PDA

View Full Version : Lycanthropic inequities



Morgan_Scott82
2007-03-19, 03:14 PM
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all lycanthropes were created equal...Oh wait, thats right, they weren't.

So I've got a wild hair to play a really off the wall character in an upcoming game and one of the more interesting ideas that popped into my head was a halfling weremonkey sorcerer. So I did a little footwork to figure out the weremonkey template and I have discovered that the Lycanthrope template doesn't work equally well for all animals.

What I mean is this: for the same +2 LA (or +3 for natural lycanthropes) you could have my proposed weremonkey with -10 Str, +6 Dex a climb speed, racial bonuses to climb and balance and a 1d3 bite attack, or a werebear with +16 Str, +2 Dex, +8 Con, Improved Grab, two 1d8 claw attacks and a 2d6 bite attack and a racial bonus to swim. Both have the typical lycanthropic goodies so they are equal in that regard and I've not listed them hear. Do these two sets of abilities warrent the same levle adjustment? My opinion is no they do not.

One arguement could be that the required racial hit die of the Werebear, and therefore the level of play that one would be able to use such a template, are much higher than those of the weremonkey and therefore these two could be considered equal. I disagree. The racial hit dice of the werebear are hit dice, and behave in every way like hit dice, meaning that they're providing that werebear with BAB, feats, and ability increases. Reading through savage species (a questionable source I know) the theory regarding level adjustment is that it should account for the creatures ability adjustments special attacks and special qualities, while its racial hit dice account for its BAB, feats, and other level dependant benefits. Therefore the werebears racial hit die are irrelevant to discussion of the appropriate LA.

In light of this I've come to the conclusion that in games that I DM, the different lycanthrope templates will need to be evaluated and assigned LA on an individual basis as a single LA regardless of animal type leads to widely dispairate results at what should be a mostly consistant power level.

I'm not necessarily looking to discuss just these two example I've provided here but the lycanthrope template in general in an attempt to evaluate its application accross the full spectrum of animals. While consensus is always nice I'm more interested in hearing discenting opinions or new perspectives. Do you think my case by case approach is wise? Do you feel the system works well as currently designed and implemented? Have you made any attempts to modify this template for your own games? I'm interested in any and all opinions.

Thanks,

Morgan

Jasdoif
2007-03-19, 03:24 PM
Both have the typical lycanthropic goodies so they are equal in that regard and I've not listed them hear. Do these two sets of abilities warrent the same levle adjustment? My opinion is no they do not.Yes, they do. The level adjustment accounts for those "typical lycanthropic goodies" you haven't listed. The rest of the abilities come with the base animal, and are "paid for" with that animal's hit dice.

InaVegt
2007-03-19, 03:24 PM
The additional strength and such could be considered class abilities, because honestly, monstroud hit dice with nothing special is slightly more powerful than an NPC class at best, and most likely roughly equal to the expert on combat and the warrior on skills.

Zincorium
2007-03-19, 03:28 PM
Well, for one, animal hit dice are just flat out terrible. No casting, no special abilities, poor BAB, few skills, and the dice themselves are not very large.

Secondly, you only get those stat changes when in hybrid or animal form, as the base creature you only get a +2 to wisdom regardless of were form.

Thirdly, you get equal damage reduction, and that's a major part of the LA.

Fourthly, racial hit dice are a balancing factor for most types because they reduce the power level of the character compared to a classed character of equal HD. So no, not irrelevant, or at least not supposed to be. Savage species is 3.0, and so a lot of the philosophies that got developed further in 3.5 aren't evident there.

Fifthly, were-rats aren't based off normal rats, they're based off of dire rats. Probably you should take the stats off of a 'dire monkey' to use as the template. Granted, this will require home brewing, but you're doing that anyway with the weremonkey.

PinkysBrain
2007-03-19, 03:31 PM
a halfling weremonkey sorcerer.
Works as a NPC, not as a PC.

Casters and high ECL races don't mix ... and as has been said, you need to count the animal HD towards your character level and not just the LA.

Morgan_Scott82
2007-03-19, 03:36 PM
Yes, they do. The level adjustment accounts for those "typical lycanthropic goodies" you haven't listed. The rest of the abilities come with the base animal, and are "paid for" with that animal's hit dice.

I agree that the +2 LA is good to cover the typical lycanthropic goodies, however to assume that the other abilities are "paid for" with racial hit dice isn't internally consistant with the level adjustment system as a whole, for instance, my understanding is that the Lamia's +4 LA is meant to cover its ability score adjustments, racial skill bonuses, its spell like abilities and its wisdom drain attack, and that its hit dice are used to determine BAB, feats and ability increases.


The additional strength and such could be considered class abilities, because honestly, monstroud hit dice with nothing special is slightly more powerful than an NPC class at best, and most likely roughly equal to the expert on combat and the warrior on skills.

While this might make sense it does not fit with my understanding of the level adjustment system as a whole, where all ability score adjustments, special attacks and special qualities are inlcuded in the LA and all that racial hit dice provide are level dependent benefits such as BAB, feats and ability score increases. Otherwise in order to have a consistant system we would have to determine what would be "considered class abilities" for every other creature with a level adjustment.

I don't mean to be beligerant, though my comments are somewhat adversarial. Thank you both for your thoughts and I would welcome more comments from anyone who would like to contribute.

Morgan_Scott82
2007-03-19, 03:41 PM
Works as a NPC, not as a PC.

Casters and high ECL races don't mix ... and as has been said, you need to count the animal HD towards your character level and not just the LA.

I understand this would be considerably behind the power curve of a non-LA character, and am interested in playing it despite this fact.

I understand the need to include the racial hit dice, my point was that the LA system uses LA to account for Ability increases, special attacks, special qualities, racial skill bonuses and movement modes, while all racial HD determined was BAB, feats and ability increases. I assumed this is why racial HD are always regarded as sub-par since they lack all class features.

Presuming my understanding of the LA system is accurate (please let me know if I've messed something up) then in the case of the lycanthrope the LA would need to cover all abilities gained other than BAB, feats and ability increases from HD. Since those other abilities differ from one animal to the next I feel a blanket LA for all lycanthropes is inappropriate.



