwillingly can rid himself of the curse fairly easily. In the meantime, what happens happens, it's a role-playing game. However, the idea that someone can, no should, get the disease on purpose is lame. Any player that built his character with this in mind is equally lame. If I saw a fighter use STR as his dump stat and then start inquiring about nearby werebears at level one, I would slap Eslin so hard his character would soil himself. Then I would eject him from my home.


I think most of you will agree that it is practically impossible to use mechanics to fix bad fluff. I think that it works the other way too. Fluff cannot solve problems with mechanics.

In this case, the mechanics and fluff go hand in hand. I like it. It puts the decisions and power in the hands of the DM, who has to moderate for the entire group. It is not an instant I-win button for the player to wave under the DM's nose.

[MukkTB]

"I don't like how you play and I wouldn't let you play in my group."

That's certainly valid, but I don't think its necessarily constructive for debate about raw. The important thing for dealing with the 'quality' of RAW is what the RAW brings to the table, not what any given DM brings to the table, or refuses to allow at the table.

[Valraukar]

"I don't like how you play and I wouldn't let you play in my group."

That's certainly valid, but I don't think its necessarily constructive for debate about raw. The important thing for dealing with the 'quality' of RAW is what the RAW brings to the table, not what any given DM brings to the table, or refuses to allow at the table.

Look at these posts, what debate? More importantly, the RAW are purposefully ambiguous on the topic; by default, the DM (as in all such cases) has the final word: judge, jury, executioner.

[Soular]

"I don't like how you play and I wouldn't let you play in my group."

That's certainly valid, but I don't think its necessarily constructive for debate about raw. The important thing for dealing with the 'quality' of RAW is what the RAW brings to the table, not what any given DM brings to the table, or refuses to allow at the table.

Only this isn't a tabletop wargame with a distinct winner and loser, like 40K. This is a role-playing game, so RAW takes a backseat to RAI and common sense. This is what Eslin said:


However, RAW, lycanthropy (werebear in particular) is a straight upgrade. As mentioned before, any good character I make that is sufficiently logical will automatically attempt to become a werebear at some point in order to get more powerful and protect the innocent.

Only, power without consequence isn't RAW. It's cherry-picking just the parts of the rules that you want, and willfully ignoring the rest. D&D is a roleplaying game, and as such the fluff that Eslin is ignoring in the flavor text does have weight. The designers fully intended to leave the handling of the curse in the hands of the DM, as they should. Can you imagine how convoluted the rules would get if they had to try and create a mechanical resolution for every situation that could crop up? Do you really think that by omitting detailed rules on the curse's effects they meant to provide carte blanche for this type of power-gaming?

There is a simple question that people seem to be ignoring: Do the game designers feel that a PC being impervious to mundane weapons with absolutely zero repercussions is kosher?

What do you think?

[infinitetech]

also, lore wise most were creatures even the somewhat loner ones tend to form communities, either a pack, a small family or two, several families or packs, mixed were creature groups, you name it an there is lore for it some where, they aren't "usually" beasts, those are the effective version of homicidal maniacs, suicide bombers, or people who don't have the will, experience, or smarts to stay away from people when they change

also, they don't naturally hunt people, they are like the normal creature but hungry, a wolf will go after the deer before the man, a bear after fish or berries or honey, and so on

if you want to make it so the character will have VERY little chance of surviving then make all the were creature the direwere, vilewere, horridwere, or other sorts of upgraded weres from the old days (basically any template can be added according to how the old stuff worked)

[Soular]

also, lore wise most were creatures even the somewhat loner ones tend to form communities, either a pack, a small family or two, several families or packs, mixed were creature groups, you name it an there is lore for it some where, they aren't "usually" beasts, those are the effective version of homicidal maniacs, suicide bombers, or people who don't have the will, experience, or smarts to stay away from people when they change

also, they don't naturally hunt people, they are like the normal creature but hungry, a wolf will go after the deer before the man, a bear after fish or berries or honey, and so on

if you want to make it so the character will have VERY little chance of surviving then make all the were creature the direwere, vilewere, horridwere, or other sorts of upgraded weres from the old days (basically any template can be added according to how the old stuff worked)

Don't get me wrong, I already stated that I think the were-critter angle is good. I really like it. In fact, I would totally use it on a player to liven up their narrative, or even them up with other members of the party at high levels.

