Werewolf - benefit for players?

[Jarlhen]

This might be a stupid question, but I've been looking at the lycanthropy chapter in the MM. And I'm not sure I get it. Let's say a player becomes a werewolf. Ignore all the RP aspects and just look at the mechanics. What are the benefits exactly if you compare to say a level 6 barbarian or fighter or any of the brawling classes? Obviously immunity to some weapon types is really sweet. But beyond that. And I'm not saying this in a "oh this is **** why did they include that" type of way, it's a genuine question. Do you get to keep all of your other everything while you're a werewolf? Do you get the stats straight off from the werewolf block? What are the big benefits exactly? I ask specifically in regards to werewolves.

[Lines]

This might be a stupid question, but I've been looking at the lycanthropy chapter in the MM. And I'm not sure I get it. Let's say a player becomes a werewolf. Ignore all the RP aspects and just look at the mechanics. What are the benefits exactly if you compare to say a level 6 barbarian or fighter or any of the brawling classes? Obviously immunity to some weapon types is really sweet. But beyond that. And I'm not saying this in a "oh this is **** why did they include that" type of way, it's a genuine question. Do you get to keep all of your other everything while you're a werewolf? Do you get the stats straight off from the werewolf block? What are the big benefits exactly? I ask specifically in regards to werewolves.

The book has a sidebar telling you what happens if you become a lycanthrope. And mechanically you don't have any control over your transformations unless you embrace the curse, and if you embrace the curse you become chaotic evil.

[eastmabl]

Lycanthropy isn't really present as that much of a character option. The MM gives you rules for when your character contracts lycanthropy because it has to, but players shouldn't want to get it.

[Lines]

Lycanthropy isn't really present as that much of a character option. The MM gives you rules for when your character contracts lycanthropy because it has to, but players shouldn't want to get it.

Not a werewolf, no. No reason a player wouldn't want to be a werebear though as long as they're already neutral good, it's a straight upgrade.

[Oramac]

The book has a sidebar telling you what happens if you become a lycanthrope. And mechanically you don't have any control over your transformations unless you embrace the curse, and if you embrace the curse you become chaotic evil.

This.

I actually put together a playable PC Lycan race that avoids the "go nuts and kill your party" part of the Lycanthropy Curse. It's in my Sig.

[Lines]

This.

I actually put together a playable PC Lycan race that avoids the "go nuts and kill your party" part of the Lycanthropy Curse. It's in my Sig.

I was about to say just be a werebear, but it occurs to me that +1AC, multiattack, 19 strength and immunity to non magic or silvered weapons is way, way, way above what any other race gets.

[Oramac]

I was about to say just be a werebear, but it occurs to me that +1AC, multiattack, 19 strength and immunity to non magic or silvered weapons is way, way, way above what any other race gets.

Haha. That is is! Which is why I avoided all the Immunity/multiattack/stat boosts in the Lycan race I made. It's actually based on the Half-Orc/Goliath, with some flavor thrown in to make it feel more like a Lycan.

[Slipperychicken]

It's quite busted. Immunity to nonmagic, nonsilvered weapons, strength bump, AC bonus, and one or two natural weapons. And the PC gets to keep all his everything from his class.

This looks like one of those things where the tradeoff does not happen in your statblock.

[Lines]

It's quite busted. Immunity to nonmagic, nonsilvered weapons, strength bump, AC bonus, and one or two natural weapons. And the PC gets to keep all his everything from his class.

This looks like one of those things where the tradeoff does not happen in your statblock.

Quote WotC: Well, in 3.5 we found we didn't really get the balance quite right in using RHD and LA to balance out the power from being a lycanthrope. So instead in 5e we're going to do absolutely nothing and give no guidelines, then pretend that's better.

[gfishfunk]

Yeah, my old GM put me up against a tiger lycanthrope and I got the curse. I did not embrace it, but he told me that I got the benefits.

He really did not read up on it before hand. I came back the next session with amazing stats. I do not recommend allowing it in-game because it does allow massive min-maxing on stats.

[Lines]

Yeah, my old GM put me up against a tiger lycanthrope and I got the curse. I did not embrace it, but he told me that I got the benefits.

He really did not read up on it before hand. I came back the next session with amazing stats. I do not recommend allowing it in-game because it does allow massive min-maxing on stats.

A yup. 5e was really lazy in a lot of parts of its design - see also crafting, magic item crafting, magic item pricing and magic item balance.

[lebefrei]

I don't see these as player options. That is why they are in the monster manual. These are DM tools to apply to other NPCs, just like half-dragon. There is a reason that the book calls out for DMs to take over lycanthrope PCs. It's a plot hook at best, generally.