Well, for one, animal hit dice are just flat out terrible. No casting, no special abilities, poor BAB, few skills, and the dice themselves are not very large.

Secondly, you only get those stat changes when in hybrid or animal form, as the base creature you only get a +2 to wisdom regardless of were form.

Thirdly, you get equal damage reduction, and that's a major part of the LA.

Fourthly, racial hit dice are a balancing factor for most types because they reduce the power level of the character compared to a classed character of equal HD. So no, not irrelevant, or at least not supposed to be. Savage species is 3.0, and so a lot of the philosophies that got developed further in 3.5 aren't evident there.

Fifthly, were-rats aren't based off normal rats, they're based off of dire rats. Probably you should take the stats off of a 'dire monkey' to use as the template. Granted, this will require home brewing, but you're doing that anyway with the weremonkey.

Your first two point are things that I understand but didn't feel relevant to this discussion.

Regarding your latter points, yes I agree that the Damage reduction is a large part of the +2 level adjustment and I feel this is an appropriate LA for the base abilities afforded to all lycanthropes. My concern was that the additional benefits, which differed based on choice of base animal, were not the same and not accounted for in the LA. I understand the dubious nature of relying on or pointing to savage species as an authority due to its publication in the late 3.0 days.

It is sounding like my understanding of the LA system, is differing from the majority. Perhaps I need to re-evaluate my initial assumption.

Zincorium
2007-03-19, 03:43 PM
While this might make sense it does not fit with my understanding of the level adjustment system as a whole, where all ability score adjustments, special attacks and special qualities are inlcuded in the LA and all that racial hit dice provide are level dependent benefits such as BAB, feats and ability score increases. Otherwise in order to have a consistant system we would have to determine what would be "considered class abilities" for every other creature with a level adjustment.

Some hit dice are better or worse than others. The same is not supposed to be true of classes, but as far as racial hit dice go it's not even a matter of opinion. Check what you get for a level of animal or humanoid vs. a level of dragon or outsider. No judgement calls, just better numbers.

And no we wouldn't. What racial hit dice are is a way to keep a PC character reasonably similiar in terms of hit points, skills and feats while still balancing out abilities. The abilities aren't class abilities, that's just an easy way to think of it when determining balance, because you lose class abilities for each monster hit dice you have, and even if that's just a feat or two in the case of a fighter, it hurts the character's power level.

PinkysBrain
2007-03-19, 03:46 PM
Stronger creatures have higher HD. You pay for the higher abilities by having more sucky levels.

Why don't you try to play to your strengths rather than your weaknesses? Playing to your weaknesses creates an character which lacks verisimilitude (unless he has an exceptional lack of wisdom, in ability scores and during the game ... otherwise it's just poor roleplaying IMO). If you want to be a caster lycanthrope, be a gish ... even then it's not going to be very playable until very high level.

Mewtarthio
2007-03-19, 03:49 PM
Which would you rather be: A weremonkey 1 Animal HD / 5 PC Class levels or a werebear 6 Animal HD with no class levels? That's how ECL is balanced: You compare the creature to other creatures of its ECL. As someone pointed out in another topic, the Tarrasque would probably have a negative LA simply because an ECL 48 character is so much more powerful than Big T (you wouldn't argue that all it's extra abilities, such as Regeneration and Carapace, aren't sufficiently covered by racial HD, would you?).

Closet_Skeleton
2007-03-19, 03:55 PM
I would say if it's a 1 HD creature you can drop it from Lycanthropy but by RAW you cannot.

Jasdoif
2007-03-19, 03:59 PM
Take a cleric. Remove all spellcasting. Remove domain powers. Remove turn undead. Cut back on the skill list. Switch the Reflex and Will saves. Those are animal hit dice. Stinks, huh?


Anyway, if you're going to play a halfling weremonkey, I would suggest looking into rogue. A monkey's size and the combined Dex bonus alone give you a +11 to your Hide checks, and the climb speed will make sneaking into houses and such easier. At least consider a manifester instead of a caster; the inability to use verbal components in hybrid/animal form, along with the inability to use material or somatic components in animal form, can be a real killer.

Morgan_Scott82
2007-03-19, 04:16 PM
Thanks to all of you. I recant my earlier position that racial hit dice are not a balancing feature that can offset a decpetively low LA, and accept the popular concensus that the ECL 8 werebear is balanced against the ECL 3 weremonkey.

Jasdoif, I'm was thinking about an Arcane Trickster like build, though I'm not sure I would take the actual PrC, but definitely a rogue / arcane caster multiclass. Again I understand the handicap that playing a lycanthrope caster is, its just something I've got it in my head to try at least once. Kind of play up some Sun Wukong (the chinese Monkey King myth) type figure.

Olethros
2007-03-19, 04:23 PM
Anyway, if you're going to play a halfling weremonkey, I would suggest looking into rogue. A monkey's size and the combined Dex bonus alone give you a +11 to your Hide checks, and the climb speed will make sneaking into houses and such easier. At least consider a manifester instead of a caster; the inability to use verbal components in hybrid/animal form, along with the inability to use material or somatic components in animal form, can be a real killer.

There is of corse the possibility that the OP is going for a story telling element instead of optimization. If the halfling sorcerer is bit by a weremonkey, he cant really just traid in those years of spell slinging for sneakery experience. I think it sounds like alot of fun to experiment with the dynamic of wierd combinations, so long as the DM is in the same mindset.

PinkysBrain
2007-03-19, 04:26 PM
A lycanthrope rogue sorcerer? If I was in his party I'd mercy kill him in his sleep, that character is a danger to himself and all those who rely on him by trying to be an adventurer.

Olethros
2007-03-19, 04:32 PM
Why rouge/sorc? Just stay sorcerer and have fun with it. It may not play out as powerfull by way of pure math, but a creatively played character can be usefull even without massive chops, not to mention all the fun of being forced to think outside the box.

Jasdoif
2007-03-19, 04:33 PM
There is of corse the possibility that the OP is going for a story telling element instead of optimization. If the halfling sorcerer is bit by a weremonkey, he cant really just traid in those years of spell slinging for sneakery experience. I think it sounds like alot of fun to experiment with the dynamic of wierd combinations, so long as the DM is in the same mindset.Of course. There's also the possibility that the spellcasting component restrictions got overlooked, as it's not usually the kind of thing that's mentioned in Special Attacks text.

