can a lycanthropes alignment change? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

KhorashIronfist

2015-01-12, 10:10 PM

I was thinking about it. So lets say you have a lawful good paladin that becomes a werewolf, and for some reason decides to acept the curse, maybe he didn't know it would make him evil or maybe he did it to save a village.
So now you have a chaotic evil guy. Can he ever again be evil without being cured? Can he be redemed, or is he evil from then on out?
What about a tyrant that becomes a werebear, can he become evil again?

First I'd like to point out that fifth edition does not have different alignments for different lycanthropes, they're all evil, even werebear. If this was third edition I would say that any paladin of third level or higher would be immune to lycanthropy, per the 'divine health' ability that makes a paladin immune to all disease, even supernatural ones. However, fifth edition does not seem to make any distinction between mundane and supernatural diseases. The paladin retains his immunity to disease but it is left at that with no specific mention made of magical diseases. Alas, the lycanthropy section of the monster manual presents lycanthropy not as a disease but a curse, and as such it is cured by the 'remove curse' spell. This in my mind says that a paladin in fifth edition is susceptible to lycanthropy, since they possess no immunity to curses.

As far as 'falling' and changing alignment is concerned, if I was DM I would not interpret it as a binary system but rather a spectrum: you may succumb to the bestial instincts once or twice without 'falling' completely, and you may fight back the bestial instincts over time and regain control of yourself (with an appropriate wisdom save or the like). However the book is quite clear that one who gives in completely to 'the beast' becomes an 'evil beast who preys on the weak' ie not a paladin and would immediately lose all paladin abilities. I would rule that an unwillful murder committed when he is out of control of his character would not make him lose his powers...the first time. If he did not take any possible action to prevent further murders at his own hand (claw) then he would of course be liable for doing nothing to prevent it, and as such would probably lose all paladin abilities.

If the paladin was not aware of the dangers involved in giving into his bestial desires (I don't know how you save a village by giving in to lycanthropy), I should think he would quickly become aware of the issue once the process began (you know what with waking up naked covered in blood and surrounded by corpses every full moon) and fight as hard as he can against the bestial desires clawing at his mind, seeking out a cure ASAP.

Ultimately I just don't think any paladin would willfully give in to the inner beast. If they do they probably weren't a very good paladin to begin with. Falling over time to the bestial desires is another thing altogether, but not just "oh well **** it I guess I'll be a bestial killing machine now" But if they did I don't think its as simple as "accepting the curse" and that's that, you're evil forever. Its more of a process of losing your mind to the beast within. However, giving in to such a thing would in itself probably be leaning enough towards evil (or at least not to your god's liking) that you would lose your paladin abilities. Is your god going to keep giving divine powers to someone who willfully turns into a murderous beast? Losing their powers would probably be a good enough incentive by itself to seek out a cure or at least fight it.

Daishain

2015-01-12, 10:16 PM

First I'd like to point out that fifth edition does not have different alignments for different lycanthropes, they're all evil, even werebear.
Incorrect, 5E MM lists Werebear as neutral good, weretiger as true neutral, werewolf as chaotic evil, wererat as lawful evil, and wereboar as neutral evil.

As for my take. Absolutely yes, but the devil is in the details.

Ok, you've accepted your curse. This grants you a fair bit of control over the curse, at the cost of letting those animalistic instincts affect your mind at all times, not just during the full moon.

If we accept that in the case of a werewolf, the curse is by default urging one to do chaotic and evil deeds (something that has always bothered me, but that's another discussion), a lot depends on just how strong this influence is.

A case can be made for a strong willed mind being able to control these urges the majority of the time, and channel their violent tendencies exclusively towards the wicked. A case can also be made that even your average Solar would be broken by this influence, causing them to inevitably go feral, it just being a matter of time. There's also a great deal of room in between.

Shining Wrath

2015-01-12, 10:18 PM

First I'd like to point out that fifth edition does not have different alignments for different lycanthropes, they're all evil, even werebear. If this was third edition I would say that any paladin of third level or higher would be immune to lycanthropy, per the 'divine health' ability that makes a paladin immune to all disease, even supernatural ones. However, fifth edition does not seem to make any distinction between mundane and supernatural diseases. The paladin retains his immunity to disease but it is left at that with no specific mention made of magical diseases. Alas, the lycanthropy section of the monster manual presents lycanthropy not as a disease but a curse, and as such it is cured by the 'remove curse' spell. This in my mind says that a paladin in fifth edition is susceptible to lycanthropy, since they possess no immunity to curses.

As far as 'falling' and changing alignment is concerned, if I was DM I would not interpret it as a binary system but rather a spectrum: you may succumb to the bestial instincts once or twice without 'falling' completely, and you may fight back the bestial instincts over time and regain control of yourself (with an appropriate wisdom save or the like). However the book is quite clear that one who gives in completely to 'the beast' becomes an 'evil beast who preys on the weak' ie not a paladin and would immediately lose all paladin abilities. I would rule that an unwillful murder committed when he is out of control of his character would not make him lose his powers...the first time. If he did not take any possible action to prevent further murders at his own hand (claw) then he would of course be liable for doing nothing to prevent it, and as such would probably lose all paladin abilities.

If the paladin was not aware of the dangers involved in giving into his bestial desires (I don't know how you save a village by giving in to lycanthropy), I should think he would quickly become aware of the issue once the process began (you know what with waking up naked covered in blood and surrounded by corpses every full moon) and fight as hard as he can against the bestial desires clawing at his mind, seeking out a cure ASAP.

Ultimately I just don't think any paladin would willfully give in to the inner beast. If they do they probably weren't a very good paladin to begin with. Falling over time to the bestial desires is another thing altogether, but not just "oh well **** it I guess I'll be a bestial killing machine now" But if they did I don't think its as simple as "accepting the curse" and that's that, you're evil forever. Its more of a process of losing your mind to the beast within. However, giving in to such a thing would in itself probably be leaning enough towards evil (or at least not to your god's liking) that you would lose your paladin abilities. Is your god going to keep giving divine powers to someone who willfully turns into a murderous beast? Losing their powers would probably be a good enough incentive by itself to seek out a cure or at least fight it.

Just checked the MM - werebears are listed as NG, boars as NE, rats as LE, tigers as N, wolves as CE.

Shining Wrath

2015-01-12, 10:23 PM

Anything is possible but being cursed should not wind up being an advantage to a PC. MM says this in sidebar on page 207:

If the character embraces the curse, his or her alignment becomes the one defined for the lycanthrope. The DM is free to decide that a change in alignment places the character under DM control until the curse of lycanthropy is removed.

You are free as DM to do whatever you want, but again, do you want the Paladin to be more powerful cursed than not?

So, I vote for the Paladin changing over to a DMPC whenever he or she uses the lycanthrope abilities.

KhorashIronfist

2015-01-12, 10:26 PM

Incorrect, 5E MM lists Werebear as neutral good, weretiger as true neutral, werewolf as chaotic evil, wererat as lawful evil, and wereboar as neutral evil.

MM 206 "A werebear is a loner by nature, fearing what might happen to innocent creatures around it when its bestial nature takes over" Clearly implies they are a danger when in beast form despite their good nature.

Above that "Most lycanthropes that embrace their bestial natures succumb to bloodlust, becoming evil..."

It does mention in the werebear entry on 207 that most are of good alignment "but some are...evil" but I would hazard it is referring to natural lycanthropes (or, I suppose, one who has learned to control it), given the quote above. I would assume all of the actual monster entries are for natural lycanthropes. Note that in this edition it does not specifically say you have to turn evil, just that most people do.

Also: "By resisting the curse the lycanthrope retains normal alignment and personality while in humanoid form".

Edit: nevermind, see post above. Didn't see that sidebar, this makes me very confused about the aforementioned quote about a werebear fearing what would happen to innocents when it goes into beast mode. So yes, I suppose if an evil tyrant was bitten by a werebear, RAW they would become a good guy.

Eslin

2015-01-12, 11:17 PM

Anything is possible but being cursed should not wind up being an advantage to a PC. MM says this in sidebar on page 207:

You are free as DM to do whatever you want, but again, do you want the Paladin to be more powerful cursed than not?

So, I vote for the Paladin changing over to a DMPC whenever he or she uses the lycanthrope abilities.

That's the whole point of the werebear being so strong though isn't it? If your paladin is already neutral good and gets bitten by a werebear the character stays in the control of the player if they embrace the curse - no change in alignment, no DM control.

KhorashIronfist

2015-01-13, 07:21 PM

That's the whole point of the werebear being so strong though isn't it? If your paladin is already neutral good and gets bitten by a werebear the character stays in the control of the player if they embrace the curse - no change in alignment, no DM control.

How do you explain this line then, from the werebear description:

MM 206 "A werebear is a loner by nature, fearing what might happen to innocent creatures around it when its bestial nature takes over"

Invader

2015-01-13, 07:44 PM

Personally I always found forced alignments on lycanthropes kind of dumb, same as chromatic and metallic dragons.

Louro

2015-01-13, 07:54 PM

A cursed pally? He acts normally but once every full moon the DM takes control to do the... hunt/bloodlust/frenzy.
Next morning pally awakes and surprise! (naked, blood...) If he tries to resist and control himself he should be able to retain his personality (easy save), but each time the beast comes out it gets harder (raising difficulty save). He should focus on removing the curse without breaking his oath. This can be a good adventure hook, to out him in a tight spot (I need to find that cleric to remove my curse, but I can't ignore this people suffering from starvation cause of those orcs raids).

If he just accepts his new condition... paladin favor immediately revoked.
Algjnment change? It should be gradual, each time he hunts he should be turning a bit more impulsive and aggressive, becoming an unpredictable and dangerous ally.

Inevitability

2015-01-14, 01:53 AM

MM 206 "A werebear is a loner by nature, fearing what might happen to innocent creatures around it when its bestial nature takes over"

A bear, even though it is neutral good, still needs to eat. In werebear form, it becomes harder to see what is food and what is a friend. Therefore, friends risk being eaten when the werebear goes ursine.

Eslin

2015-01-14, 05:46 AM

How do you explain this line then, from the werebear description:

MM 206 "A werebear is a loner by nature, fearing what might happen to innocent creatures around it when its bestial nature takes over"

I ignore it in the same way that I ignore the description of the obviously herbivore orcs (look at their teeth, no meat in their diet) eating livestock or I ignore that the livestock eating orcs have flat teeth and tusks. This edition is full of contradictory stuff.

A cursed pally? He acts normally but once every full moon the DM takes control to do the... hunt/bloodlust/frenzy.
Next morning pally awakes and surprise! (naked, blood...) If he tries to resist and control himself he should be able to retain his personality (easy save), but each time the beast comes out it gets harder (raising difficulty save). He should focus on removing the curse without breaking his oath. This can be a good adventure hook, to out him in a tight spot (I need to find that cleric to remove my curse, but I can't ignore this people suffering from starvation cause of those orcs raids).

If he just accepts his new condition... paladin favor immediately revoked.
Algjnment change? It should be gradual, each time he hunts he should be turning a bit more impulsive and aggressive, becoming an unpredictable and dangerous ally.

Unless the paladin has the same alignment as the lycanthrope, in which case there's no reason he wouldn't keep his favour. No need for alignment change if you have the alignment already.

Louro

2015-01-14, 09:10 AM

I ignore it in the same way that I ignore the description of the obviously herbivore orcs (look at their teeth, no meat in their diet) eating livestock or I ignore that the livestock eating orcs have flat teeth and tusks. This edition is full of contradictory stuff.

Unless the paladin has the same alignment as the lycanthrope, in which case there's no reason he wouldn't keep his favour. No need for alignment change if you have the alignment already.

Yup, forgot they mustn't be LG now.
Despite of alligment the lycantrope condition can still go against the pally oath.

Fwiffo86

2015-01-14, 09:26 AM

Personally I always found forced alignments on lycanthropes kind of dumb, same as chromatic and metallic dragons.

I solve this issue by

A) not bothering with alignment. Which is driving one of my players insane cause he always goes for the "evil" guy routine.

B) I don't have distinctions between colored dragons. They are just... Dragons. Sorta brownish in color. Flame breath. Level castles with their claws. That sort of thing.

goto124

2015-01-14, 09:33 AM

B) I don't have distinctions between colored dragons. They are just... Dragons. Sorta brownish in color. Flame breath. Level castles with their claws. That sort of thing.