I just don't agree with Eslin's furry wank-fantasy of low level toons going out of their way to get the disease as a fast track to sh!triculous power, with no discernible consequence.

[infinitetech]

it isnt that there is no neg, its just that its entirely dm neg which is good, i was just making some suggestions, ideas, and other good points that dms or players could take from, and i have played curse seekers before, the was a dragon mag snippet about having that sort of a back story way back in the day, had items and reasons and everything

[Forum Explorer]

Not if you embrace the curse and don't change alignment. If you're neutral good and embrace your werebear curse, the DM has no more grounds to NPC you than he does the human fighter next to you.

The DM determines the alignment of the lycanthrope, and thus if you change alignment or not.



Such a binary drawback sounds terrible for actually controlling balance because it does nothing until the DM actually pulls the trigger. Then it causes huge amounts of unhappiness.

It creates a pretty big reason to try and get rid of the curse. Because when I hear curse, I don't think 'powerup with nothing but pluses for myself and everyone around me'.

[Eslin]

The main problem is this: Fluff, especially ambiguous fluff, is not a good counter for mechanical power.
This is inherent in the edition itself, down to one of the most basic parts - the classes themselves. Warlocks have an inherent fluff penalty, beyond just people disliking them - warlocks make deals with fiends and the class encourages the DM to have said fiends interefere with the party, request favours and send them on errands. And what do warlocks get in exchange for this? Nothing. Sure, narratively they get a warlock's power, but warlocks are not any more powerful than anyone else. A wizard is as powerful (in reality, even more so) than a warlock, and has no fluff penalties for this.
The class design of the warlock indicates clearly that fluff penalties do not translate into mechanical benefits - to make a good story, they can interact, but they don't correlate at all.

The lycanthrope is, purposefully, ambiguous. 'With time and experience, they learn to master their shapechanging ability and can assume beast or hybrid form at all' and 'helping the new lycanthrope accept the curse in order to control it' indicate the ability to turn it on and off at will, and there are plenty of parts of the text that the DM can point to and say 'nope, you're an out of control killer' if he wants to point things in that direction. The fluff is mutable and ambiguous, which in this case is quite a good idea - werewolves have a hundred different interpretations, from out of control killers to shirtless handsome native American teenagers, and anything from full control to no control is acceptable, it depends on the kind of game your DM is running.

And none of that changes the fact that fluff penalties or bonuses clearly do not have anything to do with mechanical penalties and bonuses. Mechanical bonuses need to be cancelled out with corresponding penalties and vice versa, fluff cannot be used as a balancing measure.


Don't get me wrong, I already stated that I think the were-critter angle is good. I really like it. In fact, I would totally use it on a player to liven up their narrative, or even them up with other members of the party at high levels.

I just don't agree with Eslin's furry wank-fantasy of low level toons going out of their way to get the disease as a fast track to sh!triculous power, with no discernible consequence.

The consequence is campaign and DM dependent. It's a mechanical upgrade completely free of mechanical penalties, which is poor game design especially with fluff so ambiguous.


You have been utterly incapable of meeting any of my points head on. So since a wall of text is beyond your reading comprehension, I will simplify:

No "good" character would choose to go on a monthly, uncontrolled, bloodthirsty rampage. No "good" PCs or NPCs would willingly allow such a creature to roam free in populated areas (werebears are hermitic loners).

You can embrace the curse all you want, and regardless of what alignment you are the DM can (and should) take control of your character once a month. And then hand over a list of all the people you managed to kill. Just because the MM didn't write out all of the negative aspects of lycanthropy in painstaking detail doesn't mean that the writers intended for the disease to be the munchkin's path to power with no consequences. They left it in the hands of the DM to judge, which is awesome. It becomes a DM's tool, not a player tool. Any player foolish enough to purposely get bitten is deserving of the full capabilities of the DM's imagination to make his life hell.

It's a disease with horrific consequences, and any DM worth their DM screen would know how to work that. As does everyone in this thread not named "Eslin."

You keep making a case for what you want it to be, not what it is.

Again with the insults! I'm just going to go ahead and ignore you from now on, I'm happy to listen to constructive arguments or criticism, not super happy about being spoken to like this.

[thereaper]

No you don't - just because two things share an alignment doesn't mean that they act the same. If you embrace the curse, even if you don't change alignment, you will still become a fundamentally different person.