Now having said that, I might give a mid to high level player a modified Werebear. In exchange they lose two magic item attunement slots. I would change the immunities to resistances. Don't want it anymore? Quest for a cure/wish.

[Lines]

I don't see these as player options. That is why they are in the monster manual. These are DM tools to apply to other NPCs, just like half-dragon. There is a reason that the book calls out for DMs to take over lycanthrope PCs. It's a plot hook at best, generally.
Says the DM may take control if the player embraces the curse and the alignment changes. If you're neutral and embrace being a weretiger, you're all good.


Now having said that, I might give a mid to high level player a modified Werebear. In exchange they lose two magic item attunement slots. I would change the immunities to resistances. Don't want it anymore? Quest for a cure/wish.
That's not gonna be much of a quest, remove curse gets rid of lycanthropy. It's a third level spell, wishing is complete overkill.

[Sigreid]

IMO the power of lycanthropy is balanced by the fact that heroes will be leading torch and pitchfork mobs to hunt them down like the beasts that they are.

[Lines]

IMO the power of lycanthropy is balanced by the fact that heroes will be leading torch and pitchfork mobs to hunt them down like the beasts that they are.

They're not really a hero then if they lead a mob to hunt down a werebear, are they? Hunting down good creatures, mob violence and murderous discrimination are all hallmarks of absolute evil.

You're always going to have evil enemies if you're good, that's not a balancing factor.

[Sigreid]

They're not really a hero then if they lead a mob to hunt down a werebear, are they? Hunting down good creatures, mob violence and murderous discrimination are all hallmarks of absolute evil.

You're always going to have evil enemies if you're good, that's not a balancing factor.

I would expect that most people don't know anything at all about alignments tied to were creature types. Aside from that, the fluff in the monster manual leads me to believe that the beast in a were bear is just as savage and dangerous as any of the others, but the were bears have established a culture of hunting down any of their number that don't struggle to master the beast and largely isolate themselves from other people to keep from doing harm.

[Lines]

I would expect that most people don't know anything at all about alignments tied to were creature types. Aside from that, the fluff in the monster manual leads me to believe that the beast in a were bear is just as savage and dangerous as any of the others, but the were bears have established a culture of hunting down any of their number that don't struggle to master the beast and largely isolate themselves from other people to keep from doing harm.

The fluff can point whichever direction you want considering that it states they have control once they embrace the curse, it points towards reclusiveness but you can have a setup where werebear clerics bite people then immediately remove the curse if the person can't control it if you want. None of that changes the fact that a werebear who embraces their curse is innately neutral good. It's like hunting down a silver dragon, doesn't matter if you're ignorant it's still an evil thing to do.

[Sigreid]

Sure, but none of that changes the fact that a werebear who embraces their curse is innately neutral good. It's like hunting down a silver dragon, doesn't matter if you're ignorant it's still an evil thing to do.

If all you've heard is about the dragon attacking the villages, and you don't know about the silver dragon's propensity for friendliness, it doesn't make you evil if you try to defend the country by killing the first dragon you find in the area in your ignorance.

And what I was saying in regards to the bear is the curse doesn't make you neutral good in that case, but if you aren't neutral good after you embrace it the others will sort you out. I know it doesn't quite fit with the embrace werewolf and become evil thing, but it's what I get out of the fluff text. They seem to be the exception to the normal rules.

[Lines]

If all you've heard is about the dragon attacking the villages, and you don't know about the silver dragon's propensity for friendliness, it doesn't make you evil if you try to defend the country by killing the first dragon you find in the area in your ignorance.

And what I was saying in regards to the bear is the curse doesn't make you neutral good in that case, but if you aren't neutral good after you embrace it the others will sort you out. I know it doesn't quite fit with the embrace werewolf and become evil thing, but it's what I get out of the fluff text. They seem to be the exception to the normal rules.

It does indeed make you evil for the same reason everyone involved in the death of Rubin Stacy was evil, ignorance or prejudice is not an excuse for murder. Fluff wise, like 5 different bits of the lycanthrope fluff point in 5 different directions - a charitable person might say it's so you can decide for yourself how lycanthropes work, a more realistic person might say because the design process was lazy and borderline incompetent.

[Arkhios]

Do you get to keep all of your other everything while you're a werewolf? Do you get the stats straight off from the werewolf block? What are the big benefits exactly? I ask specifically in regards to werewolves.

As already mentioned, MM sidebar tells you this:
"Werewolf. The character gains a Strength of 15 if his or her score isn't already higher, and a +1 bonus to AC while in wolf or hybrid form (from natural armor). Attack and damage rolls for the natural weapons are based on Strength."