Cats come in all sorts of colors, why not dragons? You can keep the rest though.

Fwiffo86

2015-01-14, 09:35 AM

Cats come in all sorts of colors, why not dragons? You can keep the rest though.

Because, when you have a player say...

"Dragon? What color is it?"

I and I say...

"Brownish?"

"Wait..... what dragons are brownish?"

The look on their face as they try to wedge metallic/chromatic Krynn BS into a game that isn't there is awesome.

goto124

2015-01-14, 09:37 AM

The look on their face as they try to wedge metallic/chromatic Krynn BS into a game that isn't there is awesome.

Later on, introduce colored dragons (pink, purple, rainbow!) that are still the same in every other ways :smallbiggrin:

Shining Wrath

2015-01-14, 12:01 PM

I ignore it in the same way that I ignore the description of the obviously herbivore orcs (look at their teeth, no meat in their diet) eating livestock or I ignore that the livestock eating orcs have flat teeth and tusks. This edition is full of contradictory stuff.

Unless the paladin has the same alignment as the lycanthrope, in which case there's no reason he wouldn't keep his favour. No need for alignment change if you have the alignment already.

The orc fangs look most like a baboon to me.

http://local.brookings.k12.sd.us/krscience/zoology/webpage%20projects/sp11webprojects/baboon/olivebaboon2.jpg

Baboons are omnivores.

Lycanthropy is still called a "curse". Even without alignment change, I'm inclined that it should not be a net win for a power gamer.

Abithrios

2015-01-14, 01:12 PM

As for the title question, if I recall correctly, the curse of lycanthropy changes the alignment, but has no explicit provision about keeping the new alignment. This would mean, by overly pedantic reading of RAW, that any means of changing alignment would apply. On the other hand, if you write LG on your character sheet, but do not do anything legitimately good until after you embrace werewolfism, whereupon you become a veritable saint, your DM may not be very happy with you.

There are several other problems with lycanthropy as the Monster Manual presents them.

As the argument upthread shows, the text has a certain tension between different aspects of werebears. Are they wild and prone to killing innocents? Are they good aligned? The book seems to say both, but they are at odds with no clear consensus.

Also, I do not like the mechanics. Immunity to weapons means it may be diagnosable with a needle (does it break skin?).

There is a passage suggesting DMs take control of cursed PCs, which I think is bad practice.

A character who becomes a lycanthrope is strictly more powerful than they were before. This is true regardless of preexisting race, class, build, and party role. Nobody would turn down always-on immunity to now magic physical damage if it were offered for free. Anyone who can convince their DM to let them play a lycanthrope essentially gets just that, and the DM will have a harder time challenging the party. Anyone character whose DM does not get persuaded, but gets cursed anyway risks a fate worse than death.

If a group of adventurers meets a lycanthrope and one of them gets bitten, I can see a couple of ways for the party to respond. If the DM plans to enforce role playing penalties, the party would seek out a cure as quickly as possible, because they don't want the character stolen or murdered by the DM. On the other hand, if the DM decides not to enforce the role playing penalties, all of the party might ask for a bite for themselves. I find it hard to imagine a situation where an all NG party comes to the calm, sober, and well-researched conclusion that it would be best for exactly half of their members to be werebears. Either it is such a terrible idea that none would want it or such a great idea that everyone wants it. The rules cause there to be very little in between. The only difference between the two options is what table you happen to play at.

I believe that kind of all or nothing decision is the most boring kind. I would much rather have rules that make new options viable rather than overpowered or underpowered.

Eslin

2015-01-14, 03:36 PM

Yup, forgot they mustn't be LG now.
Despite of alligment the lycantrope condition can still go against the pally oath.
How? Which paladin oath has 'thou shalt not turn into a giant bear in order to claw evil in the face?' in it?

The orc fangs look most like a baboon to me.

Baboons are omnivores.

Lycanthropy is still called a "curse". Even without alignment change, I'm inclined that it should not be a net win for a power gamer.
Orcs don't have fangs, they have tusks, which unlike fangs always have non-meat eating uses - self defense, rooting, male dominance etc.

Power gaming wise, it's a weakness of 5e itself, not the lycanthrope template. You'll notice the half-dragon template is a flat out buff with no downsides - they decided the level adjustment system from 3.5 was a bad way of balancing out the strengths of templates, and in its place they instituted... nothing. It is like if they had decided that the experience cost from wish was inappropriate and so removed it having a cost at all - that's not a solution, that's them ignoring the problem entirely because trying to solve it would be hard.

Also, I do not like the mechanics. Immunity to weapons means it may be diagnosable with a needle (does it break skin?).
Agreed, should be regeneration bypassed by silver rather than immunity. When you think werewolf you don't think literally invulnerable weapons superman style, you think supernatural and only vulnerable to silver.

There is a passage suggesting DMs take control of cursed PCs, which I think is bad practice.
It's only bad practice if you have players who enjoy playing their characters. I assume lycanthropy was worked out on the assumption that people like sitting there and doing nothing while others play.

A character who becomes a lycanthrope is strictly more powerful than they were before. This is true regardless of preexisting race, class, build, and party role. Nobody would turn down always-on immunity to now magic physical damage if it were offered for free. Anyone who can convince their DM to let them play a lycanthrope essentially gets just that, and the DM will have a harder time challenging the party. Anyone character whose DM does not get persuaded, but gets cursed anyway risks a fate worse than death.
And here we have the meat of the issue, and the reason people on this forum rush to try to make it seem like embracing being a werebear is a bad thing. No level adjustment and no replacement system for it means that there is no mechanical downside to compete with the mechanical upsides, and as we've seen before trying to balance crunch buffs with fluff penalties never works. Which leaves things like lycanthropy in the uncomfortable position of being a net buff that you can never give a player because it makes them stronger than the other players and thanks to no level adjustment does not even have a cost to work out how much strength you're giving the player and how much you should give the other players to make them equal. Is it equal to a feat? Two feats? A magic item, a class level?

If a group of adventurers meets a lycanthrope and one of them gets bitten, I can see a couple of ways for the party to respond. If the DM plans to enforce role playing penalties, the party would seek out a cure as quickly as possible, because they don't want the character stolen or murdered by the DM. On the other hand, if the DM decides not to enforce the role playing penalties, all of the party might ask for a bite for themselves. I find it hard to imagine a situation where an all NG party comes to the calm, sober, and well-researched conclusion that it would be best for exactly half of their members to be werebears. Either it is such a terrible idea that none would want it or such a great idea that everyone wants it. The rules cause there to be very little in between. The only difference between the two options is what table you happen to play at.

I believe that kind of all or nothing decision is the most boring kind. I would much rather have rules that make new options viable rather than overpowered or underpowered.

Yep. As is its a binary choice - you either don't let anyone become a werebear or it's the optimal solution for everyone. Being a lycanthrope should be a route to power with its own strengths and weaknesses, not something that most characters of a certain criteria would be stupid not to accept. And before anyone claims that the dubious fluff penalties balance them out, no. Shut up, you're wrong. Fluff and crunch are two wholly incompatible metrics of power, one can't be used to balance out the other in character creation. It's been tried many times (hello paladins!) and it has never worked. You can do fluff-like penalties if you want (+5 dexterity, but can't immediately sinks when underwater and cannot swim in any way), but straight out fluff penalties are a bad idea.

As a side note, I like vampires a little better. They're very strong, but you need to cart a coffin full of grave dirt everywhere, can't go out in sunlight or cross running water without taking huge damage, can't enter uninvited etc. That's how you do fluff-like penalties to balance out strengths.

Louro

2015-01-14, 05:52 PM

Eslin

2015-01-14, 06:16 PM

Lycantropy is not a buff.

"Some individuals see little point in fighting the curse and accept what they are. With time and experience, they learn to master their shapechanging ability and can assume beast form or hybrid form at will. Most lycanthropes that embrace their bestial natures succumb to bloodlust, becoming evil, opportunistic creatures that prey on the weak. "
As you can read here it possible to gain control over the beast, but most of the times is the beast the one who wins the internal battle.
Those who fight and refuse to turn, keep going normal but the beast gains control every full moon.
Both ways are described as bad things.

The wereboar being LG?
"A were bear is a loner by nature, fearing what might happen to innocent creatures around it when its bestial nature takes over. "
Here, it keeps being good, and for this reason he decides to be alone to not harm innocents when he is unable to control himself.

Either possibility has huge drawbacks unless you manage to successfully control the beast, which takes time and experience.

Fun fact, fluff and crunch can't be used to balance each other out in terms of character creation. You can change that somewhat by backing the fluff up by giving it crunch, but as is there are no rules for any of what you just mentioned. The only rules we have are that players can either fight the curse (continue as normal, wolf out uncontrolled by the player at full moon) or embrace the curse (transform at will, alignment changes to match the creature).

Envyus

2015-01-14, 06:51 PM

I ignore it in the same way that I ignore the description of the obviously herbivore orcs (look at their teeth, no meat in their diet) eating livestock or I ignore that the livestock eating orcs have flat teeth and tusks. This edition is full of contradictory stuff.

{scrubbed} Look at other art of Orcs

http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs25/f/2008/150/7/c/4e_DnD_Orcs_by_RalphHorsley.jpg

It's simply how the art came out and even then their teeth does not look much different then our own.

Look from a comic associated with D&D affiliates made that came out two weeks ago.

http://i.imgur.com/4FuzUch.jpg

Werebears can lose control of themselves and be hostile. Some are straight up evil. Nothing is contradicted

Louro

2015-01-14, 06:55 PM

Transform at will if you manage to control the beast instincts with time and experience. And if you do so you still turn into a beast at full moon (I don't think a good God would be pleased with this).
So instead of find a cure you can choose the risky way and try to defeat the beast. If you succeed you gain both power and problems, if you fail you lose you character.

No rules given, so that's part of the DM job.

hamishspence

2015-01-14, 06:55 PM

The orc fangs look most like a baboon to me.

http://local.brookings.k12.sd.us/krscience/zoology/webpage%20projects/sp11webprojects/baboon/olivebaboon2.jpg

Baboons are omnivores.

And in any case, even traditionally herbivorous creatures like deer, won't turn up their noses at meat if the opportunity arises. Some deer species even attack and eat small animals routinely.

Soular

2015-01-14, 08:43 PM

And in any case, even traditionally herbivorous creatures like deer, won't turn up their noses at meat if the opportunity arises. Some deer species even attack and eat small animals routinely.

Seriously. I saw a video of deer tucking into roadkill. It was eye-opening for sure. I don't think I'll ever camp out with just a sleeping bag again.

Soular

2015-01-14, 08:57 PM

{scrubbed}

Eslin

2015-01-14, 10:32 PM

{scrubbed}
Fun fact, I rarely do anything except DM {scrubbed}. This stuff was easy to fix in my own games - I either have lycanthropy replace the character's subclass or give it LA. {scrubbed}

{scrubbed}
Guess who the DM is?

So, does anyone else know if there's a way to have a specific person's posts not come up?

{scrubbed} Look at other art of Orcs

http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs25/f/2008/150/7/c/4e_DnD_Orcs_by_RalphHorsley.jpg

It's simply how the art came out and even then their teeth does not look much different then our own.

Look from a comic associated with D&D affiliates made that came out two weeks ago.

Werebears can lose control of themselves and be hostile. Some are straight up evil. Nothing is contradicted

It's really not. One is not first party and the other is from a different edition - stuff changes between editions, for instance gnolls are infernally influenced now and kobolds got weirdly buff. The entire point to what I said was that 5e is full of contradictory information (in that instance, telling us orcs were carnivores when they clearly have flat teeth) so you pick whichever interpretation works better for your game. Lycanthropy wise, that is a contradiction - it tells us werebears automatically become neutral good if embraced, and that some are straight up evil. That's fine as long as the only evil ones are those who are fighting the curse, but that's not what people claimed.

Transform at will if you manage to control the beast instincts with time and experience. And if you do so you still turn into a beast at full moon (I don't think a good God would be pleased with this).
So instead of find a cure you can choose the risky way and try to defeat the beast. If you succeed you gain both power and problems, if you fail you lose you character.

No rules given, so that's part of the DM job.
Why would a good god be angry?