And - it's also implied that Werebears are still viscious and uncontrolled when transformed (See - Beorn attacking the dwarves in The Hobbit)

I don't see anything in the lycanthrope rules that says you become an npc when you get turned into a lycanthrope of the same alignment. In fact, I don't even see anything indicating that it changes your personality. We're not talking about houserules here.


You have been utterly incapable of meeting any of my points head on. So since a wall of text is beyond your reading comprehension, I will simplify:

No "good" character would choose to go on a monthly, uncontrolled, bloodthirsty rampage. No "good" PCs or NPCs would willingly allow such a creature to roam free in populated areas (werebears are hermitic loners).

You can embrace the curse all you want, and regardless of what alignment you are the DM can (and should) take control of your character once a month. And then hand over a list of all the people you managed to kill. Just because the MM didn't write out all of the negative aspects of lycanthropy in painstaking detail doesn't mean that the writers intended for the disease to be the munchkin's path to power with no consequences. They left it in the hands of the DM to judge, which is awesome. It becomes a DM's tool, not a player tool. Any player foolish enough to purposely get bitten is deserving of the full capabilities of the DM's imagination to make his life hell.

It's a disease with horrific consequences, and any DM worth their DM screen would know how to work that. As does everyone in this thread not named "Eslin."

You keep making a case for what you want it to be, not what it is.

Nothing that you just said applies to werebears.

Eslin isn't trying to say that lycanthropy should be okay. He is saying that by the rules as they are currently written, there is no logical reason for an adventurer under the right conditions (same alignment and personality, some downtime, and no squeamishness about it) to not try to become one.

And you know what? He's right. It's a straight buff. The only possible negative consequences are RP ones that can be avoided simply by never transforming.

Is this a good thing? Absolutely not! But unless houserules are employed, there really is no logical reason for half of all Good adventurers to not be werebears. That is the problem being raised here, and there is no RAW solution.

[unwise]

The balance concerns around lycanthrope that I hear at my FLGS puzzle me a bit. A holy avenger and gauntlets of giant strength are not balanced either. If the DM wants to give them to a first level character, it will stuff up game balance, but they can. I just don't see how a rare disease/curse is much different. Where does the sense of PC entitlement come from? Why should it be balanced?

[Eslin]

The balance concerns around lycanthrope that I hear at my FLGS puzzle me a bit. A holy avenger and gauntlets of giant strength are not balanced either. If the DM wants to give them to a first level character, it will stuff up game balance, but they can. I just don't see how a rare disease/curse is much different. Where does the sense of PC entitlement come from? Why should it be balanced?

Honestly the main annoyance for me regarding the gauntlets is they set your strength to 19 - it rewards players more the lower their strength is, which should not be the case. For an item like that, the automatic response should be 'give them to the fighter' not 'I guess give them to the cleric, the fighter has 18 strength and the cleric has 12 so there's really no reason to give this strength boosting item to the main strength users'.

And it's not really entitlement, it's that the curse doesn't work the same way magic items do. For a specific magic item you need to make, buy or loot it, since it is a singular object created at moderate to great cost. If you have it, it means someone else is not having it, while lycanthropy doesn't cost the person giving it anything.

[Steel Mirror]

The balance concerns around lycanthrope that I hear at my FLGS puzzle me a bit. A holy avenger and gauntlets of giant strength are not balanced either. If the DM wants to give them to a first level character, it will stuff up game balance, but they can. I just don't see how a rare disease/curse is much different. Where does the sense of PC entitlement come from? Why should it be balanced?QFT. It's a problem if the DM is new or careless, but this is exactly the sort of issue that most DMs have to deal with pretty early in their career. In fact, I'd argue that lycanthropy is less disruptive than super powerful loot giveaways because it is easier for the DM to insist that there are negatives associated with becoming a rampaging monster than convincing a player that he should be okay with turning in that magical sword you accidentally rolled on the loot table two sessions ago before you realized how OP it would be.

[infinitetech]

steel, thats why you always keep the item's "drawback card" hidden, even if its blank hahaha, but i do agree, you can always make people hear stories of monsterous people, item you may be able to steal or acid away or something but... :-/

[archaeo]

And none of that changes the fact that fluff penalties or bonuses clearly do not have anything to do with mechanical penalties and bonuses. Mechanical bonuses need to be cancelled out with corresponding penalties and vice versa, fluff cannot be used as a balancing measure.