You keep everything else you had before, only your Strength may change to 15, unless it was already higher.
Lycanthropy may be a curse, but everything you get from it is hands down a list of bonus abilities.

[RickAllison]

I suppose to tie in with the discussion of how it can benefit players, what classes would get the most out of a form like the werebear? Would it be better to take advantage of the form's Multiattack or to stick with Extra Attack for melee? Do casters really gain much by gaining lycanthropy?

[Lines]

I suppose to tie in with the discussion of how it can benefit players, what classes would get the most out of a form like the werebear? Would it be better to take advantage of the form's Multiattack or to stick with Extra Attack for melee? Do casters really gain much by gaining lycanthropy?

Werebear death cleric does stupid damage. Free multiattack works fantastically on rogues, clerics, mystics and lore bards, though you have to work a bit harder to make rogue work. The free strength is also pretty great on the casters because they typically need 3 stats.

[Sigreid]

I suppose to tie in with the discussion of how it can benefit players, what classes would get the most out of a form like the werebear? Would it be better to take advantage of the form's Multiattack or to stick with Extra Attack for melee? Do casters really gain much by gaining lycanthropy?

I think casters, particularly Wizard and Sorcerer get the biggest benefit; effective immunity to the damage of mooks/anyone or anything that doesn't have a magic or silver based attack. Given that they're usually the ones with the worst AC and HP, that's huge. And since they also probably dumped Str, that will give them greater carrying capacity, athletic ability (jump, climb, etc.) and grapple resistance. On top of that, they get solid fall back melee capability. Basically, while it helps others with their strengths, it all but eliminates a wizard or sorcerer's weaknesses.

[lebefrei]

Says the DM may take control if the player embraces the curse and the alignment changes. If you're neutral and embrace being a weretiger, you're all good.


That's not gonna be much of a quest, remove curse gets rid of lycanthropy. It's a third level spell, wishing is complete overkill.

Yes, true, but by making it the DMs choice (and to use infecting lycanthropes in the first place) is what I mean by this not being a choice for players.

Right, I didn't explain that idea as a house rule. If a player embraces lycanthropy and retains their character I'd change them from cursed to natural born, meaning they need it wished away. I don't want to hand over this kind of power and roleplaying demand (I'd never give a player this choice that won't roleplay it) without a price.

[Ronnocius]

The reason the benefits might not be immediately obvious is because lycanthropy isn't supposed to be especially helpful or good. Lycanthropy is a curse, and if you're infected its supposed to be a hindrance. Usually people don't want to play lycanthropes (or maybe they do) so they try to remove the curse, which can be an adventure if they are somewhat low-level.

Benefit of lycanthropy from a werewolf:
*you gain all damage immunities, traits, and actions of a werewolf
*you gain the speed of a werewolf while in animal or hybrid form
*you gain a werewolf's natural weapons
*you gain a +1 bonus to AC while in animal and hybrid forms
*you get a Strength of 15

So yeah, unless someone wants to be a lycanthrope for the sake of it (roleplaying) being a lycanthrope isn't that great, at least for werewolves.

[Slipperychicken]

IMO the power of lycanthropy is balanced by the fact that heroes will be leading torch and pitchfork mobs to hunt them down like the beasts that they are.

It's balanced better by having a PC who goes lycan not under player control. When you go hybrid or beast-mode (the only time you get the buffs), then you rampage like the werewolves of the source material. Embracing the curse just means you give up your control and submit to the beast inside. That is the entire reason why lycanthropy is supposed to be bad in the first place.


MM 206
"By resisting the curse, a lycanthrope retains its normal alignment and personality while in humanoid form. It lives its life as it always has, burying deep the bestial urges raging inside it. However, when the full moon rises, the curse becomes too strong to resist..."

MM 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."

[Lines]

It's balanced better by having a PC who goes lycan not under player control. When you go hybrid or beast-mode (the only time you get the buffs), then you rampage like the werewolves of the source material. Embracing the curse just means you give up your control and submit to the beast inside. That is the entire reason why lycanthropy is supposed to be bad in the first place.


MM 206
"By resisting the curse, a lycanthrope retains its normal alignment and personality while in humanoid form. It lives its life as it always has, burying deep the bestial urges raging inside it. However, when the full moon rises, the curse becomes too strong to resist..."

MM 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."

Well, no. If you don't embrace the curse, you go on a rampage because your choices are either become one with the beast's nature or stay separate from it, meaning in beast form you have no control. The entire point of embracing the curse is gaining control at the cost of becoming a different person, adopting the beast's alignment - for a given meaning of the word 'control', seeing as you're permanently changing who you are by letting the beast in. If you're a werewolf that means you have a choice between the beast going on a rampage or embracing it and (chaotic evil) you go on a rampage, because now you want to.