And yes, you need to learn to control it. That's why werebears so seldom bite anyone, they only pass it on to people who they are sure will do good with it. Though it should be noted that there is a workaround, you don't actually need to have them spend ages learning to test it - just chain someone up properly with a cleric nearby and bite them then if they can't control themselves have the cleric remove lycanthropy.

Envyus

2015-01-15, 03:08 AM

It's really not. One is not first party and the other is from a different edition - stuff changes between editions, for instance gnolls are infernally influenced now and kobolds got weirdly buff. The entire point to what I said was that 5e is full of contradictory information (in that instance, telling us orcs were carnivores when they clearly have flat teeth) so you pick whichever interpretation works better for your game. Lycanthropy wise, that is a contradiction - it tells us werebears automatically become neutral good if embraced, and that some are straight up evil. That's fine as long as the only evil ones are those who are fighting the curse, but that's not what people claimed.

The teeth don't look flat to me.

They look like Human Teeth aka Omnivorous. Also it says they don't have tusks in the new edition so you are already wrong about one thing. (It says in the book they have prominent lower canines that resemble tusks) The book also does not say they are carnivores so you are wrong about that as well. They like humans are probably Omnivores. And no matter what the book's pictures look like the Text is what actually matter. When Conceptopolis drew the picture of the Orc I doubt they were thinking these Teeth belong to grass eaters. As far as I can tell you are the only person who thought about that.

Also Specific beats general. It says that some Werebears are evil and that they can for the most part reject their violet nature they can lose control and become very aggressive. But you don't care . Because of your obsession with nitpicking stuff like Orc teeth that no one in the world cares about.

Eslin

2015-01-15, 03:31 AM

The teeth don't look flat to me.

They look like Human Teeth aka Omnivorous. Also it says they don't have tusks in the new edition so you are already wrong about one thing. (It says in the book they have prominent lower canines that resemble tusks) The book also does not say they are carnivores so you are wrong about that as well. They like humans are probably Omnivores. And no matter what the book's pictures look like the Text is what actually matter. When Conceptopolis drew the picture of the Orc I doubt they were thinking these Teeth belong to grass eaters. As far as I can tell you are the only person who thought about that.

Also Specific beats general. It says that some Werebears are evil and that they can for the most part reject their violet nature they can lose control and become very aggressive. But you don't care . Because of your obsession with nitpicking stuff like Orc teeth that no one in the world cares about.

I actually don't care particularly much either way, the orcs in my settings are omnivores that are less picky about what they eat than humans. I just point it out as a good example of mutually contradictory stuff in 5e - they aren't human like, note the lack of canines.

Envyus

2015-01-15, 03:51 AM

I actually don't care particularly much either way, the orcs in my settings are omnivores that are less picky about what they eat than humans. I just point it out as a good example of mutually contradictory stuff in 5e - they aren't human like, note the lack of canines.

It's a bad example as there were lots of different artists and text matters not the art, and nothing is contradicted.

On Canine thing it appears you can't see very well. I see canines.

http://i.imgur.com/wGzutYz.jpg

The Teeth were our canines would be are pointed. Aka they are canines.

Louro

2015-01-15, 05:34 AM

OMG eislin.
Why a god would be angry with a Lycantrope paladin?
Maybe because he turns into a beast every full moon spreading fear and killing innocents?

{scrubbed}

Eslin

2015-01-15, 06:02 AM

{scrubbed}

And? You control the beast, turning into it isn't a big deal any more. Embrace it, learn control, don't bite anyone. Solved.

Knaight

2015-01-15, 06:07 AM

OMG eislin.
Why a god would be angry with a Lycantrope paladin?
Maybe because he turns into a beast every full moon spreading fear and killing innocents?

{scrubbed}

If you control the beast, presumably it isn't spreading fear and killing innocents, which removes the problem. Werebears are also stated to be good, while accepting the curse says that the tendencies affect the character. In nowhere is there a particular problem here, which is just a weird handling of lycanthrope. It's also pretty much grandfathered in from whenever the alignment spanning different types of lycanthropes were established (2e?), so not much has changed in this regard.

Beyond that, there's the well established method of chaining up the werebear during the moon, which has been in werewolf literature for a good long time. That does at least represent a real penalty (which is nice), but it's still a bit easy to work around. Some concrete mechanics akin to 3.5's frenzy would have been nice.

Louro

2015-01-15, 06:12 AM

No.
You control the beast.
The beast controls you during full moon.

Is it really that hard to understand?
If the change at full Moon is forced it means you lose the control, otherwise you could decide to not change.
This is the reason why werebears decide to live alone: to not kill people.

Knaight

2015-01-15, 06:37 AM

If the change at full Moon is forced it means you lose the control, otherwise you could decide to not change.
This is the reason why werebears decide to live alone: to not kill people.

That doesn't follow. An uncontrolled physical transformation does not imply later uncontrolled murder sprees. The living alone is phrased as a suggestive measure, wherein there's a bloodlust there that might be succumbed to. Which, honestly, is less of an issue for non-adventurers, given that the bulk of D&D rules cover exactly the sort of things that satiate bloodlust, and genre convention routinely has adventurers way out in the hinterlands to begin with. This is why an actual frenzy mechanic would have been nice.

Louro

2015-01-15, 08:37 AM

That doesn't follow. An uncontrolled physical transformation does not imply later uncontrolled murder sprees.
Both the lycantrope ane wereboar description suggest the full moon beast is uncontrollable.

Soular

2015-01-15, 10:47 AM

{scrubbed}

Haruki-kun

2015-01-15, 03:39 PM

The Winged Mod: Closed for review.

EDIT: Thread re-opened after review. Please read and follow the Forum Rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1), guys.

Shining Wrath

2015-01-16, 10:56 AM

Both the lycantrope ane wereboar description suggest the full moon beast is uncontrollable.

The prototypical werebear of fantasy is of course Beorn from The Hobbit. He was grumpy in human form and the dwarves were cautioned to remain inside at night while he was transformed. In were-form he was still able to distinguish friend from foe, as shown in the climax of the Battle of Five Armies.

Don't get me started on the number of ways the movies botched that story, but psycho-Beorn in bear form is just one of them. For starters, a bear with a head 3' across the temples is going to tear any wooden door ever crafted off the hinges - or come right through the walls - or lift the roof off the house and come in. Normal ordinary black bears in our national parks can rip the doors off of cars (Yosemite, Rocky Mountain both caution you about this). Something that probably weighs 5,000 pounds? Yikes.

Gwendol

2015-01-16, 10:59 AM

Not to mention the fact that he escorts them, from something of a distance, during their trek through his lands.

There is nothing in the stat-block that suggests that a werebear turns CE or any other alignement in beast shape.

Fwiffo86

2015-01-16, 11:08 AM

this is a fascinating discussion. I would like to pose a question though....

Why does this need to be known?

Z3ro

2015-01-16, 11:22 AM

this is a fascinating discussion. I would like to pose a question though....

Why does this need to be known?

Because, if there's no alignment drawback, then in some people's game worlds every martial character (and a good number of casters as well) will be werebears because that's the most optimal in-game choice.

Fwiffo86

2015-01-16, 11:28 AM

Inevitability

2015-01-16, 01:09 PM

The prototypical werebear of fantasy is of course Beorn from The Hobbit. He was grumpy in human form and the dwarves were cautioned to remain inside at night while he was transformed. In were-form he was still able to distinguish friend from foe, as shown in the climax of the Battle of Five Armies.

Don't get me started on the number of ways the movies botched that story, but psycho-Beorn in bear form is just one of them. For starters, a bear with a head 3' across the temples is going to tear any wooden door ever crafted off the hinges - or come right through the walls - or lift the roof off the house and come in. Normal ordinary black bears in our national parks can rip the doors off of cars (Yosemite, Rocky Mountain both caution you about this). Something that probably weighs 5,000 pounds? Yikes.

The door is obviously made from ultra-hard semi-mystical magic wood. That, or Gandalf spammed some hardness-increasing spells on it.

Shining Wrath

2015-01-16, 01:11 PM

The door is obviously made from ultra-hard semi-mystical magic wood. That, or Gandalf spammed some hardness-increasing spells on it.

Beorn, being chaotic good in human form, deliberately built a safe haven from his ravening CE bear form

Abithrios

2015-01-16, 01:42 PM

Because, if there's no alignment drawback, then in some people's game worlds every martial character (and a good number of casters as well) will be werebears because that's the most optimal in-game choice.

I am pretty sure it is every caster as well--unless there are casters who would turn down a free +1 to AC in hybrid form and who like rolling concentration saves every time someone tries to fold, spindle, or mutilate them without a highly valuable silver or magical weapon.

Eslin

2015-01-16, 01:51 PM

I am pretty sure it is every caster as well--unless there are casters who would turn down a free +1 to AC in hybrid form and who like rolling concentration saves every time someone tries to fold, spindle, or mutilate them without a highly valuable silver or magical weapon.

Don't forget the bonus speed and that multiattack is basically a free extra attack feature if you don't already have it - a great boon for clerics.

Shining Wrath

2015-01-16, 02:33 PM

Fwiffo86

2015-01-16, 03:10 PM

Knaight

2015-01-16, 04:27 PM

Because, if there's no alignment drawback, then in some people's game worlds every martial character (and a good number of casters as well) will be werebears because that's the most optimal in-game choice.

It's more that it is oddly encouraged than that it would actually happen. Players just generally not wanting to play lycanthropes will probably curtail this*, lycanthrope not being easily available in setting will probably do the same. This is a very much in the category of oddity than serious issue. It's much like the 200 gp elephant. Yeah, that's stupidly cheap, and yeah, converting the other prices to elephants and describing them that way is entertaining. In practice tough, it's stupidly easy to fix, elephants won't really be a part of the milieu of many settings, so on and so forth. It's not even necessarily something that one needs to be concerned about, unless they're playing in a setting inspired by Carthage, Siam, India, the Khmer Empire, etc.

*At least some players. I don't consider it to have any appeal, but given that the last time I GMed a fantasy game the group was a humanoid plant, a golem, a humanoid moth, and a humanoid crocodile (which was the comparatively normal one), I could easily see the more power gaming types going at this if I got them all together.

Eslin

2015-01-16, 10:12 PM

I think we have some sort of consensus building.

By fluff, even good aligned werebears view their condition as a curse and seek to avoid spreading it
This is true even though they don't become ravening beasts when they transform
But pure crunch wise, there's many advantages to being a lyncanthrope for a PC
Therefore the DM needs to devise in-game reasons why a PC should not seek to become a werebear or weretiger in the spirit of "rulings, not rules" - or just roll with a party of were creatures, as there's no such thing as Bad Wrong Fun. This latter approach does seem to violate the idea that lycanthropy is a curse, though, but whatever floats your were-boat
This may go as far as ruling that a character who embraces the curse becomes a DM PC; even if no alignment change is involved, the character is not the person they once were but is now the person that weres

Pretty much agreed, but note that for the last part you should let your players know what's changed from lycanthropy as it is presented in the book.

It's more that it is oddly encouraged than that it would actually happen. Players just generally not wanting to play lycanthropes will probably curtail this*, lycanthrope not being easily available in setting will probably do the same. This is a very much in the category of oddity than serious issue. It's much like the 200 gp elephant. Yeah, that's stupidly cheap, and yeah, converting the other prices to elephants and describing them that way is entertaining. In practice tough, it's stupidly easy to fix, elephants won't really be a part of the milieu of many settings, so on and so forth. It's not even necessarily something that one needs to be concerned about, unless they're playing in a setting inspired by Carthage, Siam, India, the Khmer Empire, etc.

*At least some players. I don't consider it to have any appeal, but given that the last time I GMed a fantasy game the group was a humanoid plant, a golem, a humanoid moth, and a humanoid crocodile (which was the comparatively normal one), I could easily see the more power gaming types going at this if I got them all together.

I've had a player actually do the elephant thing. It was about a wash - made them a lot stronger out in the open, but there were a bunch of places it couldn't go and the bard starting off naked turned out to still be somewhat of a downside.

Rallicus

2015-01-17, 08:17 AM

I guess it all lies in DM interpretation, how your players play, etc.

My current group isn't a bunch of min-maxed optimizers who try their best to get the upper hand in combat. Sometimes combat doesn't even happen. Honestly, the party would give Playground Munchkins a heart attack (barb 3/fighter 17.... WHAAAAT?!), but the great thing I've found about 5e is that it doesn't really matter.