Man, half the problem is the word "fluff." A better term would be "narrative," insofar as in this case and in many others, fluff provides the DM with options for narrative power. Compare this with the wish rules, or the sidebars that point out that necromancy is kind of evil. It says, "Here are all these cool mechanical ways lycanthropy affects the PC, and here are all these narrative reasons why you don't have to hand curses out like candy."

In a game that is all about telling a story, it's okay to give the storyteller all the options. Those gauntlets can just never appear in your campaign if you think they're dumb; you can make sure every player is equipped with them. Hopefully, the DMG will include some advice on how to handle games where you give out bonuses like "being a werebear" or "insane flying armor." A table of balancing encounters between monsters, however rough, would be really cool too.

But whatever, we're talking past each other, though, as thereaper points out:


Eslin isn't trying to say that lycanthropy should be okay. He is saying that by the rules as they are currently written, there is no logical reason for an adventurer under the right conditions (same alignment and personality, some downtime, and no squeamishness about it) to not try to become one.

And you know what? He's right. It's a straight buff. The only possible negative consequences are RP ones that can be avoided simply by never transforming.

Is this a good thing? Absolutely not! But unless houserules are employed, there really is no logical reason for half of all Good adventurers to not be werebears. That is the problem being raised here, and there is no RAW solution.

I don't see why it's such a bad thing; after a certain level, maybe in lieu of magic items or something, becoming a master of lycanthropy could be a sweet "PC powers up/gains character development" plot hook. But in the case of a player coming into the game as a level 1 Fighter and saying "My goal is to find a werebear and get bit as soon as possible," it's not a house rule for the DM to just not shove a werebear in front of you.

The logical reasons for avoiding lycanthropy probably will always be rooted in narrative control. The same is true of vampirism, an altogether more powerful template which only requires that you're already lawful evil. The game hands you a bunch of fluff, already done, to tell you why players can't just take it because it's "logical." The fluff is the rules as they are written, in the MM. A stat block doesn't explain everything about a monster, and if you're going to refluff it or repurpose it, the old fluff should probably guide you.

[Eslin]

Man, half the problem is the word "fluff." A better term would be "narrative," insofar as in this case and in many others, fluff provides the DM with options for narrative power. Compare this with the wish rules, or the sidebars that point out that necromancy is kind of evil. It says, "Here are all these cool mechanical ways lycanthropy affects the PC, and here are all these narrative reasons why you don't have to hand curses out like candy."

In a game that is all about telling a story, it's okay to give the storyteller all the options. Those gauntlets can just never appear in your campaign if you think they're dumb; you can make sure every player is equipped with them. Hopefully, the DMG will include some advice on how to handle games where you give out bonuses like "being a werebear" or "insane flying armor." A table of balancing encounters between monsters, however rough, would be really cool too.

But whatever, we're talking past each other, though, as thereaper points out:



I don't see why it's such a bad thing; after a certain level, maybe in lieu of magic items or something, becoming a master of lycanthropy could be a sweet "PC powers up/gains character development" plot hook. But in the case of a player coming into the game as a level 1 Fighter and saying "My goal is to find a werebear and get bit as soon as possible," it's not a house rule for the DM to just not shove a werebear in front of you.

The logical reasons for avoiding lycanthropy probably will always be rooted in narrative control. The same is true of vampirism, an altogether more powerful template which only requires that you're already lawful evil. The game hands you a bunch of fluff, already done, to tell you why players can't just take it because it's "logical." The fluff is the rules as they are written, in the MM. A stat block doesn't explain everything about a monster, and if you're going to refluff it or repurpose it, the old fluff should probably guide you.

That's fair enough, I wouldn't just throw a werebear in someone's path if they wanted to become one unless they were falling behind the other players. Though tracking down one is always going to be possible if one exists thanks to divination spells, it makes a nice side quest. Lycanthropy being handed out like candy seems unlikely unless that's part of the setting (currently writing one up thanks to this thread about a war between the various types of lycanthrope with the common people stuck in the middle).

Though to my mind, looking at the fluff I'd expect organisations of wererats and werebears that go around turning people to their cause to exist in pretty much any setting.