Were-bear Half-giant Level 1 Barbarian.

[1337_master]

Ok, so I have an (ECL 5) Character who is liable to kill a young red dragon easily... And in bear form is stronger than an old dragon in raw strength, and could also probably lift a car in bear form. He also wants to keep his lycanthropy a secret from his party members, And I want to keep my finger on a button that is about the CR of his regular enemies (CR 8 or so) in case he really cheeses me off...Help maybe?

[Tellah]

want to keep my finger on a button that is about the CR of his regular enemies (CR 8 or so) in case he really cheeses me off...Help maybe?

Could you rephrase that?

[Arbitrarity]

One, werebears aren't ECL 5, they're ECL 9 normally, 8 if acquired, so the ECL's off. Badly.

6 racial HD, +2 or 3 LA (for DR 5/silver of 10/silver, respectively) And half giant. 'Cause you get the were racial HD.

So smack him. ECL 9, claims to be 5?!

Hard.

[1337_master]

One, werebears aren't ECL 5, they're ECL 9 normally, 8 if acquired, so the ECL's off. Badly.

6 racial HD, +2 or 3 LA (for DR 5/silver of 10/silver, respectively) And half giant. 'Cause you get the were racial HD.

So smack him. ECL 9, claims to be 5?!

Hard.

well yeah. But the ECL bonus said +3

[Zagreen]

That's just the level adjustment. ECL also includes character levels and HD. He has the 6 HD of a bear +1 level of barbarian +1 LA from half-giant +3 LA from being a natural lycanthrope. He's ECL 11, not 5!

[1337_master]

Well...That's going to suck.

[kamikasei]

well yeah. But the ECL bonus said +3

No, the Level Adjustment says +3. ECL is LA + Racial HD + Class levels.


Well...That's going to suck.

Hence why lycanthropy is generally not considered that great.

[1337_master]

Well natural Lycanthropy is a good thing though. though afflicted...yeah...

[kamikasei]

Well natural Lycanthropy is a good thing though. though afflicted...yeah...

Not really. You pay for the lycanthope's abilities (the DR and such) with the LA, but then you have to pay all that racial HD for... not very much.

[UglyPanda]

You can occasionally see people playing custom lycantropes when the animal has low HD and a good ability i.e. werebadger.

[Black Mage]

Weresquirrel :smalleek:

[kamikasei]

You can occasionally see people playing custom lycantropes when the animal has low HD and a good ability i.e. werebadger.

That is among the awesomest things I've ever heard of.

But I was talking about pre-existing types of lycanthrope.

[NEO|Phyte]

I'm fond of the WereDeinonychus (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dinosaur.htm#deinonychus), personally. Fairly decent stat adjusts, only lose one point of BAB to animal HD, 60' move, +5 natural armor, 4 natural attacks, and Pounce. Plus, you're a gorram raptor.

[Fireball.Man.Guy.]

Wher's the were-blank Template?

[NEO|Phyte]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lycanthrope.htm

Its down past the sample lycanthropes

[Annarrkkii]

You can occasionally see people playing custom lycantropes when the animal has low HD and a good ability i.e. werebadger.

Badgerbadgerbadgerbadger—mush-room, mush-room...

Maybe not.

Lycanthropy is an awkward mechanic. It makes for truly bodacious NPCs, often times, since the image of strange goonies who shapeshift into half-human monsters is a timeless classic of drama. However, Affliction is an issue, since it's actually a good thing... While the drawbacks can be quite heavy—CE tendencies in animal form, lack of control, etc.—granting a PC +4 or more ECL for free is heavy, since cursed items of alignment change, calm emotions, and the like are potential ways to control and implement lycanthropy.

The were-whatever template is slightly shaky, leading to a few abuses.

I generally... alter the affliction rules for my campaigns, making them more flavor-oriented and much higher risk, meaning that it works for NPCs and can potentially by spread as a plague plot device through a population without the danger of PC cheese.

[Latronis]

Arn't were-bears lawful good though?

i seem to recall reading something once where someone tried arguing a were-bear running around biting people

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Arn't were-bears lawful good though?