Even so, being a lycan has some really good advantages. Especially if all you have to do is be like, "haha, I'm totally evil." Because evil characters can never associate with good characters, right? http://www.giantitp.com/forums/images/smilies/oots/belkar.gif

It's a small price to pay for immunity to non-silver weapons and all sorts of stuff like that. Making a character able to retain or regain his alignment makes it even less of a curse.

What I ultimately decided was this: when you transform into a lycan, I take control of the character.

That's a curse if there ever was one, far as I'm concerned.

(Although it was rather convenient last session, when the barbarian's player was multi-tasking with work and was able to take a breather. Just so happened to be a double full moon in game as well.)

Maxilian

2015-01-24, 09:52 PM

A lycanthrope alignment, per RAW, can't change, but i'm pretty sure there could be a way to control the curse completely but that ends up in the hand of the DM

C-Dude

2015-01-24, 11:19 PM

I never understood why D&D didn't cast templates to class levels. That's what I would do; spread out the bonuses of the template over 1 to 5 class levels and tell any player that wants to embrace their feral side that they have to level into it (until they do, the beast is out of control during transformations).

I'd also say that willingly taking the form would instigate concentration checks each time the character takes damage; failure either casts off the form or throws them into a rage (temporarily adopting the alignment of the beast or placing them under DM control).

I know 3rd handled this with the level modifiers, but the nice thing about working it as a class level is that the acquisition of benefits is gradual, reflecting the character's embrace and then mastery of their beast side rather than an instantaneous jump in competency.

Eslin

2015-01-25, 08:42 AM

Fwiffo86

2015-01-25, 01:19 PM

It is possible the alignment only holds for hybrid and animal forms. Especially in cases where the lycan doesn't know its a lycan.

Reddish Mage

2015-01-25, 01:43 PM

Eslin

2015-01-25, 01:47 PM

Going purely by rules of 3e: an alignment change is forced by the condition, purely by rules alignment can change.

Does 5th edition provide for whether PCs lose control over there character? I believe that became negotiable in 3e.

RAI: A PC attaining enormous power unintentionally can often throw a game off. I would take the opportunity to 1) have people around them react to their new condition 2) have fun with making the condition inconvient 3) if it's a paladin, I would make him struggle with the moral conundrums presented, a redemptive quest is mandatory rule wise anyway, it's something to play with to show just how paradoxical it is for a paragon of goodness to choose power at great moral risk.

Of course if you want to play an overpowered kickin the door style: whatever floats your boat.

What about playing the CE former paladin to begin with? The guidelines to playing a forced alignment change don't really allow such a player the ability to switch back without externally being forced.

Why not just balance mechanical benefits with mechanical penalties? Seems a much better solution.

Paladin and redemptive quest wise:
Oath of devotion: No idea, the mindset is too alien. If they're the same alignment as the lycanthrope, is there any moral issue?
Oath of the ancients paladin seems to mesh really well with lycanthropy of any kind, if they have a god of an alignment near that lycanthrope I don't see a problem.
Oath of vengeance should only really be concerned with whether it helps him defeat his enemies - neutral good vengeance pally gets bitten by a werebear, I don't see why embracing it and using the added strength to do good would result in anything but a high five from his patron deity.
Oathbreaker obviously won't care.

Fwiffo86

2015-01-26, 10:36 AM

Why not just balance mechanical benefits with mechanical penalties? Seems a much better solution.

I would think the easy solution is simple. No lycan can control their shapeshifting. It is listed as a "curse". To me, that says there is no way to make your curse work for you. Thus, the simple solution is.. Lycans can never control their shapeshift, lose control, and go on a murder spree.

I would list their alignment as meaningless overall. The alignment of the non-shifted base form is ultimately meaningless to the curse itself. That's why its a curse.

*edit for additional thoughts*

Games where all the players are lycans would be interesting, and control over their powers would work I suppose. But this still makes me think of "moar power" for the munchkin, and I heavily disagree with anyone trying to justify allowing it.

Eslin

2015-01-26, 10:48 AM

I would think the easy solution is simple. No lycan can control their shapeshifting. It is listed as a "curse". To me, that says there is no way to make your curse work for you. Thus, the simple solution is.. Lycans can never control their shapeshift, lose control, and go on a murder spree.

I would list their alignment as meaningless overall. The alignment of the non-shifted base form is ultimately meaningless to the curse itself. That's why its a curse.

*edit for additional thoughts*

Games where all the players are lycans would be interesting, and control over their powers would work I suppose. But this still makes me think of "moar power" for the munchkin, and I heavily disagree with anyone trying to justify allowing it.

Not a houserule I'd go with, if I've got lycanthropy in a world I wouldn't consider removing the embrace the curse and control your transformations option since it removes the potential for a functioning lycanthrope character, but I also don't want it being the best possible choice if your alignment already matches it so I go for mechanical penalties. Still, I'll recommend your way to other DMs asking about it - if 'no embracing, uncontrolled transformations only' fits their style it's a good suggestion.

Fwiffo86

2015-01-26, 11:00 AM

Not a houserule I'd go with, if I've got lycanthropy in a world I wouldn't consider removing the embrace the curse and control your transformations option since it removes the potential for a functioning lycanthrope character, but I also don't want it being the best possible choice if your alignment already matches it so I go for mechanical penalties. Still, I'll recommend your way to other DMs asking about it - if 'no embracing, uncontrolled transformations only' fits their style it's a good suggestion.

What sort of mechanical penalties do you have in mind. I thought not having control was a significant mechanical penalty personally.

Eslin

2015-01-26, 11:10 AM

What sort of mechanical penalties do you have in mind. I thought not having control was a significant mechanical penalty personally.

Having to sit the game out is not a fun balancing measure.

Fwiffo86

2015-01-26, 11:21 AM

Having to sit the game out is not a fun balancing measure.

This is true, but neither is dying, being turned into a statue, or any of several "you can't play right now" problems that characters deal with routinely.

Louro

2015-01-26, 11:25 AM

Attempting to control the beast should be a tough quest by itself. The books states that very few lycantropes get to take control of the curse by investing a lot of time and experience, and even so the full moon turn still remains uncontrollable.

Eslin

2015-01-26, 11:53 AM

This is true, but neither is dying, being turned into a statue, or any of several "you can't play right now" problems that characters deal with routinely.
None of those are attached to templates. If half-dragon turned the character to stone to balance out the breath weapon that wouldn't be good balance either.

Attempting to control the beast should be a tough quest by itself. The books states that very few lycantropes get to take control of the curse by investing a lot of time and experience, and even so the full moon turn still remains uncontrollable.

No it doesn't. Closest we get is most lycanthropes that embrace their bestial natures succumb to bloodlust and become evil, that's not control and it seems pretty dependent on type of creature. The full moon thing is part of the resisting the curse section, there's nothing to indicate that someone who embraces the curse, takes the beast's alignment and can assume beast or hybrid form at will suddenly loses that ability during the full moon.

'A lycanthrope can either resist its curse or embrace it. With time and experience, they learn to master their shapechanging ability and can assume beast form or hybrid form at will'. I'm going to go over this one piece by piece:

Fwiffo86

2015-01-26, 12:27 PM

None of those are attached to templates. If half-dragon turned the character to stone to balance out the breath weapon that wouldn't be good balance either.

I said what I said because it isn't a template. It is clearly listed as a curse. This is a vast departure from the template mentality, and one I completely agree with. I can completely understand why they abandoned the template structure in the first place. My belief is that it is to discourage monster characters in the first place.

This be Richard

2015-01-26, 01:32 PM

AFB right now, so this might be really stupid, but...
Is there a reason you can't just say that the transformations turn all lycans -- werebears included -- into horrible, murderous monsters? Say, perhaps, that the listed alignments of lycans (good for bears, evil for wolves) represent an average lycan of that type who is not transformed, and as soon as they transform it goes out the window?

I guess there's the thing about how it's ostensibly possible to master your condition, but that path to effectively overcoming what makes the curse a curse doesn't need to be open if a DM involves lycanthropy in their campaign as a curse and wants it to stay that way.

It seems to me that one or more people struggling to master their lycanthropy is a story that could easily be worth telling with the right player(s), which is reason enough to put the possibility of doing so into the text... but it's also the kind of story that should probably be the main focus of the campaign while it's being told. And, partly as a consequence of that, a story that should only be told if it interests everybody involved.

Eslin

2015-01-26, 01:44 PM

I said what I said because it isn't a template. It is clearly listed as a curse. This is a vast departure from the template mentality, and one I completely agree with. I can completely understand why they abandoned the template structure in the first place. My belief is that it is to discourage monster characters in the first place.

...why? In the D&D soup edition of trying to make sure every play style is included (except those who liked 4e, apparently), why would you want to discourage monster characters? As a side note, they didn't abandon the template structure. There are still plenty in there, though vampire, werewolf and half dragon are the only ones applicable to players at present - and they decided not to try to balance it for some reason, you'll notice there's absolutely no downside to being half dragon.

In a world with a massive variety of bodies and minds is there a good reason for insisting everyone has to be a humanoid of between one and two metres of height?

AFB right now, so this might be really stupid, but...
Is there a reason you can't just say that the transformations turn all lycans -- werebears included -- into horrible, murderous monsters? Say, perhaps, that the listed alignments of lycans (good for bears, evil for wolves) represent an average lycan of that type who is not transformed, and as soon as they transform it goes out the window?
Yes, you can do that. Just make it clear to the players that in your homebrew there's no 'embrace' option to the curse.

I guess there's the thing about how it's ostensibly possible to master your condition, but that path to effectively overcoming what makes the curse a curse doesn't need to be open if a DM involves lycanthropy in their campaign as a curse and wants it to stay that way.

It seems to me that one or more people struggling to master their lycanthropy is a story that could easily be worth telling with the right player(s), which is reason enough to put the possibility of doing so into the text... but it's also the kind of story that should probably be the main focus of the campaign while it's being told. And, partly as a consequence of that, a story that should only be told if it interests everybody involved.
If your players don't want a big story about it they can always take a more direct approach. Mine fast tracked the learning to control yourself aspect by having a werebear bite the fighter, having the fighter try to control themselves and having the cleric cast remove curse on him immediately afterwards. No huge quest, just adding and removing lycanthropy repeatedly and taking notes/figuring out strategies until the fighter got the hang of it.

Fwiffo86

2015-01-26, 02:33 PM

...why?

This reason....

(except those who liked 4e, apparently)

why would you want to discourage monster characters?

I want to discourage them for the following reasons...

1- Monsters are built to challenge 4 characters. There are examples of 1 creature taking 4 characters of its (admittedly wonky) CR. These creatures as well as creatures who are immune to the most common type of damage inflicted seem to be the most selected "RP" character.

2- The game is built (for the most part in every edition, some exceptions exist) on the premise of people with weapons, skills and spells as their tools to deal with ancient traps, evil dragons, and all of the other supernatural, and non-supernatural threats they encounter. Mixing in what they are supposed to be challenged by (monsters) as viable character types throws the rest of the system off, not to mention (and this is just my opinion mind you) the actual theme of using what you have to overcome that which outclasses you.

If you want to run the I will embrace the evil so I can combat the evil sort of stories, great. Do that from the beginning. Letting Bob the fighter repeatedly get bitten by a Wearbear, while the cleric is removing curse seems out of place. More so when you point out they did it repeatedly until the Fighter overcame (I assume by rolling well).

If I could be convinced to let this happen in the first place, at minimum, the character will be spending game months trying to master his control. We are talking mechanically, (assuming I'm leaving it up to dice instead of dramatic effect) rolling 3-5 critically succeeding control rolls in a row. In the mean time, he will have to be dealing with occasionally losing control of his character as he goes on a midnight murder spree, and quite possibly held accountable as the monster he has now become.

Chalk it up to I prefer my good guys to be good guys, not monsters pretending to be heroes. If I wanted bad buys playing at hero, all my characters would be for that game.

Louro

2015-01-26, 05:59 PM

No it doesn't. Closest we get is most lycanthropes that embrace their bestial natures succumb to bloodlust and become evil, that's not control and it seems pretty dependent on type of creature. The full moon thing is part of the resisting the curse section, there's nothing to indicate that someone who embraces the curse, takes the beast's alignment and can assume beast or hybrid form at will suddenly loses that ability during the full moon.