Fortunately, if you're already neutral good then embracing being a werebear doesn't really change anything about you - become one with the beast, master it and you get control without losing who you are. Same for werewolf if you're already chaotic evil I suppose, but that's a much rarer alignment for a PC.

[Slipperychicken]

Well, no. If you don't embrace the curse, you go on a rampage because your choices are either become one with the beast's nature or stay separate from it, meaning in beast form you have no control. The entire point of embracing the curse is gaining control at the cost of becoming a different person, adopting the beast's alignment - for a given meaning of the word 'control', seeing as you're permanently changing who you are by letting the beast in. If you're a werewolf that means you have a choice between the beast going on a rampage or embracing it and (chaotic evil) you go on a rampage, because now you want to.

It's semantics. Either way the PC isn't controlled by the player, and is for all intents and purposes a monster NPC until he turns back. Though if you could trust your player to RP it properly, he might be permitted to play the beast in combat.

I dislike the idea that the player could maintain control with no drawbacks if he happens to share the lycan form's alignment. I'd probably discard that. As for werebears, I'd probably say that embracing it means the PC retires to a werebear coven and spends the rest of his days doing goody-two-shoes stuff like dancing, protecting travelers, and preventing forest-fires or something along those lines.

[mephnick]

I'm so glad it wasn't put in as a template players were supposed to take.

The Half-dragon/were-bear/half-pixie/quarter-demon/half-celestial part of the 3.5 was the absolute worst thing in the edition.

Now it's a curse that's supposed to be a near death sentence (removal of the PC), like it is in traditional fantasy.

[Lines]

I'm so glad it wasn't put in as a template players were supposed to take.

The Half-dragon/were-bear/half-pixie/quarter-demon/half-celestial part of the 3.5 was the absolute worst thing in the edition.

Now it's a curse that's supposed to be a near death sentence (removal of the PC), like it is in traditional fantasy.

That would have 6 racial hit dice and a level adjustment of 16. Seems a pretty stupid idea, but I'm assuming you mean templates in general? If you want to be a half-dragon, what's wrong with weakening your character because you want to make a theme work?

[Boci]

I'm so glad it wasn't put in as a template players were supposed to take.

The Half-dragon/were-bear/half-pixie/quarter-demon/half-celestial part of the 3.5 was the absolute worst thing in the edition.

Now it's a curse that's supposed to be a near death sentence (removal of the PC), like it is in traditional fantasy.

The reason why lycanthropy was a curse was because it made you into the wolf, into nature, so werewolf being a curse and causing a loss of control only really works when you are in a setting that is terrified of nature, like medieval Europe. D&D as a whole though doesn't really go for that, and the idea of a completly natural being passing on a curse that consumes you doesn't jive with the rest of the fluff.

Werewolves should be aberrations or outsider if the mechanics of the curse are to mesh with D&D lore.

[mephnick]

I don't know man, I'd say 99% of the people in a D&D universe are terrified of D&D nature. That **** is crazy. I've got a slew of dead PCs to prove it.

Also the game's always been modeled around medieval Europe, so I think fear is still a thematically relevant reaction to lycanthropy.

[Boci]

I don't know man, I'd say 99% of the people in a D&D universe are terrified of D&D nature. That **** is crazy. I've got a slew of dead PCs to prove it.

I tend to find most games have outsiders, aberrations or humanoids as the main antagonists, which are all different nature. Nature tends to be the enemy of low level PCs. Ofcourse nature is scary in D&D, everything is scaring. And between nature, inntelligence, the outer planes and the unnatural, natures tends to be the least scary.

But that can vary from game to game, I'm talking about D&D as a whole.

[Lines]

I don't know man, I'd say 99% of the people in a D&D universe are terrified of D&D nature. That **** is crazy. I've got a slew of dead PCs to prove it.

Also the game's always been modeled around medieval Europe, so I think fear is still a thematically relevant reaction to lycanthropy.

The game has almost nothing in common with medieval Europe. The social structure, economics, trade, religion, technology and peoples are not in any way similar to that of medieval Europe, so what's supposed to be being modeled here?

[Boci]

The game has almost nothing in common with medieval Europe. The social structure, economics, trade, religion, technology and peoples are not in any way similar to that of medieval Europe, so what's supposed to be being modeled here?

I imagine the popular perception of medieval Europe, which D&D helped shape. Yes, that makes it a little redundant to say "I model my D&D games off the re-imagined Medieval Europe of D&D", but its only glaringly inaccurate if you are a history major, which most players aren't.