A character based on flavor is perfectly fine, as long as there's beforehand awareness of any potential mechanical problems. Little is more aggravating than finding out in the middle of the game that you aren't allowed to do what your concept entails.

Olethros
2007-03-19, 04:39 PM
Of course. There's also the possibility that the spellcasting component restrictions got overlooked, as it's not usually the kind of thing that's mentioned in Special Attacks text.


Point, and I agree, fourwarned is fourarmed and all that.

Morgan_Scott82
2007-03-19, 04:40 PM
Of course. There's also the possibility that the spellcasting component restrictions got overlooked, as it's not usually the kind of thing that's mentioned in Special Attacks text.

A character based on flavor is perfectly fine, as long as there's beforehand awareness of any potential mechanical problems. Little is more aggravating than finding out in the middle of the game that you aren't allowed to do what your concept entails.

I was aware of the spellcasting and component restrictions. Its still somethign I want to try. If its too much of a handicap for the party after a few sessions I trust that either I will recognize this and approach the DM about a change or that my fellow players and DM will let me know how my playing this character is impacting their experience. Thank you for checking to make sure I fully understood the mechanical implications of my idea though.



Why rouge/sorc? Just stay sorcerer and have fun with it. It may not play out as powerfull by way of pure math, but a creatively played character can be usefull even without massive chops, not to mention all the fun of being forced to think outside the box.

Its entirely possibly, I'm a big fan of organic character development, so I'm going to start out Sorcerer and see what the character feels like as the game evolves. The reason I am considering rogue levels is that I'm really looking to play up the angle of the mischievious monkey common in eastern mythology, which might lend itself towards a more skillful build, however this could be done equally as well with a dilligent spell selection.

Fax Celestis
2007-03-19, 05:13 PM
Point, and I agree, fourwarned is fourarmed and all that.

No, Thri-Kreen are four-armed.

ravenkith
2007-03-19, 06:59 PM
BAD PLAYER!

NO DONUT!

Never ever go straight sorceror.

There is absolutely no reason to do that.

Plus, damn, you're taking the 'I'm an uncontrollable lycanthrope' gimped version?

You're begging to suffer, aren't you?

I promise you, this character is going to be interesting for all of five minutes.

If you want to play a halfling monkey so bad, try an anthropomorphic monkey or ape, for crying out loud. It's a helluva lot less expensive, and might actually be worth a damn.

No offense, but you're gimping yourself so bad, it's not even funny.

This is worse than the time my friend wanted to play a half-orc bard.

It's that bad.

Put it this way: you are going to be a minimum of 3 levels behind any other caster.

If you take any levels in rogue, you'll never get 9th level spells.

In addition, by the time you get 3rd level spells, you're enemies will have 5th level capabilities.

Seriously, this is very, very bad in terms of your usefulness to the party. You are hurting your friends by playing this character.

And after 4 levels you'll have 2 hd: 1d8 and a d4, with next to no con mod to speak of.

<Shakes head>.

No. Just no.

If you want to turn into a monkey, either play a druid, or get polymorph as soon as possible.

Just my 2 cents.

CASTLEMIKE
2007-03-19, 07:12 PM
Races of Faerun devoted a few pages to various types of Lycnathropes of various HD factoring in ECL and abilities for Natural and Infected.

Something to consider if you are using ECL:

The Oriental Adventures source book introudced +1 ECL spirit folk "shapechangers" the Hengeyokai intelligent shapechanging animals which included a monkey which got a -2 Wis,
(+2 Dex and +4 to climb in hybrid form), low light vision, the ability to speak with similar animal types, 3 forms: human, hybrid and animal form they could shapechange 1/day + HD/Level (as polymorph without the healing) plus they were immune to spells that specifically targeted humans as shpaechangers and their favored class was Wujen so a sorcerer or wizard would be in character.

They didn't get Iron Will or DR/Silver.........like a lycanthrope.

Hope that helps.

P.S. No reason the base race couldn't be one of the other core races like your concept for a "halfling" shapechanger instead of a human and then your concept isn't penalized by all those ECL adjustments and could technically be bought down already at level 5.

Mewtarthio
2007-03-19, 07:45 PM
If you're dead-set on playing a lycanthrope sorceror, at least try and get your DM to allow LA buyback. If you can get that in, you'll eventually end up only one level behind in spellcasting.

Morgan_Scott82
2007-03-19, 07:56 PM
BAD PLAYER!

NO DONUT!

Never ever go straight sorceror.

There is absolutely no reason to do that.

Plus, damn, you're taking the 'I'm an uncontrollable lycanthrope' gimped version?

You're begging to suffer, aren't you?

I promise you, this character is going to be interesting for all of five minutes.

If you want to play a halfling monkey so bad, try an anthropomorphic monkey or ape, for crying out loud. It's a helluva lot less expensive, and might actually be worth a damn.

No offense, but you're gimping yourself so bad, it's not even funny.

This is worse than the time my friend wanted to play a half-orc bard.

It's that bad.

Put it this way: you are going to be a minimum of 3 levels behind any other caster.

If you take any levels in rogue, you'll never get 9th level spells.

In addition, by the time you get 3rd level spells, you're enemies will have 5th level capabilities.

Seriously, this is very, very bad in terms of your usefulness to the party. You are hurting your friends by playing this character.

And after 4 levels you'll have 2 hd: 1d8 and a d4, with next to no con mod to speak of.

<Shakes head>.

No. Just no.

If you want to turn into a monkey, either play a druid, or get polymorph as soon as possible.

Just my 2 cents.

This kind of attitude frustrates me greatly. Not everyone is terribly concerned with the stats on the character sheet, yes they're an integral part of the game, but they're not the whole game. I of course intend to get the input of my fellow characters and DM before I would play such a character, just like I do with every character I play, from the straight core only human fighter, to this colorful concept I've pitched right here. If my fellow players are against it or if after a few session this isn't working out, I don't have a problem using something different, however I find it terribly frustrating that you've made the decision that because I wish to play the game a bit differently than you do I am somehow lesser or wrong.