'A lycanthrope can either resist its curse or embrace it. With time and experience, they learn to master their shapechanging ability and can assume beast form or hybrid form at will'. I'm going to go over this one piece by piece:

So, why do the wereboars (good alignment) prefer to live alone to not harm people?
If you can just resist and control it... where is the curse then?

If there weren't a real drawback everyone would be hunting lycans to get bit and become more powerful. The full moon madness provides a good fluff drawback, and matches both real mithology and D&D literature.

Soular

2015-01-26, 06:08 PM

Chalk it up to I prefer my good guys to be good guys, not monsters pretending to be heroes. If I wanted bad buys playing at hero, all my characters would be for that game.

Chalk it up to using common sense, the fluff, RAI, and the spirit of the game.

I'd say more, but every time Eslin opens his gob I end up with infraction points...

Louro

2015-01-26, 06:16 PM

Chalk it up to using common sense, the fluff, RAI, and the spirit of the game.

I guess lawyers are immune to common sense.

Soular

2015-01-26, 06:22 PM

I guess lawyers are immune to common sense.

If common sense were law, lawyers would be out of a job.

Eslin

2015-01-26, 11:45 PM

This reason....

I want to discourage them for the following reasons...

1- Monsters are built to challenge 4 characters. There are examples of 1 creature taking 4 characters of its (admittedly wonky) CR. These creatures as well as creatures who are immune to the most common type of damage inflicted seem to be the most selected "RP" character.

2- The game is built (for the most part in every edition, some exceptions exist) on the premise of people with weapons, skills and spells as their tools to deal with ancient traps, evil dragons, and all of the other supernatural, and non-supernatural threats they encounter. Mixing in what they are supposed to be challenged by (monsters) as viable character types throws the rest of the system off, not to mention (and this is just my opinion mind you) the actual theme of using what you have to overcome that which outclasses you.

If you want to run the I will embrace the evil so I can combat the evil sort of stories, great. Do that from the beginning. Letting Bob the fighter repeatedly get bitten by a Wearbear, while the cleric is removing curse seems out of place. More so when you point out they did it repeatedly until the Fighter overcame (I assume by rolling well).

If I could be convinced to let this happen in the first place, at minimum, the character will be spending game months trying to master his control. We are talking mechanically, (assuming I'm leaving it up to dice instead of dramatic effect) rolling 3-5 critically succeeding control rolls in a row. In the mean time, he will have to be dealing with occasionally losing control of his character as he goes on a midnight murder spree, and quite possibly held accountable as the monster he has now become.

Chalk it up to I prefer my good guys to be good guys, not monsters pretending to be heroes. If I wanted bad buys playing at hero, all my characters would be for that game.

Why do monsters have to be evil? There seems to be this weird assumption that if it's not a PHB humanoid, it's evil. I had a game back in 3.5 with a human paladin, an elf sorcerer and an ambush drake who eventually went into monk - I'm not seeing a problem with that kind of scenario.

So, why do the wereboars (good alignment) prefer to live alone to not harm people?
If you can just resist and control it... where is the curse then?

If there weren't a real drawback everyone would be hunting lycans to get bit and become more powerful. The full moon madness provides a good fluff drawback, and matches both real mithology and D&D literature.
Because not everyone can control it? It specifically says werebears only pass it on to chosen companions or apprentices, spending the time that followers helping the new lycanthope accept the curse in order to control it. It specifically states they can learn to control it. And sure, that would be an interesting drawback, but the book tells us its only the case for those resisting the curse.

Chalk it up to using common sense, the fluff, RAI, and the spirit of the game.

I'd say more, but every time Eslin opens his gob I end up with infraction points...
Oh yeah. Clearly that one's my fault.

Fwiffo86

2015-01-27, 09:33 AM

Why do monsters have to be evil? There seems to be this weird assumption that if it's not a PHB humanoid, it's evil. I had a game back in 3.5 with a human paladin, an elf sorcerer and an ambush drake who eventually went into monk - I'm not seeing a problem with that kind of scenario.

Why do they have to be viable character options? You certainly can have non-evil monsters. That doesn't mean they should auto-qualifiy for player character status.

Because not everyone can control it? It specifically says werebears only pass it on to chosen companions or apprentices, spending the time that followers helping the new lycanthope accept the curse in order to control it.

I find it difficult to accept (and yes, I know the book says so) that any "Lawful Good" anything would willingly pass on its curse to another sentient being. I would find it easier to believe that they would submit themselves for execution, knowing the danger they present to others.

Eslin

2015-01-27, 09:52 AM

Why do they have to be viable character options? You certainly can have non-evil monsters. That doesn't mean they should auto-qualifiy for player character status.

I never said they should auto-qualify. I said there was no reason they had to be evil and that when the rules worked with it there was no reason not to have them as characters.

I find it difficult to accept (and yes, I know the book says so) that any "Lawful Good" anything would willingly pass on its curse to another sentient being. I would find it easier to believe that they would submit themselves for execution, knowing the danger they present to others.
Neutral good - if it was lawful good it'd be far more likely to happen, since all it would take is one getting it in his head to do so and you'd end up with a self sustaining tradition. And if they've embraced and mastered the curse, why would you want to kill yourself and why would you be a danger to others? If you were neutral good you'd use it to fight evil, protect the innocent, etc etc. And you'd pass it on to others of similar views so they could do the same.

Fwiffo86

2015-01-27, 09:59 AM

Neutral good - if it was lawful good it'd be far more likely to happen, since all it would take is one getting it in his head to do so and you'd end up with a self sustaining tradition. And if they've embraced and mastered the curse, why would you want to kill yourself and why would you be a danger to others? If you were neutral good you'd use it to fight evil, protect the innocent, etc etc. And you'd pass it on to others of similar views so they could do the same.

Since we have no qualifiers as to what "mastering" the curse is intended to mean, I can see we have two very different opinions of what it means.

You believe mastering it means that they never lose control, and can shift as they want/need.

I view it as they can shift when they want, still lose it under lunar influence, but are smart enough to take measures to contain themselves.

Your version (valid yes) leaves lots of room for power gamers to vastly outshine the rest of the party, as well as endanger them unnecessarily due to CRs being increased to challenge the one guy who is virtually immune to damage.

My version has room for power gamers but still comes with the caveat they are still monsters, still a danger to themselves and others, and quite possibly having to deal with non-mechanical RP problems with being the monster they now are. Also, see CR increase and problems for the rest of the party being wrapped up in this as well.

Eslin

2015-01-27, 10:26 AM

Since we have no qualifiers as to what "mastering" the curse is intended to mean, I can see we have two very different opinions of what it means.

You believe mastering it means that they never lose control, and can shift as they want/need.

I view it as they can shift when they want, still lose it under lunar influence, but are smart enough to take measures to contain themselves.
Of the two, mine is the book supported one. The involuntary shifting during the full moon is in the section about resisting the curse, makes no mention of it for embracing the curse.

Your version (valid yes) leaves lots of room for power gamers to vastly outshine the rest of the party, as well as endanger them unnecessarily due to CRs being increased to challenge the one guy who is virtually immune to damage.

My version has room for power gamers but still comes with the caveat they are still monsters, still a danger to themselves and others, and quite possibly having to deal with non-mechanical RP problems with being the monster they now are. Also, see CR increase and problems for the rest of the party being wrapped up in this as well.
No, the game leaves lots of room for that. Previously we had level adjustment to balance out templates, but for some reason instead of using it again or figuring out a different way of balancing mechanical upgrades they decided on... nothing. Which is a pretty stupid decision, but it's on them.

So more accurately, the difference is your version covers for the designers refusing to take responsibility for balancing their own game and mine doesn't.

This means that for lycanthropy to work well the rules need to be changed in one way or another since if the rules are left as is then for anyone who can control it becoming a werebear is always the optimal solution. You either need to add mechanical penalties to it to balance out the mechanical bonuses or apply your method of periodically removing control from the character, dependent on what kind of game you have.

Fwiffo86

2015-01-27, 10:32 AM

Of the two, mine is the book supported one. The involuntary shifting during the full moon is in the section about resisting the curse, makes no mention of it for embracing the curse.

Lack of description or qualification is not support. It can equally be argued it is oversight or mistake.

No, the game leaves lots of room for that. Previously we had level adjustment to balance out templates, but for some reason instead of using it again or figuring out a different way of balancing mechanical upgrades they decided on... nothing. Which is a pretty stupid decision, but it's on them.

Or they decided to not use templates to discourage the use of traditional NPC monsters as characters.

So more accurately, the difference is your version covers for the designers refusing to take responsibility for balancing their own game and mine doesn't.

Or mine takes into account the intent of a curse, and yours expresses the desire to have it as a character option. It can easily be argued either way.

This means that for lycanthropy to work well the rules need to be changed in one way or another since if the rules are left as is then for anyone who can control it becoming a werebear is always the optimal solution. You either need to add mechanical penalties to it to balance out the mechanical bonuses or apply your method of periodically removing control from the character, dependent on what kind of game you have.

This assumes that there is intent to allow Lycan characters in the first place, which I disagree with completely. Just as I disagree with any (and I use the term only for commonality here) "template" you believe to be an option in the MM.

Eslin

2015-01-27, 10:44 AM

Lack of description or qualification is not support. It can equally be argued it is oversight or mistake.
There are two descriptions: One of them is of resisting the curse, keeping your own mind but being transformed against your will. This section states you involuntarily transform on the full moon.
The other is of embracing the curse, your alignment changing to that of the lycanthrope and gaining the ability to change at will. This section does not state you involuntarily transform on the full moon.

So yes, you can argue that it's an oversight or mistake but it's a weak argument.

Or they decided to not use templates to discourage the use of traditional NPC monsters as characters.
But they exist. They didn't decide not to use templates, those templates are in the book. They just decided to deliberately unbalance them because I don't know why.

Or mine takes into account the intent of a curse, and yours expresses the desire to have it as a character option. It can easily be argued either way.
The intent of the curse is that if you embrace it you get the lycanthrope type's alignment and can learn to transform at will into the form of your choice. It can easily be argued one way, your way requires flat out ignoring what the book says.

This assumes that there is intent to allow Lycan characters in the first place, which I disagree with completely. Just as I disagree with any (and I use the term only for commonality here) "template" you believe to be an option in the MM.
And this is another example of that completely ignoring what the book says thing you've been doing. I'm going to use the boldness and capitalisation from the book for this one.
You don't believe there is intent to allow lycanthrope characters? You disagree completely with the idea that they might exist? Good for you, you're wrong.

Page 207: PLAYER CHARACTERS AS LYCANTHROPES.

Shining Wrath

2015-01-27, 11:00 AM

There are two descriptions: One of them is of resisting the curse, keeping your own mind but being transformed against your will. This section states you involuntarily transform on the full moon.
The other is of embracing the curse, your alignment changing to that of the lycanthrope and gaining the ability to change at will. This section does not state you involuntarily transform on the full moon.

So yes, you can argue that it's an oversight or mistake but it's a weak argument.

But they exist. They didn't decide not to use templates, those templates are in the book. They just decided to deliberately unbalance them because I don't know why.

The intent of the curse is that if you embrace it you get the lycanthrope type's alignment and can learn to transform at will into the form of your choice. It can easily be argued one way, your way requires flat out ignoring what the book says.

And this is another example of that completely ignoring what the book says thing you've been doing. I'm going to use the boldness and capitalisation from the book for this one.
You don't believe there is intent to allow lycanthrope characters? You disagree completely with the idea that they might exist? Good for you, you're wrong.

Page 207: PLAYER CHARACTERS AS LYCANTHROPES.

The whole point of this entire discussion has been how a DM should handle the obviously-intended possibility of a PC being infected with Lycanthropy. As you note, there's an entire section of the MM speaking to the subject.

Rulings, not rules. A DM has to decide if they want to up the strength of their campaign to offset the enumerated advantages to the PC of being a were-creature. If the DM wants to do that, and either (1) all the PCs are lycans or (2) the rest of the table doesn't mind being somewhat outclassed by their teammate, then there's no problem, let the players run were-whatevers.

If, on the other hand, the DM either doesn't want to deal with empowered characters, or for fluff reasons thinks lycanthropy is supposed to be considered a curse by the characters (this last is where I land), then some sort of consequences have to be devised to offset the enumerated advantages.