[Lines]

I imagine the popular perception of medieval Europe, which D&D helped shape. Yes, that makes it a little redundant to say "I model my D&D games off the re-imagined Medieval Europe of D&D", but its only glaringly inaccurate if you are a history major, which most players aren't.

Thank you, that was very helpful.

Which brings me to the thought that nobodies perception really involves anything except werewolves, so should the others be different? I like their treatment of golems this edition - clay golems are like the jewish original, flesh golems have a Frankenstein's monster kind of theme, etc etc. Should lycanthropy be the same? Werewolves embodying the old uncontrollable monster theme, werebears being the noble beast within Beorn style, that kind of thing?

[pwykersotz]

Quote WotC: Well, in 3.5 we found we didn't really get the balance quite right in using RHD and LA to balance out the power from being a lycanthrope. So instead in 5e we're going to do absolutely nothing and give no guidelines, then pretend that's better.

Unpopular opinion, I actually do find it FAR better. RHD and LA taught me that if you give players (and GM's!) the ability to fiddle with penalties and boosts like that, it breaks down fairly quickly. I prefer them to be straight up power-ups, that way they get judged as such rather than playing a silly meta mini-game to try to justify it.

[Lines]

Unpopular opinion, I actually do find it FAR better. RHD and LA taught me that if you give players (and GM's!) the ability to fiddle with penalties and boosts like that, it breaks down fairly quickly. I prefer them to be straight up power-ups, that way they get judged as such rather than playing a silly meta mini-game to try to justify it.

But that's easy to do, regardless of context. If the DM wants it to be a staight powerup in 3.5 they can just give it to the player for free which requires no effort to invent, if the DM wants it to be a balanced option in 5e there's nothing.

[pwykersotz]

But that's easy to do, regardless of context. If the DM wants it to be a staight powerup in 3.5 they can just give it to the player for free which requires no effort to invent, if the DM wants it to be a balanced option in 5e there's nothing.

I don't disagree in principle, but I disagree in application. The rules encourage a certain style of play. Even though I could, for example, make skills incredibly complex or say that magic doesn't exist past 3rd level spells, I would be fighting against both personal and player expectations set by the rules. Plus there are tons of corner cases and dependencies that emerge in rules heavy systems (and 5e is still rules heavy). So while I could handwave existing requirements, the fact that the rules say to simply wing it is a much more workable expectation for me. Probably because the core system is solid enough for me to base my rulings around how I game, and I can be flexible in those rulings as my table shifts through different styles.

I agree that all this is possible anyway, but having come from an extensive 3.5 background and spending lots of time on these very forums, I can assert with certainty that the culture is vastly different...and I like this culture more.

[Lines]

I don't disagree in principle, but I disagree in application. The rules encourage a certain style of play. Even though I could, for example, make skills incredibly complex or say that magic doesn't exist past 3rd level spells, I would be fighting against both personal and player expectations set by the rules. Plus there are tons of corner cases and dependencies that emerge in rules heavy systems (and 5e is still rules heavy). So while I could handwave existing requirements, the fact that the rules say to simply wing it is a much more workable expectation for me. Probably because the core system is solid enough for me to base my rulings around how I game, and I can be flexible in those rulings as my table shifts through different styles.

I agree that all this is possible anyway, but having come from an extensive 3.5 background and spending lots of time on these very forums, I can assert with certainty that the culture is vastly different...and I like this culture more.

But what's the actual problem? Templates are almost never a good idea in 3.5 in that they don't give as much as they cost, so no player who is prepared to take a template normally is going to object to you announcing they get it for free.

[MaxWilson]

Yeah, my old GM put me up against a tiger lycanthrope and I got the curse. I did not embrace it, but he told me that I got the benefits.

He really did not read up on it before hand. I came back the next session with amazing stats. I do not recommend allowing it in-game because it does allow massive min-maxing on stats.

Here's a solution: until the curse is lifted, you cannot gain XP. The curse freezes your life force in its current state.

[Lines]

Here's a solution: until the curse is lifted, you cannot gain XP. The curse freezes your life force in its current state.

So basically the 3.5 solution.

[pwykersotz]

But what's the actual problem? Templates are almost never a good idea in 3.5 in that they don't give as much as they cost, so no player who is prepared to take a template normally is going to object to you announcing they get it for free.

Whether it was worth it or not is beside the point for me. I care about the expectations on both sides of the table that having those rules fosters. In my case, not having these rules is better than having them, and having the rules would actively detract from my experience.