If you had politely pointed out some of the mechanical consequences of my chosen character concept, as others have done, or expressed your concern over the relative power level of such a character, that would have been one thing. However, you elected to condescend and speak with disdain. Which I find rude and distasteful, especially since it was entirely tangential to the question that prompted the thread.

I understand your concerns and was aware of them before considered the character, and have elected to continue regardless.

brian c
2007-03-19, 09:24 PM
BAD PLAYER!

NO DONUT!

Never ever go straight sorceror.

There is absolutely no reason to do that.

Plus, damn, you're taking the 'I'm an uncontrollable lycanthrope' gimped version?

You're begging to suffer, aren't you?

I promise you, this character is going to be interesting for all of five minutes.

If you want to play a halfling monkey so bad, try an anthropomorphic monkey or ape, for crying out loud. It's a helluva lot less expensive, and might actually be worth a damn.

No offense, but you're gimping yourself so bad, it's not even funny.

This is worse than the time my friend wanted to play a half-orc bard.

It's that bad.

Put it this way: you are going to be a minimum of 3 levels behind any other caster.

If you take any levels in rogue, you'll never get 9th level spells.

In addition, by the time you get 3rd level spells, you're enemies will have 5th level capabilities.

Seriously, this is very, very bad in terms of your usefulness to the party. You are hurting your friends by playing this character.

And after 4 levels you'll have 2 hd: 1d8 and a d4, with next to no con mod to speak of.

<Shakes head>.

No. Just no.

If you want to turn into a monkey, either play a druid, or get polymorph as soon as possible.

Just my 2 cents.


A lycanthrope rogue sorcerer? If I was in his party I'd mercy kill him in his sleep, that character is a danger to himself and all those who rely on him by trying to be an adventurer.


Both of you are being insensitive to the fact that sometimes people play characters who are fun, not jsut ones who kick a lot of ass. How this character works out depends on the DM and fellow players; if the DM is nice then he/she would scale down the encounters a little bit to compensate for underpowered-ness, if necessary.

Looks like a really fun character to play Morgan.

Zincorium
2007-03-19, 10:32 PM
Both of you are being insensitive to the fact that sometimes people play characters who are fun, not jsut ones who kick a lot of ass. How this character works out depends on the DM and fellow players; if the DM is nice then he/she would scale down the encounters a little bit to compensate for underpowered-ness, if necessary.

Looks like a really fun character to play Morgan.

A character with a fun-sounding but mechanically terrible concept is not necessarily going to be a fun character, and really, any character you play should be fun or you should try something else. And 'insensitive' isn't applicable here, the OP was complaining about feeling gimped, and they are.

I stand by my dire monkey suggestion, since it has precedent, and second the LA buyback as something to ask the DM about. Eventually the character would end up reasonable in power.

The thing is, it's a pain in the ass to DM for both overpowered and underpowered characters, because everything is based around a theoretical middle ground. If you play the character straight up as you've described, make sure your DM sees the numbers and realizes all the things that you cannot and will not ever be able to do.

The DM well within his rights to veto your character if the others are reasonably well optimized, because either the encounters will be a walk in the park for everyone except you, your character will die very quickly in combat and reduce everyone's treasure because they resurrect you, or the DM will have to play favorites and treat you differently. This is, to put it bluntly, unworkable.

If, and only if, the other players are each playing something of relatively similar power levels (orcish bards, etc.), then the DM can just go easy on monsters, traps, and other challenges without worrying too much about you getting bored. XP will come slowly, but that's to some people's taste.

AtomicKitKat
2007-03-19, 11:16 PM
I could have sworn you could drop the HD if it had only 1. Doesn't apply to Therianthropes? Hmm. If you're going to go caster route, I suggest stocking up on plenty of Ray spells, to take advantage of your higher Dexterity. Going Weapon Finesse will help with delivering Touch spells(which you can "carry the charge" of between shapes).

PinkysBrain
2007-03-20, 04:31 AM
Both of you are being insensitive to the fact that sometimes people play characters who are fun, not jsut ones who kick a lot of ass.
I don't see what's fun about making a character weak and then playing him as if he is strong. It destroys the verisimilitude of the game, it's both metagaming and bad roleplaying for the same reason as when someone plays a barbarian with int 6/wis 6 as a tactical genious.

I don't have double standards in that respect, there has to be some correlation between your character ability and the way you roleplay him. If you are incompetent play your character as such, don't try to pretend otherwise. Certainly don't force your party members to pretend otherwise.

Quietus
2007-03-20, 07:24 AM
First off - any time there's only one HD involved, it gets dropped in favor of the class the person takes. So the +2 LA is ONLY a +2 LA. Which can, potentially, be bought back at a later date. I likes them rules. Potentially, you could be playing without LA by level 9... that's not too shabby.

Just keep in mind, the first few levels are going to be an enormous pain. Consider talking to your DM about waiving the requirement of Wild Shape and allowing you to take Natural Spell, to cast spells in your hybrid form. Good times may be had by all!

Despite the general consensus, I think this could potentially be a fun character to play. The DR (5/silver, assuming you're afflicted) will help offset the low hit dice in the low levels, and certainly can't hurt in the later. If you're a natural lycanthrope, that 10/silver DR will make it so that for the first few levels, almost NOTHING can hurt you, ever. Pretty sweet deal. Plus the idea of a monkey casting spells amuses me.

hewhosaysfish
2007-03-20, 07:27 AM
I don't see what's fun about making a character weak and then playing him as if he is strong. It destroys the verisimilitude of the game, it's both metagaming and bad roleplaying for the same reason as when someone plays a barbarian with int 6/wis 6 as a tactical genious.

I don't have double standards in that respect, there has to be some correlation between your character ability and the way you roleplay him. If you are incompetent play your character as such, don't try to pretend otherwise. Certainly don't force your party members to pretend otherwise.

I agree with you barbaian example but it has nothing to do with the current debate: whether having a non-twinked character is a valid option.

If the character doesn't have the ranks in the skills, he fails the rolls.
If the character doesn't know the spells, he can't cast the spells.
That doesn't depend on roleplaying, that's just... just... that's the rules of the frigging game!