For completely chaotic giggles and grins, you could have a world where infected lycanthropes morph ... but what they morph into is determined by DM roll on a table unless the PC makes a DC 20 Wisdom save, reducible to DC 15 by a homebrew feat. Miss your save, and you morph into ... a hamster. Or a mammoth. Or a feral cat.

Fwiffo86

2015-01-27, 11:03 AM

You don't believe there is intent to allow lycanthrope characters? You disagree completely with the idea that they might exist? Good for you, you're wrong.

Page 207: PLAYER CHARACTERS AS LYCANTHROPES.

First, I didn't say they didn't exist. Please review my posts for anything that says they don't. Second, your bolded statement does not say "Player Character Template" or in different words "How to make a Lycanthrope character". I believe the information is listed to provide DMs with a guideline to deal with characters who become cursed through a bite or what have you. At no point do I get the impression this is paving the way for a character of this type as a regular occurrence. The same can be said for Vampires and the Half-Dragon. Though the half-dragon is in my opinion a silly concept in the first place. But that's the Mystaran DM in me where there is no such thing as a half-breed anything.

Eslin

2015-01-27, 11:05 AM

The whole point of this entire discussion has been how a DM should handle the obviously-intended possibility of a PC being infected with Lycanthropy. As you note, there's an entire section of the MM speaking to the subject.

Rulings, not rules. A DM has to decide if they want to up the strength of their campaign to offset the enumerated advantages to the PC of being a were-creature. If the DM wants to do that, and either (1) all the PCs are lycans or (2) the rest of the table doesn't mind being somewhat outclassed by their teammate, then there's no problem, let the players run were-whatevers.

If, on the other hand, the DM either doesn't want to deal with empowered characters, or for fluff reasons thinks lycanthropy is supposed to be considered a curse by the characters (this last is where I land), then some sort of consequences have to be devised to offset the enumerated advantages.

For completely chaotic giggles and grins, you could have a world where infected lycanthropes morph ... but what they morph into is determined by DM roll on a table unless the PC makes a DC 20 Wisdom save, reducible to DC 15 by a homebrew feat. Miss your save, and you morph into ... a hamster. Or a mammoth. Or a feral cat.

Once again, rulings not rules doesn't mean that. It refers to not trying to cover every event that might come up and instead allowing for a system which the DM can use to make rulings with.

It does not apply to character stats - at that point they're just rules.

First, I didn't say they didn't exist. Please review my posts for anything that says they don't. Second, your bolded statement does not say "Player Character Template" or in different words "How to make a Lycanthrope character". I believe the information is listed to proved DMs with a guideline to deal with characters who become cursed through a bite or what have you. At no point do I get the impression this is paving the way for a character of this type as a regular occurrence. The same can be said for Vampires and the Half-Dragon. Though the half-dragon is in my opinion a silly concept in the first place. But that's the Mystaran DM in me where there is no such thing as a half-breed anything.
No, you said the intent was for them not to exist, which is completely contradicted by the section headed by the bolded statement. And who said anything about regular occurance? I'd say drow barbarians aren't a regular occurance, but that doesn't mean RaI says they shouldn't exist.

The main problem is that unlike half-dragon (can't get bitten and turned into one) and vampire (can get bitten and turn into one, but you're a slave and even when free have a bunch of weaknesses) lycanthropy can be transferred and if you have the alignment already doesn't have any real downsides - this is obviously a problem. RaI stops mattering at this point, since they clearly intended their lazy game design (hello no replacement for level adjustment!) and a solution is needed in any case.

There are three solutions: You homebrew mechanical penalties, you homebrew loss of control or involuntary transformations in for those who embrace it or you accept a world in which the good and the rational are all werebears.

Fwiffo86

2015-01-27, 11:38 AM

No, you said the intent was for them not to exist, which is completely contradicted by the section headed by the bolded statement.

I said Lycan player characters. You are correct, this can be interpreted multiple ways. To clarify, Player Characters who have the benefits of being Lycans (damage immunity, boosted stats, etc) with no real drawback to speak of. Meaning that they are inherently more powerful than the rest of the non-lycan party. This is what I believe is discouraged.

And who said anything about regular occurance? I'd say drow barbarians aren't a regular occurance, but that doesn't mean RaI says they shouldn't exist.

Regular occurrence as defined by being allowed as a player character option. Further qualified as a "build to" or "character create" option.

The main problem is that unlike half-dragon (can't get bitten and turned into one) and vampire (can get bitten and turn into one, but you're a slave and even when free have a bunch of weaknesses) lycanthropy can be transferred and if you have the alignment already doesn't have any real downsides - this is obviously a problem. RaI stops mattering at this point, since they clearly intended their lazy game design (hello no replacement for level adjustment!) and a solution is needed in any case.

There are three solutions: You homebrew mechanical penalties, you homebrew loss of control or involuntary transformations in for those who embrace it or you accept a world in which the good and the rational are all werebears.

I think we are arguing different sides of the same coin here. You think there should be mechanics to balance out the powers. I think they didn't do that (make an actual template that is) because they don't want player characters to have those options for long, if at all.

Essentially, we agree that lycan powers are a problem when tacked onto player characters.

***EDIT***
The only real difference is you seem to want Lycan characters as a readily available option. I do not want them as an option at all. They serve as a consequence, and a challenge. Not a boost to power.

Eslin

2015-01-27, 12:02 PM

I said Lycan player characters. You are correct, this can be interpreted multiple ways. To clarify, Player Characters who have the benefits of being Lycans (damage immunity, boosted stats, etc) with no real drawback to speak of. Meaning that they are inherently more powerful than the rest of the non-lycan party. This is what I believe is discouraged.

Regular occurrence as defined by being allowed as a player character option. Further qualified as a "build to" or "character create" option.

I think we are arguing different sides of the same coin here. You think there should be mechanics to balance out the powers. I think they didn't do that (make an actual template that is) because they don't want player characters to have those options for long, if at all.

Essentially, we agree that lycan powers are a problem when tacked onto player characters.

***EDIT***
The only real difference is you seem to want Lycan characters as a readily available option. I do not want them as an option at all. They serve as a consequence, and a challenge. Not a boost to power.
Why shouldn't they be an option? I'm perfectly happy with enterprising players tracking down a werebear and getting bitten, my only problem is that being flat out optimal - as there were before fifth, there should be tradeoffs.

If they don't want player characters to have an option, don't give them that option. Lycanthropy's incredibly easy to fix (one third level spell), so if players have lycanthropy that means they are either very low levelled or want to have it.

Fwiffo86

2015-01-27, 12:09 PM

Why shouldn't they be an option?

This boils down to this:

To me, lycanthropy is a curse (just as the book says, not a disease, or a mind set, or anything other than a curse). Something to be feared, and reviled. Like many "evil" (used loosely) things, it is seductive because of the power it gives, but ultimately corrupts those who embrace it, or become tired of fighting it.

IMO you view it as nothing more than numbers.

For my reasons above, I don't think it should be allowed as a way to increase player character power, much less be an option to them to ever seriously consider.

Eslin

2015-01-27, 12:21 PM

This boils down to this:

To me, lycanthropy is a curse (just as the book says, not a disease, or a mind set, or anything other than a curse). Something to be feared, and reviled. Like many "evil" (used loosely) things, it is seductive because of the power it gives, but ultimately corrupts those who embrace it, or become tired of fighting it.

IMO you view it as nothing more than numbers.

For my reasons above, I don't think it should be allowed as a way to increase player character power, much less be an option to them to ever seriously consider.

Except there's a good one. If you become tired of fighting it and embrace it all that happens is your morality gets set to good.

And I don't really have a problem with turning a curse into something that works for you with willpower and careful analysis. Taking something that other people say is to be feared and reviled and turning it into a weapon for good is a much better story.

Fwiffo86

2015-01-27, 12:34 PM

Taking something that other people say is to be feared and reviled and turning it into a weapon for good is a much better story.

Good story, yes. Lacks impact once its done and becomes accepted in my opinion. I would prefer the constant unknowning of when that weapon for good suddenly reverts to evil.

Eslin

2015-01-27, 12:41 PM

Good story, yes. Lacks impact once its done and becomes accepted in my opinion. I would prefer the constant unknowning of when that weapon for good suddenly reverts to evil.

Then apply that change and tell your players you're doing so, and that's a fine fix. I prefer leaving it as-is, then once the players realise how good it is applying some form of mechanical penalty for future instances.

Fwiffo86

2015-01-27, 12:47 PM

Then apply that change and tell your players you're doing so, and that's a fine fix. I prefer leaving it as-is, then once the players realise how good it is applying some form of mechanical penalty for future instances.

Don't have to. It's built in.

Eslin

2015-01-27, 12:51 PM

Don't have to. It's built in.

Pretty clearly isn't. Once you've embraced and achieved control then you choose when to transform, it's only when you're resisting that the full moon forces you to.

Fwiffo86

2015-01-27, 12:59 PM

Pretty clearly isn't. Once you've embraced and achieved control then you choose when to transform, it's only when you're resisting that the full moon forces you to.

Achieved control can take a lifetime. There is no time limit listed. It's already got its control in my games.

Eslin

2015-01-27, 01:06 PM

Achieved control can take a lifetime. There is no time limit listed. It's already got its control in my games.

'Spending the time that follows to help the new lycanthrope accept the curse in order to control it' does not imply a lifetime. And I'd say the ability to do it in controlled conditions and experiment with what works would speed that time up - you can chain someone up, curse them and then let them spend however much time they want trying to control it. If they can't, you just decurse them and try again with different strategies, plus it means you can bite someone on the off chance that they're a natural and turn them back if they're not. Allows you to tailor the process to each person's needs and demystifies the process.

Fwiffo86

2015-01-27, 02:05 PM

'Spending the time that follows to help the new lycanthrope accept the curse in order to control it' does not imply a lifetime. And I'd say the ability to do it in controlled conditions and experiment with what works would speed that time up - you can chain someone up, curse them and then let them spend however much time they want trying to control it. If they can't, you just decurse them and try again with different strategies, plus it means you can bite someone on the off chance that they're a natural and turn them back if they're not. Allows you to tailor the process to each person's needs and demystifies the process.

Why does it need to be demystified? A curse is a curse.

Eslin

2015-01-27, 02:07 PM

Why does it need to be demystified? A curse is a curse.

It doesn't need to be demystified if you're just going to decurse yourself and move on. If you're planning to take it and put it to good use, however, working out exactly how it works is going to be a great help.

Fwiffo86

2015-01-27, 02:11 PM

It doesn't need to be demystified if you're just going to decurse yourself and move on. If you're planning to take it and put it to good use, however, working out exactly how it works is going to be a great help.

Fair enough. Though not in my games.

Eslin

2015-01-27, 02:16 PM

Fair enough. Though not in my games.

Wait, why wouldn't it help? Remove curse lets you control the conditions and means nothing is permanent, with proper experimentation you could get a full understanding of how any particular part of it worked. Even if it turned out the curse was uncontrollable, you'd still end up with a bunch very useful information for people to use in dealing with lycanthropes - pass it on to the next good aligned church you pass, make the world a slightly better place.

Fwiffo86

2015-01-27, 02:20 PM

Wait, why wouldn't it help? Remove curse lets you control the conditions and means nothing is permanent, with proper experimentation you could get a full understanding of how any particular part of it worked. Even if it turned out the curse was uncontrollable, you'd still end up with a bunch very useful information for people to use in dealing with lycanthropes - pass it on to the next good aligned church you pass, make the world a slightly better place.

As you say. It's easily cured with the proper magic. What else do people who are interested in how to make it gone need? Catch the monster. Decurse the monster. No more monster. If anything, that should give those that embrace the curse reason to fear having it taken away.

Nothing like that level 20 Wearbear barbarian going toe to toe with the dragon get captured and suddenly finding his curse removed, and all of those special abilities vaporizing.

Especially when dealing with villains who are smart enough to study their targets. I see a game here....

Eslin

2015-01-27, 02:25 PM

As you say. It's easily cured with the proper magic. What else do people who are interested in how to make it gone need? Catch the monster. Decurse the monster. No more monster. If anything, that should give those that embrace the curse reason to fear having it taken away.

Nothing like that level 20 Wearbear barbarian going toe to toe with the dragon get captured and suddenly finding his curse removed, and all of those special abilities vaporizing.