Yes, of the common Lycanthropes only the rat and wolf variety are CE.

[Douglas]

That just made me think of a bizzare idea for an evil campaign: stop the were-bear lycanthropy plague before the entire population becomes lawful good and refuses to deal with you any more and/or brings you in for trial for your many crimes. :smallbiggrin: Or, an even worse ending for failure by the party would be that the PCs get infected and are forced to be LG themselves.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Maybe a new form of capital punishment in that society:
You are bitten until you become good!

[MegasquidMan]

always Hill Giants and Lycanthropy.

I'd like to see a Formorian Wererat!

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

I'd like to see a Formorian Wererat!

I wouldn't :smalleek:


:smalltongue:

[Annarrkkii]

Yes, of the common Lycanthropes only the rat and wolf variety are CE.

BRILLIANT! It's like Equilibrium.

Anyway, the fact that so many lycanthropes are not evil is even worse. You get bitten. OH NOES! I'm forced to involuntarily take a more powerful shape and be compelled to act like a good guy!

Tough life.

[Olethros]

Is therer a RAW system for "Were all a +3 LA for being wear___, so the DM sends us against challanges ~3higher but we can still get 20lvls of classes," sort of thing?

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Nope, the ECL is going to hurt at some point, especially for casters!

[Zherog]

Arn't were-bears lawful good though?



Yes, of the common Lycanthropes only the rat and wolf variety are CE.

I disagree. Werebears aren't always lawful good.



Alignment: Any. Noble creatures such as bears, eagles, and lions tend to produce good-aligned lycanthropes. Sinister creatures such as rats, snakes, and wolves tend to produce evil-aligned lycanthropes. This is a reflection of how these animals are perceived, not any innate quality of the animal itself, so the alignment of the animal form can be arbitrarily assigned.

(Underlining and bold mine)

They tend to be LG, but can be any alignment.


always Hill Giants and Lycanthropy.

I'd like to see a Formorian Wererat!

Formians aren't valid targets for the lycanthrope template - it can only be added to humanoids or giats, and formians are outsiders.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

I disagree. Werebears aren't always lawful good.


I don't disagree with you even though the MM entry for Werebear says "Always lawful good".

I was obviously generalizing.:smallsmile:

[Black Mage]

I hate when they give non-outsiders an "Always ______" alignment.

[Talanic]

I believe he meant Fomorian, which is a type of giant. Easily identified by being appallingly hideous.

[UglyPanda]

When a character contracts lycanthropy through a lycanthrope’s bite (see above), no symptoms appear until the first night of the next full moon. On that night, the afflicted character involuntarily assumes animal form and forgets his or her own identity, temporarily becoming an NPC. The character remains in animal form, assuming the appropriate alignment, until the next dawn.


Any voluntary change to animal or hybrid form immediately and permanently changes the character’s alignment to that of the appropriate lycanthrope.
In layman's terms, it means that if you turn into your animal form involuntarily, then your alignment shifts once you're in animal form. Once you do it voluntarily, the alignment of all your forms are shifted. The only way around it is if you interpret angels as being capable of being chaotic evil.

[Zherog]

And yet the template itself, under alignment, still says "any." And, going further, it use "wiggle words" (tend to produce), rather than making a definitive statement.

[Latronis]

That was the crux of the argument, it wasn't evil for this werebear paladin to go into town and go on a biting spree to make everyone lawful good. :smalleek:

Actually I hate the 'Always______' alignments on everything BUT outsiders.

[Norsesmithy]

Remember Always_____ means Mostly _____, not Always _______.

[Ninja Chocobo]

Is therer a RAW system for "Were all a +3 LA for being wear___, so the DM sends us against challanges ~3higher but we can still get 20lvls of classes," sort of thing?
Not by RAW, but it's what the next campaign I'm playing in's going to be like.
We get 10 levels of RHD+LA (no templates!) removed. I'm going to play a Drider.

[Closet_Skeleton]

"I used to be evil, but then I was bitten by a radioactive bear and now only fight for justice!"