As long as Morgan doesn't try this...

Morgan: ... I got a 11 on Move Silently.
DM: Not good enough- them kobold got 14 Listen and he hears you.
Morgan: No he doesn't!
DM: ... Why not?
Morgan: Because my monkey is awesome! He's super-sneaky, ninja style!
DM: ... The kobold got 14. The kobold hears him.
Morgan: No, he can't!
DM: HE DOES! AND THAT'S IT!
Morgan: Stupid kobold- I cast Meteor Swarm on him!
DM: You only have 3 levels in sorceror.
Morgan: But he's a magic ninja monkey!

... then I don't see how having a halfing were-monkey arcane trickster "destroys verisimilitude" (other than being pretty fricking weird) or qualifies as "metagaming and bad roleplaying".

EDIT:
Quietus, but there's not only one HD involved. Halflings, like most playable humanoids, forgoe their first HD of humanoid for class levels.

PinkysBrain
2007-03-20, 08:24 AM
First off - any time there's only one HD involved, it gets dropped in favor of the class the person takes.
Essentially true, but the lycanthrope's animal HD is never a character's first HD. It's always on top of the class or racial HD.

Hew, how about this ... "take me in the party, I'm a good rogue." "A good rogue is someone who can't even sneak past a kobold? I don't think so, on your way little monkey."

ravenkith
2007-03-20, 09:07 AM
Hey fellas, guess what?

Real world calling.

Your heading for this thread is 'Lycanthropic inequities'. Not mine: yours. I'm just pointing some out.

With a lycanthrope, you do not get to drop the 1 HD.

With racial hd, yes, this applies if 1 hd or below.

But this is not a race: it's a template you are tacking on to your character, as such, you cannot drop the 1 hd.

Morgan, I'm sorry you didn't like my tone; I was trying to joke around (the whole bad player: no donut thing is a riff on a well-known joke, and should have given you a heads up to my intentions, if you were paying attention and not just knee-jerking).

In all seriousness, I have a friend who has the same problem as you, Morgan. He gets these ideas which he thinks sound cool, and is absolutely determined to play them, against all advice. The most famous of these was the time he tried to play a half-orc bard, as I previously mentioned.

It's not just a bad idea: it's a ruinously bad idea.

As a player at a game table, you come, bringing your dice and your books, wanting to have some fun. So does everybody else.

The players and the DM have a responsibility to each other to make sure that everyone is having fun. I'm pretty sure no-one's going to argue with this; a good player cares about the fun the others are having as well as his own.

If you consider yourself a good player, for the love of pete, do not play this character.

Why?

Quite simply, because any group has a finite number of PCs, and each PC has to be able to carry their own weight in order for the group to fight effectively, and not get slaughtered at every turn.

It is not fun to have to put up with what are colloquially known as 'xp sponges': PCs who sit around and don't contribute much of anything.

The character you have designed is one of these particular creatures.

First, you have the lycanthrope template. In case you haven't figured it out yet, lycanthropy is best used to create extremely focused, physical aspect characters. You can tell because the primary features it grants are:
1. Natural armor
2. Damage reduction
3. physical attribute mods

The key word here is focused: if you don't have one key physical stat that your class is built around (say con for a barbarian, strength for a fighter, or dex for a rogue) then this template is simply too expensive regardless of how many HD you are paying.

Second, you are planning on having caster levels. If you want to carry your own weight, you should never, ever, ever give up more than two caster levels for non-caster levels, and if you do give even those two up, you should be getting something bloody amazing in return. Your key stat is going to mental: INT WIS or CHA.

Why? Because as you level up, so do your enemies: their saves increase, and every level you give up is a 5% greater chance that they have to beat your spells. Add into the equation the spell resistance that some critters get, and you find yourself in the unenviable position of learning only buff spells because your 'attack' spells are useless.

Third, in addition to the three levels lost already to lycanthrope, you're looking to compound the error with levels of rogue. Yet more lost caster levels, putting you even further into useless territory.

In addition, you will not have the skill points to max out the traditional rogue skills appropriate for your level, meaning that more often than not, your character is going to have trouble with common rogue tasks.

I'll tell you again: you have a responsibility to the other players in the game to play a character who can at least carry his own weight and fulfill one of the primary party roles of rogue, mage, cleric or thief.

If you don't bring an at least capable character to the table, who can perform adequately one of the primary roles, then you are nothing more than a burden to the party. While you may be having fun with your wierd and useless crap, your friends will get tired of carrying your dead weight.

The whole "I ask if it's ok" thing carries no water: these people are your friends, and don't want to piss you off over a badly designed character. But they will resent having to carry your ass every time you get an equal cut of the loot and the xp when you didn't do a damn thing to earn it.

Human nature. They can't help it. Human beings resent it when people get something for free off of their labor without deserving it.

The lesson to take away from all this:

So, if you want to play a lycanthrope, play a rogue.

If you want to play an arcane trickster, don't be a lycanthrope.


In addition, if you take levels in sorceror for any reason, get into a full-caster progression prestige class ASAP, as after first level, you get nothing worth keeping from the class beyond casting anyway.

Suggestion:

If you must go arcane trickster, this is the build I'd use, despite not liking the three levels of rogue at all.
Strongheart Halfling (FRCS) Rogue 3/Sorceror 6/Arcane Trickster 6/Abjurant Champion 5

Feats: Practiced Spell caster ASAP (helps offset the lost levels)

Note: Even with this streamlined a build, you will not get ninth level spells, because you are combining sorceror with arcane trickster, which basically requires 3 rogue levels.

I believe Tome of Battle: Book of nine swords has a stance that may help: you might be able to get away with just one level in rogue and one level of a class from that book so as to be able to use the maneuver, but I do not own that book.

Gamebird
2007-03-20, 09:32 AM
ravenkith - while I totally understand where you're coming from, if everyone is playing non-optimized characters, then the game can remain quite fun for all. The DM just has to remember that a "challenge" for your group is a lot lower CR than a challenge for an optimized group.

Some DMs are good enough to realize that a concept like Morgan's sucks statistically and augment it to bring it up to par with the other PCs. That's a balancing act that I've seen screwed up more often than not, with DMs not giving enough to make it worthwhile, or giving so much that everyone else is resentful that the "special" character got all the goodies.