Especially when dealing with villains who are smart enough to study their targets. I see a game here....

Decursing's easy for players, not always easy for NPCs. And you honestly can't think of any reasons why a thorough understanding of how the curse works and affects the target might be useful?

PC wise, that's why you always want a group of werebears, so they can recurse each other if one gets decursed.

Fwiffo86

2015-01-27, 02:35 PM

Decursing's easy for players, not always easy for NPCs. And you honestly can't think of any reasons why a thorough understanding of how the curse works and affects the target might be useful?

My job isn't to determine those things. My job is to control the NPCs who have far less understanding much less desire to research (except in the odd off hand case). All they would care about is how to make it gone.

PC wise, that's why you always want a group of werebears, so they can recurse each other if one gets decursed.

As I said, this would never happen in my games. Unless that was the actual premise of the game.

Eslin

2015-01-27, 02:52 PM

My job isn't to determine those things. My job is to control the NPCs who have far less understanding much less desire to research (except in the odd off hand case). All they would care about is how to make it gone.
Often too true, sadly. Progress is often not made when it could be simply because people don't take the time to ask the right questions.

As I said, this would never happen in my games. Unless that was the actual premise of the game.
Well yeah, you homebrewed embracing the curse to have them lose control sometimes anyway. We've established it wouldn't happen in yours.

Fwiffo86

2015-01-27, 03:04 PM

Well yeah, you homebrewed embracing the curse to have them lose control sometimes anyway. We've established it wouldn't happen in yours.

More precisely, there would be no embracing the curse.

Eslin

2015-01-27, 03:07 PM

More precisely, there would be no embracing the curse.

Fair enough. So, we've about resolved this?

Option 1: Be cool with lycanthropy being the optimal solution for neutral good players.
Option 2: Give it mechanical penalties.
Option 3: Remove embracing the curse.
Option 4: Keep embracing the curse, but make them lose control sometimes anyway.

Fwiffo86

2015-01-27, 03:12 PM

Soular

2015-01-27, 05:46 PM

Fair enough. So, we've about resolved this?

Option 1: Be cool with lycanthropy being the optimal solution for neutral good players.
Option 2: Give it mechanical penalties.
Option 3: Remove embracing the curse.
Option 4: Keep embracing the curse, but make them lose control sometimes anyway.

Actually, no.

Option 1: Let munchkinism fly in the face of reason and common sense and allow players to disregard all of the ill effects of the lycanthropic curse in order to gain potentially game breaking advantages over other characters at low levels.

Option 2: Play the game as intended with all of the negative side effects of the curse.

Eslin

2015-01-27, 11:44 PM

Agreed! Nice working with you!

Nice working with you too.

Actually, no.

Option 1: Let munchkinism fly in the face of reason and common sense and allow players to disregard all of the ill effects of the lycanthropic curse in order to gain potentially game breaking advantages over other characters at low levels.

Option 2: Play the game as intended with all of the negative side effects of the curse.

Not sure if you got this man but there actually aren't really any negative side effects once you embrace and master the curse. That was kind of the point of the argument, how do you deal with that? We've established a number of ways, pick the one that suits your table.

I don't actually know why you dislike character optimisation so much, but you realise that not picking the best path is sometimes immersion breaking? Lycanthropy looks, to a certain mindset, like free power, which means the kind of person who wants free power (most of humanity does, you'll notice constant ads telling you how to make $8000 a month or lose a bunch of weight with one simple trick) will investigate becoming a lycanthrope. In Fwiffo's game after a bit of research they'll realise that the price is too high unless they're insanely desperate but in the base game there's not a lot of reason somebody who is neutral good and wants more power wouldn't try to get bitten, especially since having someone on hand to remove the curse means there's no risk - if you can control it, free power, if you can't then nothing's been lost.

So, as stated, we have four solutions, the first of which is be ok with the fact that anyone who is rational and of the right alignment in your game will want to track down a werebear and get bitten. Not your thing? Not my thing either past the first game where the players discover it and all become werebears, the novelty's great at first but they won't want to feel like they have to be werebears every game, so we've established 3 other solutions. Enjoy.

McBars

2015-01-28, 12:01 AM

Except there's a good one. If you become tired of fighting it and embrace it all that happens is your morality gets set to good.

And I don't really have a problem with turning a curse into something that works for you with willpower and careful analysis. Taking something that other people say is to be feared and reviled and turning it into a weapon for good is a much better story.

Try doing that with other awesome curses like diabetes, pancreatic cancer, hiv infection.

"It's okay little Jimmy, if you just embrace the diabetes nothing bad can happen!" "Sweet! Thanks doc!"

Eslin

2015-01-28, 12:07 AM

Try doing that with other awesome curses like diabetes, pancreatic cancer, hiv infection.

"It's okay little Jimmy, if you just embrace the diabetes nothing bad can happen!" "Sweet! Thanks doc!"

If those things turn me into a huge invulnerable bear then I will.

Soular

2015-01-28, 12:17 AM

If those things make me hulk out and rage-murder random innocent people then I will.

There, fixed it for you.

Eslin

2015-01-28, 12:23 AM

There, fixed it for you.

Why would I do that? Werebear enforces being neutral good, embracing it gives you control.

Malifice

2015-01-28, 12:39 AM

Power gaming wise, it's a weakness of 5e itself, not the lycanthrope template. You'll notice the half-dragon template is a flat out buff with no downsides - they decided the level adjustment system from 3.5 was a bad way of balancing out the strengths of templates, and in its place they instituted... nothing. It is like if they had decided that the experience cost from wish was inappropriate and so removed it having a cost at all - that's not a solution, that's them ignoring the problem entirely because trying to solve it would be hard.

Rules dont stop powergaming... they enable it.

DM's stop powergaming.

Eslin

2015-01-28, 12:52 AM

Rules dont stop powergaming... they enable it.

DM's stop powergaming.

Nope. Try 4e - they didn't balance it perfectly, but they did pretty well, and nothing on the scale of 3.5 or 5e happened. The rules are meant to be well crafted enough that if a player puts a lot of effort into having his character be good at something that character is good at it, but not so good that other characters feel useless.

And why would you stop someone optimising their character? The rules are there to make sure there's a fair limit on optimisation, 3.5's lack of that was one of its biggest flaws.

Soular

2015-01-28, 01:14 AM

RedMage125

2015-01-28, 01:34 AM

Nope. Try 4e - they didn't balance it perfectly, but they did pretty well, and nothing on the scale of 3.5 or 5e happened. The rules are meant to be well crafted enough that if a player puts a lot of effort into having his character be good at something that character is good at it, but not so good that other characters feel useless.

And why would you stop someone optimising their character? The rules are there to make sure there's a fair limit on optimisation, 3.5's lack of that was one of its biggest flaws.

It wasn't until towards the end of 4e's lifespan that they even HAD rules regarding transmission of lycanthropy. Most lycanthropes just carried diseases like "Moon Fever" or somesuch.

Anyway, I also posted another "cure" method for characters that I have incorporated into my game, once my players got bitten by a werewolf when they were level 3, and there was no Remove Curse in sight.

Here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?395281-Low-level-Lycanthropy-quot-cure-quot)

Just something fun, give them a chance to fight the curse, while not being as foolproof as Remove Curse.

ImperiousLeader

2015-01-28, 01:57 AM

Why would I do that? Werebear enforces being neutral good, embracing it gives you control.

And yet the text indicates that Werebears still avoid the company of others "fearing what might happen to innocent creatures around it when its bestial nature takes over". I'd argue that embracing Lycanthropy doesn't give you complete control. It gives you a measure of control, allowing to shift when it's not a full moon. IMHO, that implies that all lycanthropes, whether they embrace the curse or not, lose control during a full moon. Not just an involuntary shift, but the animal mind takes over.

Eslin

2015-01-28, 02:09 AM

It wasn't until towards the end of 4e's lifespan that they even HAD rules regarding transmission of lycanthropy. Most lycanthropes just carried diseases like "Moon Fever" or somesuch.

Anyway, I also posted another "cure" method for characters that I have incorporated into my game, once my players got bitten by a werewolf when they were level 3, and there was no Remove Curse in sight.

Here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?395281-Low-level-Lycanthropy-quot-cure-quot)

Just something fun, give them a chance to fight the curse, while not being as foolproof as Remove Curse.

I never said anything about lycanthropy there. 4e was terrible regarding transformations of any kind - a druid that turned into a bear didn't actually change shape or get any stronger, it was stupid as hell.

That was in response to powergaming in general. In 3.5 you could completely outstrip someone by accident, in 4e you couldn't really break anything.

Riiiight...

So your idea of pretty good balancing is that every benefit is up for grabs with no ill effect at all?

That's not optimization, that's cheating.

What do you mean 'every benefit'? What else does that apply to other than lycanthropy?

Lycanthropy wise, we've discussed it. Pick option 1 if you're ok with it being a free upgrade as it is in the books, homebrew in one of options 2 through 4 if you're not.

And yet the text indicates that Werebears still avoid the company of others "fearing what might happen to innocent creatures around it when its bestial nature takes over". I'd argue that embracing Lycanthropy doesn't give you complete control. It gives you a measure of control, allowing to shift when it's not a full moon. IMHO, that implies that all lycanthropes, whether they embrace the curse or not, lose control during a full moon. Not just an involuntary shift, but the animal mind takes over.
Directly contradicted by the part where it says you can learn control and that it automatically turns you good. And the full moon part is in the section about resisting the curse, embracing the curse says you can transform at will.

Fwiffo86

2015-01-28, 09:27 AM

Directly contradicted by the part where it says you can learn control and that it automatically turns you good. And the full moon part is in the section about resisting the curse, embracing the curse says you can transform at will.

With a direct contradiction such as this, I would hesitate to make any hard and fast rulings such as this. I agree that it allows you to control your transformations. But I also agree that you lose control of your transformations on full moons. If you didn't lose control at some point, it wouldn't be a curse would it?

EvanescentHero

2015-01-28, 09:31 AM

You know, everyone's ignoring the obvious idea here, which is to not include a lycanthrope in your campaign if you don't want to deal with this. As DM, you should have complete control over what monsters you throw at your party; I would never include a werewolf unless I was ready to accept what happened.

Of course, I'd be changing some of the RAW before including one anyway.

Eslin

2015-01-28, 09:39 AM

With a direct contradiction such as this, I would hesitate to make any hard and fast rulings such as this. I agree that it allows you to control your transformations. But I also agree that you lose control of your transformations on full moons. If you didn't lose control at some point, it wouldn't be a curse would it?
It's only a curse if you're resisting it. If you embrace it that means you're not treating it like a curse any more. That's kind of the point to it, it's a grass sword sort of thing.

Fwiffo86

2015-01-28, 09:54 AM

It's only a curse if you're resisting it. If you embrace it that means you're not treating it like a curse any more. That's kind of the point to it, it's a grass sword sort of thing.

*nods* We have established that I don't agree with this thought process. I'm just stating my version. For the record of course.

Embrace the "curse". The fact that you are cursed does not change. You are simply (to use your phrase) making it work for you. Your above statement sounds more like when you embrace it, you cease being cursed and gain all the bonuses of being a Lycan, without any of the negatives. I do not believe this is the case. I would also posit that more people than not agree with me.

I am willing to agree that embracing it gives you the ability to shift at will, and forcibly changes your alignment. However, you are still technically cursed, and there should (must) be some continuing drawback to being cursed.

Myzz

2015-01-28, 01:52 PM

just to clarify...

RAW says you control the transformation right? That doesn't mean you control the beast after transfomed. It means you control when you transform...?

Fwiffo86

2015-01-28, 02:04 PM

just to clarify...

RAW says you control the transformation right? That doesn't mean you control the beast after transfomed. It means you control when you transform...?

I wouldn't interpret it that far. Certainly, after you have embraced your curse, you can transform when you like. I would think that if you voluntarily transform, you would have control. It would be when the full moon gets you, that you don't have any control. What you suggest seems far fetched to me.

Eslin

2015-01-28, 02:10 PM

just to clarify...