[Lines]

Whether it was worth it or not is beside the point for me. I care about the expectations on both sides of the table that having those rules fosters. In my case, not having these rules is better than having them, and having the rules would actively detract from my experience.

Ok. You are the only one who can judge what would detract from your experience or not, but in general deciding that instead of balancing mechanical options or giving guidelines there should instead be nothing is a very bad idea, especially since it's very easy to remove rules (say, declaring templates have no cost) than it is to make new ones (like inventing a reasonable system of costs for templates)

[pwykersotz]

Ok. You are the only one who can judge what would detract from your experience or not, but in general deciding that instead of balancing mechanical options or giving guidelines there should instead be nothing is a very bad idea, especially since it's very easy to remove rules (say, declaring templates have no cost) than it is to make new ones (like inventing a reasonable system of costs for templates)

I think it's circumstantial. Just like in art where white space management can completely alter a picture, the lack of rules speak just as many volumes as the rules themselves. It's true that some people want to fill in every blank section, and I do sometimes to, and 3.5 was great for that. But a lot of the time I want something a little more simple and elegant. I wouldn't call either way better or worse.

And removing rules can be just as tough as adding them, especially when there are dependencies on them (they are very seldom completely modular). It's true that the template rules aren't a big deal to strip away mechanically compared to other rules, but even they have some pains. A lot of the spell-like abilities and features key off of your expected level, and in different ways. Every template that sees use needs to be manually reworked, there's no global patch that won't break something.

But that said, I think I've contributed to thread derailment enough. I've enjoyed the discussion and I'll read followups, but I won't post more on this unless I can bring it back on topic.

[RickAllison]

Getting back on topic then...

One build I've been considering recently for a werebear PC (DM okayed it, he likes to give away things like one-handed hammers that deal 1d12, etc., so a werebear is not OP in his context) is a Long Death Monk. Immunity to non-magical, non-silvered weapon attacks to survive swarms of weaker creatures, high AC to evade many other attacks, speed of 70 ft, high saving throws in everything, and the ability to simply decide "No, I'm not going to go to 0 HP." Thoughts?

[Lines]

Getting back on topic then...

One build I've been considering recently for a werebear PC (DM okayed it, he likes to give away things like one-handed hammers that deal 1d12, etc., so a werebear is not OP in his context) is a Long Death Monk. Immunity to non-magical, non-silvered weapon attacks to survive swarms of weaker creatures, high AC to evade many other attacks, speed of 70 ft, high saving throws in everything, and the ability to simply decide "No, I'm not going to go to 0 HP." Thoughts?

Not the worst idea, I'll admit I've not really thought of anything outside of classes that only get one attack though - I tend automatically to think of classes like the mystic or cleric for a werebear, ones that benefit from getting a tertiary stat for free and 2 attacks with an action. Monk wise, I'd assume the biggest problem is that the 19 strength isn't one of the stats you need, same reason I had trouble with the rogue, plus multiattack doesn't work with flurry of blows and their bite/claws doesn't work with martial arts.

[Sigreid]

Not the worst idea, I'll admit I've not really thought of anything outside of classes that only get one attack though - I tend automatically to think of classes like the mystic or cleric for a werebear, ones that benefit from getting a tertiary stat for free and 2 attacks with an action. Monk wise, I'd assume the biggest problem is that the 19 strength isn't one of the stats you need, same reason I had trouble with the rogue, plus multiattack doesn't work with flurry of blows and their bite/claws doesn't work with martial arts.

The 19 STR will let you dump your str initially and still come out with a solid modifier for shove and grappling. You also never know when a str save or a straight up strength contest will come up.

[MaxWilson]

The 19 STR will let you dump your str initially and still come out with a solid modifier for shove and grappling. You also never know when a str save or a straight up strength contest will come up.

I've played a fair amount with Shadow monks in 5E and I second this assessment: I don't really regret having Str 8, but it would be nice to have Str 19 just for the boost to grapple/shove even though it wouldn't affect damage at all. Having +3 to Athletics instead of +8... well, you can sometimes make a +3 work due to Extra Attack, but it's pretty inefficient. With Str 19 you'd be pretty good at pulling one enemy out of the pack and running away with him at high speed to deal with at your leisure. With Str 8, that really isn't feasible.

[RickAllison]

The 19 STR will let you dump your str initially and still come out with a solid modifier for shove and grappling. You also never know when a str save or a straight up strength contest will come up.

Also since he becomes large, his fists also become large. So that means a level 17 monk will be getting his fists at 2d10 rather than 1d10. So even without Multiattack or his claws, he still gets an excellent damage boost!

[Lines]

Also since he becomes large, his fists also become large. So that means a level 17 monk will be getting his fists at 2d10 rather than 1d10. So even without Multiattack or his claws, he still gets an excellent damage boost!