This is a case where I'd run it like I suggest people running blind PCs. You either take all the penalties and suck it up, because you made an intentional choice to be this way, or you take a totally normal character and devise everything else as flavor text. How to do this latter?

Take a halfling sorceror with Eschew Materials. When you decide to change form, you say you change into a monkey. None of your stats change in the slightest. The player simply doesn't have their "monkey" character attempt anything a monkey can't do. Don't talk, don't cast spells in that form (unless "your" version of a monkey can cast). The form change becomes nearly all flavor text, although there remain some mechanical benefits in that the DM has to have NPCs (and the other PCs) pretend you changed form and look totally different.

ravenkith
2007-03-20, 12:01 PM
Hey Game,

I'm not telling him to optimize. (If I was I'd steer him away from sorc & arcane trickster altogether).

I'm telling him not to gimp himself so badly he becomes a burden to the rest of the party and can't carry his own weight.

Morgan_Scott82
2007-03-20, 12:45 PM
In all honesty I'm not married to the concept, I'm exploring the mechanical consequences of a character concept I think has the potential to be enjoyable. Your correct that this character would, mechanically speaking, be vastly behind, a straight sorc of a PHB race let alone a twinked out char op board style character, and I would make that information well known to the DM and other PCs before and solicit their feed back before playing him. You are correct to say that they may initially approve out of a desire not to offend a friend (though my group tends to be rather blunt) but I trust them to speak up by the end of the first session if this character isn't working out. If they didn't speak out I think I can be empathic enough to tell if I'm getting in the way of their fun and as a compasionate gamer I would make changes then. If there were even one objection I would use one of the many other character ideas I've got floating around inside this melon on my shoulders.

In the past I've played Human characters of a single base class and then one or two prestige classes, almost exclusively (typically in the expert role, almost always either rogue or bard). For this game I've decided to go for something completely different and off the wall, just for fun. People seem to have the impression that I am argueing from ignorance, and I can see how my sub-optimal choice might lead people to that conclusion, however I have been playing and DMing 3.5 for 4 years now, and 2nd edition for a decade before that (though I never once played a game of 3.0, curious), so this was an informed decision on my part.

Ravenkith, I disagree with your opinion that characters must fall neatly and squarely into one of the four primary character roles (Arcanist, Warrior, Healer, Expert). It eliminates the possiblity to play many, many types of fun and also powerful, or at least playable, characters. Furthermore in a group such as my own, where there is a derth of players (we have 3), hybrid concepts can have additional credence (not necessarily this one, but hybrid concepts in general). Of course having fewer PCs does increase the necessity that each PC pull their own weight, you are correct in that regard and it is something I had glossed over in my initial thoughts about the concept.

Regarding this particular character concept, the lycanthrope aspect was really an attempt to approximate the concept with a minimum of homebrewing by using the established template. Unfortunately, that meant Damage reduction, shapechanging, it would be neat to have the ability to be a tiny monkey but it wasn't the core of the concept, rather I'm looking for a hybrid form without having to pay for all the other crap. One of the other options I'm considering if I elect to pursue this concept is the Hadozee from Stormwrack, but then they have a charisma penalty, and I would really prefer it if they were small.

PS. I understood all the jokes in your previous post, but no one enjoys being harshly chastised even if its done in a jovial tone. Your more recent post while still somewhat condescending is wholly more rational and much more respectful, thank you for the appology, and the more meaningful follow up post. Also Gamebird, love the current avatar, though I miss the Stormtrooper.

EDIT: Also if I really wanted to try to optimize an Arcane Trickster I would do it by way of another caster PRC that granted sneak attack, necessitating the loss of fewer casterlevels overall. Something like Rogue 1/Sorc 5/Daggerspell Mage 3/Arcane Trickster 6 then probably back to daggerspell mage to finish it out. Go human and take able learner as the human's extra 1st level feat to reduce any worry about the sorc's 2 skill points / level and still get into Arcane Trickster without bending over backwards too much, especially if you have an int bonus and take the rogue as character level 1. After Able learner that leaves you with 3 feats before you get to Daggerspell mage which lets you pick up the prereq feats plus practiced spellcaster to make up for the two lost caster levels. Anyways this was just spitballing off the top of my head, I may have screwed up the number of daggerspell levels before going into AT because I'm away from my books and I'm not sure when they get that first SA die.

Besides that wasn't the character I'm interested in playing.

ravenkith
2007-03-20, 01:04 PM
Well I guess I'm carrying my own baggage from my own experiences with my friend. I love the guy like a brother, but he sure does come up with some wacky and frustrating ideas for characters.

We recently went from three players to 5 in our thursday night game, which lessens the impact of having a poorly constructed character in the group, but even so, it's still important to be able to contribute.

Hybrid characters can definitely work, but my point is that you have to be able to competently handle at least one of the primary roles (especially in a fou or three person party), or someone else will have to build their character to pick up that slack.

A group really can suffer if they don't meet/exceed the basic adventuring needs.

I pointed out before, but I think it got lost in the shuffle: Savage Species has rules for anthropomorphic (half-animal) critters in the back...and there's an 'apeman' species in the OA books too.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-03-20, 01:24 PM
Hey fellas, guess what?

Real world calling.

Your heading for this thread is 'Lycanthropic inequities'. Not mine: yours. I'm just pointing some out.

With a lycanthrope, you do not get to drop the 1 HD.

With racial hd, yes, this applies if 1 hd or below.

But this is not a race: it's a template you are tacking on to your character, as such, you cannot drop the 1 hd.

Morgan, I'm sorry you didn't like my tone; I was trying to joke around (the whole bad player: no donut thing is a riff on a well-known joke, and should have given you a heads up to my intentions, if you were paying attention and not just knee-jerking).

In all seriousness, I have a friend who has the same problem as you, Morgan. He gets these ideas which he thinks sound cool, and is absolutely determined to play them, against all advice. The most famous of these was the time he tried to play a half-orc bard, as I previously mentioned.

It's not just a bad idea: it's a ruinously bad idea.

As a player at a game table, you come, bringing your dice and your books, wanting to have some fun. So does everybody else.