RAW says you control the transformation right? That doesn't mean you control the beast after transfomed. It means you control when you transform...?
There are two ways of dealing with the curse: Embracing and resisting it. When resisting you don't get any control, you transform and it's feral mode - it is explicitly told to us that those who resist the curse don't have their alignment changed, but don't have any control or necessarily any memory of the transformation. Now, please observe this weretiger - does he look out of control? No, he's dressed and reaching for an arrow, he's clearly in control of himself. What does this say about those who embrace the curse and can choose when to transform and their ability to control themselves?

http://s21.postimg.org/d3ysf4t5h/weretiger.png

ImperiousLeader

2015-01-28, 03:59 PM

It tells you that it's not a full moon. Also, that's hybrid form, I would say that control is the shakiest in animal form.

I hate to get into an alignment debate ... because they suck, but it should be noted that the article does suggest that there are evil werebears. I hate absolute alignment for any non-outsider monster. Chromatic Dragons are not necessarily evil, and I wouldn't say all Werewolves are evil.

So, personally, if a player in my campaign really wanted to become a Lycanthrope, I'd work with them to make sure it's not just a buff, but that the penalties are not just an alignment change. I'd go more with the point that one's control over the beast is not absolute, it waxes and wanes like the moon itself. And that, unlike Druids, it's harder to keep one's equipment, as it doesn't morph with you.

Ultimately, do what you want in your campaigns, but for me, Lycanthropy is a curse, whether you embrace it or not. It's a condition to be managed, not just a way to augment your PC.

Louro

2015-01-28, 05:31 PM

I guess in Eslin's world you could be a vampire without too much trouble. Just cover yourself with a cloak, gloves and a mask and you will be fine since the RAW says: "Vampires abhor sunlight, for its touch burns them."

As long as the sun doesn't touch you...

---
-Evil foe: I curse you with Lycantropy!
-Player: I embrace it.
-Evil foe: Damn, I have just gave more power to my enemy.
Seems legit.

McBars

2015-01-28, 05:45 PM

I guess in Eslin's world you could be a vampire without too much trouble. Just cover yourself with a cloak, gloves and a mask and you will be fine since the RAW says: "Vampires abhor sunlight, for its touch burns them."

As long as the sun doesn't touch you...

---
-Evil foe: I curse you with Lycantropy!
-Player: I embrace it.
-Evil foe: Damn, I have just gave more power to my enemy.
Seems legit.

Hey as long as you Embrace It, you can do anything!
-Light yourself on fire? Embrace It!
-Bankrupt? Embrace it!
-Massive stroke got you down? Embrace it!

ImperiousLeader

2015-01-28, 05:50 PM

archaeo

2015-01-28, 09:09 PM

Well, to be fair, that was similar to how the 4e Vampire class worked. But it wasn't nearly as scary as the 5e Vampire, and designed and balanced for PCs to play.

Maybe I'd make a "Tame Lycanthrope" feat.

It would also be pretty easy to refluff a Barbarian with a lycanthropic feel, if you wanted that werewolf experience but were afraid of the outsized effects of the 5e MM template.

That said, this is a tea-pot tempest, more or less; I would argue that the werecreature templates aren't really that much more unbalancing than a good magic item. If a player really wanted to get bitten, I don't see how it's materially different from questing for a desired magic item, though in both cases, I'd probably demand that the player justify their metagame knowledge in character.

I do kind of object to the idea that the mere existence of these templates mandates their use by any right-thinking PC.

goto124

2015-01-28, 09:11 PM

You could have lycanthropy be refluffed Druid shapeshifting (is it called Wildshape?) that's restricted to 1 animal...

Might be better to call it, well, shapeshifting though, with 'lycantrophy' being the uncontrollable curse.

C-Dude

2015-01-28, 11:36 PM

It would also be pretty easy to refluff a Barbarian with a lycanthropic feel, if you wanted that werewolf experience but were afraid of the outsized effects of the 5e MM template.
This idea is awesome and I'm going to pitch it to my DM for templates in general the next time he runs a game of 5e. Perhaps a combination of Barbarian and Druid levels (as goto124 suggested) to handle both the hybrid and the animal form?

I had a few more thoughts about lycanthropy in general that I figured I'd share as they are relevant to the conversation.

Abstract (A preemptive TL; DR)
1 - Lycanthropic creature alignment is a reflection of instinct. Embracing the shapeshifting is surrendering to that instinct and so forced alignment probably should be locked until the character rejects the curse again, once more losing control of the shapeshifting.

2 - The act of transforming is quite stressful on the body's metabolism. For a living creature nutrition loss from transformation should be considered (and starvation triggered on voluntary transformations). If transformation does not have that effect, perhaps lycanthropes in beast forms should be treated as undead.

And now, the walls of text!
1.) Alignment as instinct:
The alignment of a lycanthrope is an attempt to apply human psychology to an animal's instinctual motivation. Bears are solitary. Wolves prey on the weakest first. By anthropomorphism of these traits you end up with the quiet naturalist and the vindictive torturer (a neutral-good and chaotic evil character respectively). To that end, it is more important to tap into the instincts of the creature that is hybridized rather than the morality it represents in human society. Werewolves aren't evil, they're pack hunters. They attack the weak because that has the highest probability of resulting in a meal. I would say the alignment change is that instinct clawing away at the human reason of the cursed individual, which would mean that embracing the condition is surrendering to the will of that instinct and THAT is why alignment change occurs. Under such logic it would not be possible for a lycanthrope to change alignment after embracing the curse unless they returned to rejecting the curse, because the new alignment is instinct overpowering their human motivations.

2.) Metabolism of the Transformation
Something to consider about a human (or humanoid) body undergoing a hybrid metamorphosis is that the process involves gaining quite a bit of mass AND the spontaneous differentiation of every organ system. Both of these require significant nutritional resources, placing an incredible strain on the body's reserves. This is why werewolves are depicted with voracious hunger when the condition is spread by virus; as a living being they would need to replace the lost nutrients from the transformation quickly or their body would steal what it needs from their tissues, resulting in organ damage and malnutrition and possibly even causing death in extreme cases. This is a perfectly reasonable explanation of the uncontrollable rage that comes with the condition, and perhaps gaining control of the transformation should free up control but immediately instigate starvation rules or perhaps a loss of hit points to represent the body feeding on itself.
Alternatively, if you adopt a different interpretation of the curse (The Larry Talbot model from The Wolfman), then the transformed lycanthrope is actually an undead creature and would be subject to all such consequences of that state while transformed (controlled or otherwise). While I think both are interesting balances against using lycanthropes as power-game tools, I find this second option more interesting because the consequences of being temporarily undead are surprising, engaging, and perhaps even fatal.

Food for thought.

Eslin

2015-01-28, 11:59 PM

I guess in Eslin's world you could be a vampire without too much trouble. Just cover yourself with a cloak, gloves and a mask and you will be fine since the RAW says: "Vampires abhor sunlight, for its touch burns them."

As long as the sun doesn't touch you...
If a vampire covered themselves up really heavily so the sunlight touched no part of their body - yes, they'd avoid taking any damage, but it'd be really suspicious looking and if they got attacked they'd be screwed because they couldn't really do anything without getting exposed to sunlight. I'm fine with a Buffy style 'vampire runs through sunlight under a heavy cloak, smoke wisping off them' sort of thing.

---
-Evil foe: I curse you with Lycantropy!
-Player: I embrace it.
-Evil foe: Damn, I have just gave more power to my enemy.
Seems legit.
Yes, but the player just lost control of his character. If the foe is an evil lycanthrope, bites the player and the player embraces it his alignment becomes that of the lycanthrope.

Hey as long as you Embrace It, you can do anything!
-Light yourself on fire? Embrace It!
-Bankrupt? Embrace it!
-Massive stroke got you down? Embrace it!
Wow, I didn't know those things gave you a tradeoff option where you could embrace them in exchange for control over how they work. Was there a point to this comment?

It would also be pretty easy to refluff a Barbarian with a lycanthropic feel, if you wanted that werewolf experience but were afraid of the outsized effects of the 5e MM template.

That said, this is a tea-pot tempest, more or less; I would argue that the werecreature templates aren't really that much more unbalancing than a good magic item. If a player really wanted to get bitten, I don't see how it's materially different from questing for a desired magic item, though in both cases, I'd probably demand that the player justify their metagame knowledge in character.

I do kind of object to the idea that the mere existence of these templates mandates their use by any right-thinking PC.
Conditions: Neutral good, rational, has the means to ensure nothing gets out of hand. If you fit those conditions and there is evil that could be better fought by being a werebear then yes, it is kind of mandated. Hence the need for mechanical penalties or a change in how it works.

It tells you that it's not a full moon. Also, that's hybrid form, I would say that control is the shakiest in animal form.

I hate to get into an alignment debate ... because they suck, but it should be noted that the article does suggest that there are evil werebears. I hate absolute alignment for any non-outsider monster. Chromatic Dragons are not necessarily evil, and I wouldn't say all Werewolves are evil.

So, personally, if a player in my campaign really wanted to become a Lycanthrope, I'd work with them to make sure it's not just a buff, but that the penalties are not just an alignment change. I'd go more with the point that one's control over the beast is not absolute, it waxes and wanes like the moon itself. And that, unlike Druids, it's harder to keep one's equipment, as it doesn't morph with you.

Ultimately, do what you want in your campaigns, but for me, Lycanthropy is a curse, whether you embrace it or not. It's a condition to be managed, not just a way to augment your PC.
Alignment wise, I'd go a step further. I actually kind of hate the enforced alignment thing - bears are neutral good, rats are lawful evil, why? Humans like bears and dislike rats. I'm probably going to completely rework lycanthropy, thinking of just having it give traits based on the base creature - wereboar makes you indomitable, stubborn, resistant to change. Weretiger makes you arrogant, self assured, etc.

Evil werebear wise given that it specifically tells us anyone who embraces the curse becomes neutral good I would assume the evil werebears are the ones who got bitten and are resisting - even if you were neutral before, refusing to do anything about periodically turning into a monster that kills people is pretty evil.

archaeo

2015-01-29, 01:29 PM

Conditions: Neutral good, rational, has the means to ensure nothing gets out of hand. If you fit those conditions and there is evil that could be better fought by being a werebear then yes, it is kind of mandated. Hence the need for mechanical penalties or a change in how it works.

The only "change" necessary is to treat that template sidebar just like you'd treat the magical items in the DMG; only to be used if you want, and easily mitigated if not by just not introducing it. The game isn't, after all, a tromp through everything in the MM, and if you throw it in and bite your players, figuring out what to do next is supposed to be part of the fun.

The only advantage to a mechanical penalty is that it creates artificial friction in exactly those circumstances where organic conflict will arise from the narrative, if you're not just playing a game of optimization, anyway.

Soular

2015-01-29, 03:21 PM

McBars

2015-01-29, 04:45 PM

Lord Kristivas

2015-01-29, 08:19 PM

When I first got the MM and read through the Lycanthropes (and, to a lesser extent, Vampires), I got this idea for a game. The PCs would be the "last hope" of these supernatural creatures (who used to be the bad guys, but then just ended up in a fight for survival) that had been hunted to near extinction by some righteous Order. With it's success, that Order had grown powerful. They were seen has heroes for saving so many from Werewolves and Zombies and whatnot. But, the more they "won", the fewer enemies they had. To exist, they needed newer foes. They started to target those that didn't agree with their order, namely Arcane spellcasters, who could rival their power. It was an easy sell to the common man, who was mostly afraid of magic anyway. The Order became corrupted and evil in all but the lowest ranks. They were on the fast-track to dumping the progressive King to place their oppressive leader on the throne when the campaign would start.

So, the PCs would have been either a Lycanthrope, a Vampire, or an Arcane Spellcaster. I thought long and hard over the alignment thing and eventually scrapped the idea in favor of something else. I did have a few options, though.

1. Resist it (per the MM).
2. Embrace it (per the MM).
3. Conquer the beast.

Conquering the beast would have involved a personal quest (cleansing themselves spiritually, dream confrontations with their beast, accidental changes while the beast fought against them, etc), culminating with the PCs going to these ancient proving grounds where they would do battle with their inner beast. Success meant they would have control of themselves, could change at will, and didn't have to worry about the alignment changes.

Obviously, this would be too powerful for a normal campaign. It would be along the lines of "The DM's favorite player/girlfriend gets a nifty buff, the rest of you get to bask in their glory!" But, I think it would have worked out well for the game I'd had planned.

TLDR: Lycanthropy for players probably only works in a game designed around it, where you can change the alignment rules as needed.