Is that a rule?

[JNAProductions]

Is that a rule?

Not even close to being one.

These words are now inside a sandwich, which has been eaten.

[xanderh]

Being a werewolf can be a pretty huge benefit to players. I have two examples of PCs being werewolves.

The first one was the wizard of a group I DM'ed. He got bitten by one during the night, while the fighter wasn't wearing his armour. The immunity to nonmagical non-silvered weapons proved to be a pretty huge benefit, as it allowed him to survive some attacks that would otherwise kill him. Plus, the hobgoblin army they were fighting didn't have a lot of magical weapons (or mages in general), and no silvered weapons (because why would they?). He did turn every full moon, and attacked the party, specifically the rogue who had always been afraid of wolves.

The second example is my current eldritch knight. He's practically unkillable. He hasn't been knocked unconscious even once, and I've played him from level 4 to level 8 so far. Last time we played, I practically soloed a young red dragon (it did roll amazingly poorly on the breath recharge), using a dagger and shield, and wearing a chain shirt for plot reasons. I'm the tank of my group. My build is a Strength-based shield master in heavy armour, but due to decent rolls, I have 14 dex.
Without the lycanthropy, I would have been ripped apart by the dragon claw attacks, but I was immune to everything but the fire damage. I also knocked it prone and grappled it, preventing escape.

[RickAllison]

Not even close to being one.


Big monsters typically wield oversized weapons that
deal extra dice of damage on a hit. Double the weapon
dice if the creature is Large, triple the weapon dice if it's
Huge, and quadruple the weapon dice if it's Gargantuan.
For example, a Huge giant wielding an appropriately
sized greataxe deals 3dl2 slashing damage (plus its
Strength bonus), instead of the normalldl2.

Read the rules before you automatically discount it :smalltongue: Since he is Large, his fists are Large and thus qualify. Now if he wanted to use a weapon, he would need a custom-forged one to get the extra damage.

[JNAProductions]

Welp, time to eat my words.

[CantigThimble]

Welp, time to eat my words.

*passes the mustard*

[JNAProductions]

Not even close to being one.

These words are now inside a sandwich, which has been eaten.

*Adds mustard to sandwich*

To actually contribute, as a DM, I would rule that if you give in to your curse, you turn into an NPC. You can resist it with rituals and saving throws, and if it's particularly epic, you may get a one-off transformation to kick all the ass as a were-creature. But to always be a lycanthrope? Not allowed.

[RickAllison]

Welp, time to eat my words.

Admittedly it is one clause in the section on creating a custom monster, so not something that pops up very often :smallbiggrin: Completely understandable to have missed it.

[Lines]

*Adds mustard to sandwich*

To actually contribute, as a DM, I would rule that if you give in to your curse, you turn into an NPC. You can resist it with rituals and saving throws, and if it's particularly epic, you may get a one-off transformation to kick all the ass as a were-creature. But to always be a lycanthrope? Not allowed.

Keep in mind the book has rules on this - if you embrace the curse and your alignment changes the DM may decide to take control of your character, meaning if you already had the lycanthrope's alignment (say you were already true neutral and embrace being a weretiger) you keep your character. Obviously you can decide differently, it's your campaign and there are like a hundred ways to run lycanthropes, just figured I'd mention it.


Admittedly it is one clause in the section on creating a custom monster, so not something that pops up very often :smallbiggrin: Completely understandable to have missed it.

Somewhat contradicted by the enlarge spell, which adds 1d4 damage rather than an extra die.

[RickAllison]

Somewhat contradicted by the enlarge spell, which adds 1d4 damage rather than an extra die.

Based on how the rule applies across the majority of the Monster Manual, I would say Enlarge is not a contradiction, but a case of specific-beats-general. By general rules, the weapon damage dice would be doubled, but by the specific rules of the spell it is instead increased by 1d4.

EDIT: For a case of where there are exceptions, we have the dragons (young to ancient dragons all deal 2dX), various huge creatures that have secondary attacks that deal 3dX but have a 4dX primary attack (triceratops and T-rex), Displacer Beast (2d6 damage, but split into two forms so 1d6 each), etc.
Note that attacks like the werebear's greataxe and the drider's weapon attacks still fit because they are large creatures using medium-sized weapons. Which makes sense, the werebear's axe has to be small enough that he can actually use it in his base form and the drider is just a regular drow with a spider-butt so its capability to wield the weapons is still the same.

[Soular]

Here's a solution: until the curse is lifted, you cannot gain XP. The curse freezes your life force in its current state.