The players and the DM have a responsibility to each other to make sure that everyone is having fun. I'm pretty sure no-one's going to argue with this; a good player cares about the fun the others are having as well as his own.

If you consider yourself a good player, for the love of pete, do not play this character.

Why?

Quite simply, because any group has a finite number of PCs, and each PC has to be able to carry their own weight in order for the group to fight effectively, and not get slaughtered at every turn.

It is not fun to have to put up with what are colloquially known as 'xp sponges': PCs who sit around and don't contribute much of anything.

The character you have designed is one of these particular creatures.

First, you have the lycanthrope template. In case you haven't figured it out yet, lycanthropy is best used to create extremely focused, physical aspect characters. You can tell because the primary features it grants are:
1. Natural armor
2. Damage reduction
3. physical attribute mods

The key word here is focused: if you don't have one key physical stat that your class is built around (say con for a barbarian, strength for a fighter, or dex for a rogue) then this template is simply too expensive regardless of how many HD you are paying.

Second, you are planning on having caster levels. If you want to carry your own weight, you should never, ever, ever give up more than two caster levels for non-caster levels, and if you do give even those two up, you should be getting something bloody amazing in return. Your key stat is going to mental: INT WIS or CHA.

Why? Because as you level up, so do your enemies: their saves increase, and every level you give up is a 5% greater chance that they have to beat your spells. Add into the equation the spell resistance that some critters get, and you find yourself in the unenviable position of learning only buff spells because your 'attack' spells are useless.

Third, in addition to the three levels lost already to lycanthrope, you're looking to compound the error with levels of rogue. Yet more lost caster levels, putting you even further into useless territory.

In addition, you will not have the skill points to max out the traditional rogue skills appropriate for your level, meaning that more often than not, your character is going to have trouble with common rogue tasks.

I'll tell you again: you have a responsibility to the other players in the game to play a character who can at least carry his own weight and fulfill one of the primary party roles of rogue, mage, cleric or thief.

If you don't bring an at least capable character to the table, who can perform adequately one of the primary roles, then you are nothing more than a burden to the party. While you may be having fun with your wierd and useless crap, your friends will get tired of carrying your dead weight.

The whole "I ask if it's ok" thing carries no water: these people are your friends, and don't want to piss you off over a badly designed character. But they will resent having to carry your ass every time you get an equal cut of the loot and the xp when you didn't do a damn thing to earn it.

Human nature. They can't help it. Human beings resent it when people get something for free off of their labor without deserving it.

The lesson to take away from all this:

So, if you want to play a lycanthrope, play a rogue.

If you want to play an arcane trickster, don't be a lycanthrope.


In addition, if you take levels in sorceror for any reason, get into a full-caster progression prestige class ASAP, as after first level, you get nothing worth keeping from the class beyond casting anyway.

Suggestion:

If you must go arcane trickster, this is the build I'd use, despite not liking the three levels of rogue at all.
Strongheart Halfling (FRCS) Rogue 3/Sorceror 6/Arcane Trickster 6/Abjurant Champion 5

Feats: Practiced Spell caster ASAP (helps offset the lost levels)

Note: Even with this streamlined a build, you will not get ninth level spells, because you are combining sorceror with arcane trickster, which basically requires 3 rogue levels.

I believe Tome of Battle: Book of nine swords has a stance that may help: you might be able to get away with just one level in rogue and one level of a class from that book so as to be able to use the maneuver, but I do not own that book.World of Warcraft called, it wants it's powergame obsessers back.

I know you believe his build is utterly unplayable and you have a duty to tell this player what an awful player he'd be to play it, but I think it's not that bad.

If he selects his spells well, he can do some pretty cool thing to enhance his rogue abilities and use his lycanthropy to become very fast and able to take blows better. Yes, he won't be casting level 9 spells, but it will be a memorable and fun character.


Since you're so fond of bold proclamations:
There is no such thing as an unplayable build. If you have a good DM, he will make the game and the party work.

And if people are resenting you because your character isn't as powerful as theirs, they aren't good friends or players. That isn't human nature, that's being a selfish dweeb.

Good players care about the party, not about which people "carry their weight" or who is the most powerful.

Morgan, at the very least give this build a try, you may have a lot of fun with it and it is actually a very cool concept.

Morgan_Scott82
2007-03-20, 01:32 PM
Heh, thanks for the feedback ArmorArmadillo. I am planning to give it a try, in one form or another. Of course another concern is starting level, the GM for this game hasn't announced it yet, and it may be too low to make this a feasable starting character, which means either writing a savage progression or taking a different path.

ravenkith
2007-03-20, 02:02 PM
Armor,

1. I hate MMORPGs.

2. The concept he has is ok, the way he was going about it is/was all wrong.

3. Do you honestly think it's ok to make other people work harder so you can indulge yourself? Is that ok? Because that's what you are doing when you make a character that is severly underpowered compared to the appropriate level of enemy: you are making other people do more to cover for your selfishness.

4. If you bothered to read the post, you'd find that the resentment I was talking about was in regards to the player receiving rewards he hasn't earned, in the case of the DM sheltering his character, or in making the game boring, as a result of the DM having to tone it down so he won't kill the weak link.

5. 2 hd at fourth level, and if this guy goes AT, most of the rest of his HD are going to be d4s. DR 5/silver isn't going to cover up those shortcomings.

Armor's entire response consists of:

1. "You are a Powergamer. ha ha ha you suck!!!11!1"

and

2. "If people don't like the character you are playing, screw em!"

I'll bet you're real popular, big guy. ;)

AmoDman
2007-03-20, 04:08 PM
Since you're so fond of bold proclamations:
There is no such thing as an unplayable build. If you have a good DM, he will make the game and the party work.

And if people are resenting you because your character isn't as powerful as theirs, they aren't good friends or players. That isn't human nature, that's being a selfish dweeb.

Good players care about the party, not about which people "carry their weight" or who is the most powerful.