Werebear bites don't turn you good, they force you to be good on the full moon. You still get a choice of turning good by using the transformation voluntaraly.

[Douglas]

each time he changes to his animal form, he must make a Will save (DC 15 + number of times he has been in animal form) or permanently assume the alignment of his animal form in all shapes. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lycanthrope.htm#lycanthropyAsAnAffliction)

It may take a while for some victims, but that will save DC is going to get high enough to be unbeatable eventually unless the character somehow gains a +24 bonus on Control Shape checks very quickly. Considering you can't put a single skill rank into it until you are already infected and aware of it, that's not likely to happen quickly enough.

[Olethros]

Unfortunatly, I think we once again hit the stumbling block that the wear____ write up was best designed for monsterNPC's and not entierly intended for PC use. THEY were nice enough to include a discouraging mechanic, because THEY new we would try it no matters, but its not really PC appropriate. Wearwolfes, wearrats, the other evil wear___ turn your allignment evil so that it is a bad thing to catch lycanthropy. The "negative" aspect assumes either that the gamming group is "good" or atleast heroic, and turning chaotic evil is akin to character death (maby character incapacitation) or that a character thus afflicted will soon be run-out, destroyed, or cured (great plot line here) by every group of townspeople who find out if not his own (mostly good again) party.

I allways saw the "good" wear____s as NPC's uniquely suiited to challange player/character expectations of how to identify the good guy, usefully ally, strange thing to mix it up a little.

The only way I really see them as viable PC's is for short story games where your not expecting to "level up."

All IMHO.

[JellyPooga]

The one thing that really pisses me off about lycanthopes is the fact that their 'Alternate Form' is based on polymorph. Thus, Mr."I-can-turn-into-a-wolf" doesn't get said wolfs' special qualities...wtf? This makes no sense, even more so than the Druids Wild Shape not giving special qualities (o.k. the Wild Shape thing could be even more abusable than it already is if it gave Sp.Qu.s, but Lycanthropes? Hardly)

[NEO|Phyte]

The one thing that really pisses me off about lycanthopes is the fact that their 'Alternate Form' is based on polymorph. Thus, Mr."I-can-turn-into-a-wolf" doesn't get said wolfs' special qualities...wtf? This makes no sense, even more so than the Druids Wild Shape not giving special qualities (o.k. the Wild Shape thing could be even more abusable than it already is if it gave Sp.Qu.s, but Lycanthropes? Hardly)
Ermm, I'm not sure which lycanthrope template you're using, but the one in the SRD gets all the special qualities of its various forms, in every form. :edit: aside from the DR.
It needs to be in animal form to get the animal's special attacks, but it doesn't lose them.

[Driderman]

Hmm, having a problem with a player with a crazy race/template combo?
How about this solution: Have a good long look at how the combo works and then call him, have a good long talk about the future of his hairy mutantman in your campaign and calmly explain that you'd prefer if he rolled up another character not quite so munchkinny, while offering to spend the next couple of gaming sessions to sort out why his character has to leave the party with a proper explanation.

Otherwise, try this one: Kill off the character with something even more munchkinny and tell him that next time he cheats he can go play with himself instead
:)

[JellyPooga]

Ermm, I'm not sure which lycanthrope template you're using, but the one in the SRD gets all the special qualities of its various forms, in every form. :edit: aside from the DR.
It needs to be in animal form to get the animal's special attacks, but it doesn't lose them.

Oh yeah, just had a look at the Lycanthrope template...previously, I had only looked at the 'Alternate Form' entry in the glossary which, as standard, doesn't give Special Q's. O.k. maybe they don't piss me off after all...:smallbiggrin:

[Rasumichin]

Otherwise, try this one: Kill off the character with something even more munchkinny and tell him that next time he cheats he can go play with himself instead
:)

Somehow i fail to understand why it is cheating to build a character using RAW.
Or how it is recommandable for a DM to arbitrarily kill off PCs you dislike for style reasons.

[SpiderBrigade]

Somehow i fail to understand why it is cheating to build a character using RAW.
Or how it is recommandable for a DM to arbitrarily kill off PCs you dislike for style reasons.It's not so much "PCs you dislike" as it is "PCs who are playing an ECL 9 character in an ECL 5 game, and told you that was legal." Which is not RAW, and is in fact cheating unless your DM gives you permission for some reason.

Of course, I wouldn't jump straight to the DM-fiat killing, either. This can be discussed like rational adults. But there IS a problem that needs dealing with, one way or another.

[Zherog]

It's not so much "PCs you dislike" as it is "PCs who are playing an ECL 9 character in an ECL 5 game, and told you that was legal." Which is not RAW, and is in fact cheating unless your DM gives you permission for some reason.

[Devil's Advocate]
You're making an assumption, I think, that the player completely understood how ECL works, in particular when it comes to the weirdness that is the lycanthrope template. While there's no doubt that the character was an illegal build for the parameters of the game, I think maybe going for the word "cheat" instead of maybe "misunderstanding" could be a little harsh.
[/Devil's Advocate]


Of course, I wouldn't jump straight to the DM-fiat killing, either. This can be discussed like rational adults. But there IS a problem that needs dealing with, one way or another.

I completely agree with this, and there won't be any Devil's Advocating on the point from me. ;) I think "I'm the DM so your character is dead" is never a good thing.

[SpiderBrigade]

Well, yeah, the second part was meant to address the points you raise in your [DA]. Part of the rational discussion would BE figuring out if this was an honest mistake all round, and then dealing with it that way if so. But if the player insists that his build is totally legal and shouldn't be nerfed in any way, negotiations might break down...

[lord_khaine]

hey, he is the dm, there is no negotiations when dealing with an eligal build.

[SpiderBrigade]

Sure there are. If it was an honest mistake, you and the player work together to find a way to restore the game's balance, while still letting him have fun. In some games, it might not even matter that he's the equivalent of 4 levels ahead of the party. In that case it might be enough to simply correct his "experience needed for next level" to be ECL 10 rather than 6, and let the rest of the party catch up, as they will. Another group might require a more drastic answer, like actually de-leveling the character, or even writing up a new character entirely. But this is where you negotiate.

OF COURSE the DM still has the final say, but there's no reason to antagonize your players for making mistakes, if that's what happened. Heck, even if the player was trying to pull a fast one on you, what matters is whether he's willing to set things right again. Let me be clear: these "negotiations" are not to decide whether or not the character needs a nerf (if the DM thinks he does). They are to decide what kind of nerf will keep the game fun for everyone.

[Zherog]

In addition to what Spidey said...

There's no need to be antagonistic about it, either. It's not "players vs DM" and presumably you're friends with the player. The issue really can be settled without resorting to the DM "god" power.

[Latronis]

But sometimes a DM-*****slap is just what's called for.......

[Zherog]

No, not really. Not in my opinion, anyway.

[Olethros]

I have to admit, if I was Dm'ing and suddenly realised that one of the players was that many levels ahead of the group, Id be in drastic action mode prety quick. Bringing the barty to near level equality would be my primary interest. Group harmony a close second.

Options Id consider:
1. Wow, Im sory you/I/we pooched that build bad. Here is a fresh Character sheet.

2. Ok rest of group, who is for skipping ahead x lvls and playing a more powerfull game (dependent on place in story, desire, etc)

3. (for the afflicted lycanthrope scenario) you have been fed wolvsbane, alot, your cured. This process has given you much to think about. Add levels of character classes untill you are equal to the party, no-more-templates.

4. It was on purpose, we will seriously talk about your futyre with the gamming group (I have no tollerance for deliberate cheaters).

[Driderman]

Somehow i fail to understand why it is cheating to build a character using RAW.
Or how it is recommandable for a DM to arbitrarily kill off PCs you dislike for style reasons.

Humor's a funny thing, innit?
Seriously though, if you re-read my post you might realize that there were TWO suggestions, one of which perhaps was not so seriously meant...