Unplayable? No. Pointless? Yes. If you're playing a build that truly has no purpose other than "to be there," you certainly will be dragging the party down unless you've got a really big group and it doesn't matter. And even then! Whether you expect it or not, if your character sucks mechanicaly with wildly divergent templates and classes that don't complement each other at all, chances are you'll start to get sick of the combats wherein you do nothing but mess around because your spells are ineffectual, your attacks are a nuisance to your own well being, and the cleric has to bail you out every other time you try to do something interesting.

Sure, if everyone chooses to play vastly subpar (and that's PAR, as in norm, expected, easily reached under normal circumstances) characters, than the DM may be able to compensate where everyone can have fun. If not...well, that's already been addressed. And the "better" situation is assuming that the DM is that good in the first place.

Morgan_Scott82
2007-03-20, 04:52 PM
I had a chance to check out my copy of Savage Species when I ran home for my lunch break and yeah the anthropomorphic animal template is much closer to what I was going for. Anthropomorphic monkey gets Small size, Str penalty, Dex Bonus, Climb speed, racial skill bonuses to Climb and Balance, all that with no level adjustment and no racial hit die. That will basically give me all the things I wanted for the concept and none of the extraneous crap that came with Lycanthrope, the only hurdle left to deal with is the charisma penalty, though I'm not particularly married to the sorc aspect of the character as long as I use some kind of arcane caster.

To those of you who suggested this template much earlier, thank you and I'm sorry I overlooked it in the bustle of a busy thread.

Gamebird
2007-03-20, 05:10 PM
Yay you!

Blah, blah, post character count.

Avenger337
2007-03-20, 05:38 PM
Morgan, I'm sorry you didn't like my tone; I was trying to joke around (the whole bad player: no donut thing is a riff on a well-known joke, and should have given you a heads up to my intentions, if you were paying attention and not just knee-jerking).


You know, generally there's this nice rule of thumb that says "If the person you're 'joking' with doesn't take it as a joke, then it wasn't funny." The onus is on you to make sure people understand that. It's not "his fault cuz he didn't get the joke."



In all seriousness, I have a friend who has the same problem as you, Morgan. He gets these ideas which he thinks sound cool, and is absolutely determined to play them, against all advice. The most famous of these was the time he tried to play a half-orc bard, as I previously mentioned.


1) Morgan doesn't have a problem.
2) I played a half-orc bard once. He had a charisma of 24 or so (after a few nice stat-boosting items), and generally was one of the more useful characters in the party; was he the most powerful character ever? No. Did I care? No. Did anyone else? No.



If you consider yourself a good player, for the love of pete, do not tell other people what kind of characters they can't play if you're not the DM. ESPECIALLY NOT IF YOU'RE NOT EVEN IN THE SAME GAME AS HIM!


I fixed this for you.



blah blah blah you suck


You know, I think the next character I play will be a half-fiendish samurai with straight 10s across the board, just to spite you.

Fax Celestis
2007-03-20, 05:52 PM
You know, I think the next character I play will be a half-fiendish samurai with straight 10s across the board, just to spite you.

Curious: what'll you play ten minutes later when he dies?

Mewtarthio
2007-03-20, 06:16 PM
Curious: what'll you play ten minutes later when he dies?

Ghost Barbarian, maybe?

ArmorArmadillo
2007-03-20, 08:21 PM
Morgan, I'm glad you found a build you'll like playing.

In my opinion, you should always try a template or build idea if you think you'll have fun playing it at all, worst case scenario; you talk to your DM, tell him that it's not working out, and switch out to something else.

The Valiant Turtle
2007-03-20, 08:49 PM
Well, to the OP, your assumptions about LA vs HD are theoretically correct, but there is just a really big fudge factor. I think it works pretty well when it's all said and done. It sounds like fun and I think you should go with it, although the Oriental Adventures spirit folk approach sounds like it might fit your character a little bit better and have a slight mechanical edge, and taking a look at the Wu-Jen might be good as well. The dire monkey based lycanthrope idea would be interesting as well, although probably a bit less optimal.

To those disparaging the build: you don't know the campaign, the DM, or the rest of the party. It's entirely possible that he will fit right in with the rest of the group as far as character power goes. It's also possible to play several extremely fun sessions without having any combat at all. The simple truth is that the classes that can be the most powerful can also be the least powerful if not built and played well, whereas a weak class/race can do wonders if the player optimizes as much as they can and understands their strengths and weaknesses.

I do agree with the recommendations that you check into buying of LA.

ravenkith
2007-03-21, 10:06 AM
@ Morgan: I'm glad you found a way to make your concept work. You're whole post was about a fun idea you wanted to try out.

The way you were going about putting it together originally would've ended up badly, both for your self, your friends, and your character, as the lycanthrope template is pretty much caster bane.

@ Avenger337: With the exception of the half-orc bard you played, your post adds nothing to the discussion, so I will limit myself to comments on that.

1. At what level did your half-orc bard start?
2. Did he start with the stat-enhancing equipment?
3. If not, at what level did he get this 24 charisma? Was it level 20? 15? 10?
4. How well did your bard fare from level 1-5? 5-10? Did you suck like a black hole?
5. How many PCs were in your party?
6. How much did your bard actually contribute, in terms of furthering the plot/and or progressing through the game, at the lower levels?

Because, I mean, if he started at level 10 or so, with all the equipment money can buy, then sure, by all means. But if you're starting at level one, a half-orc bard is going to be nothing more than excess baggage for the next ten levels, especially when compared to a human bard or a halfling warlock, in terms of effectiveness.

As to your new character concept: go right ahead - you are, after all, deliberately trying to find a bad combination. Good luck trying to have fun playing that to level 20, though. Not to mention a group of players that don't wish you'd make something else.

@ Armor: A logical and reasoned response. However, something to keep in mind is that doing this too often can be disruptive to a campaign. Plus, why play a combination of templates and classes that are basically incompatible when there are other, mechanically better options that deliver the result you are looking for?

@ Raldor: I defy you to tell me that, under any circumstances, the original build could be accurately described as either effective or good, when compared to a base wizard, or a base rogue, or even a base arcane trickster, especially over the long haul.

Also, LA buyoff is not usually allowed in most campaigns, and normally results in slight level slowdown, further compounding the "I suck so bad my enemies make every save" problem.

dsuursoo
2007-03-21, 10:07 AM
were dire ape. nuff said.