I like this. Quite simply it means that your character is no longer a PC, it is now a were-creature, and a monster. The DM may decide to allow a player to keep playing the character, but it should no longer gain experience as a PC since it isn't one.

I suppose a particularly mean-spirited DM could even say that the character is no longer a wizard or cleric, so until de-cursed they don't have access to their spells.

Either way, I would not be bothered too much by players that want a shortcut to power as Remove Curse is only level 3.

Actually, I would quite enjoy it. The evil DM in me giggles with glee at the thought of a PC spending the night of a full moon in town, losing his sh!t, and rampaging through said town killing civilians and livestock as a giant, impervious to harm, super-pedo bear. When the real heroes and authorities come knocking what will be his excuse for not having the curse removed?

"But, but I was embracing the curse!"

Haha, better luck on your reroll toon, sucka!
__________________________________________________ ___

Oh, and BTW, you aren't fooling anyone with your sad, lame-ass attempt to stump for your favorite munchkin wet-dream, Eslin/Lines.

You make an anagram of your old name and even use the same avatar? It was that same level of wankery that got you banned in the first place.

[RickAllison]

I like this. Quite simply it means that your character is no longer a PC, it is now a were-creature, and a monster. The DM may decide to allow a player to keep playing the character, but it should no longer gain experience as a PC since it isn't one.

I suppose a particularly mean-spirited DM could even say that the character is no longer a wizard or cleric, so until de-cursed they don't have access to their spells.

Either way, I would not be bothered too much by players that want a shortcut to power as Remove Curse is only level 3.

Actually, I would quite enjoy it. The evil DM in me giggles with glee at the thought of a PC spending the night of a full moon in town, losing his sh!t, and rampaging through said town killing civilians and livestock and a giant, impervious to harm, super-pedo bear. When the real heroes and authorities come knocking what will be his excuse for not having the curse removed?

"But, but I was embracing the curse!"

Haha, better luck on your reroll toon, sucka!

Just make sure to be upfront with your players. It's all house-rules in that post (and from a flavor perspective, potentially awesome) so a player who was suddenly blindsided would be within their rights to be resentful. With either IC or OoC warning? Not really :smallsmile: I like werebears (my Long Death idea is going to be put into action in three weeks as a Kung Fu Panda!), but I think it would actually be fun to RP the whole isolation that the werebear feels as he has to learn to live apart.
If the PC has a love interest, I would heartily recommend recreating the scene from "Red-Handed" where Red murders her love. Play up that it looks like the love interest is really a were-whatever, but that no-one with Remove Curse is available and the villagers are getting antsy. At the suggestion of a trusted but ill-informed NPC friend, the PC takes the love interest out and ties him/her up to prevent the rampage, only to have the PC transform and murder their love. Sooooo evil!

[Boci]

Actually, I would quite enjoy it. The evil DM in me giggles with glee at the thought of a PC spending the night of a full moon in town, losing his sh!t, and rampaging through said town killing civilians and livestock as a giant, impervious to harm, super-pedo bear. When the real heroes and authorities come knocking what will be his excuse for not having the curse removed?

"But, but I was embracing the curse!"

Haha, better luck on your reroll toon, sucka!

That's bad DMing, because either the party is okay with the PC embracing, in which case you power tripping to kill a character for having the audacity to play the game the way you want them to, or the rest of the party is also against them going kill crazy, in which case its an out of character problem (a player wanting to go on a murder when the party and DM do not want the PCs to be involved in such heinous crimes) and as such needs to be solved out of character, not with an IC power trip from the DM.

[Arkhios]

You seem to have forgotten the fact that werebears are Neutral Good. It would be strange for them to go full rampage killing innocents.

[RickAllison]

You seem to have forgotten the fact that werebears are Neutral Good. It would be strange for them to go full rampage killing innocents.

It's not quite so simple as that.


Werebears are powerfullycanthropes with the ability to
temper their monstrous natures and reject their violent
impulses. In humanoid form, they are large, muscular,
and covered in hair matching the color of their ursine
form's fur. A were bear is a loner by nature, fearing what
might happen to innocent creatures around it when its
bestial nature takes over.

........

Solitary creatures, werebears act as wardens over
their territory, protecting flora and fauna alike from
humanoid or monstrous intrusion. Though most
were bears are of good alignment, some are every bit as
evil as other lycanthropes.

I do find it odd that the werebear would simply rampage against an innocent town. If they were harming the local wildlife disproportionately (clear-cutting, etc.), I could see the inner beast becoming awakened for that while still being NG.

[Arkhios]

It's not quite so simple as that.

I do find it odd that the werebear would simply rampage against an innocent town. If they were harming the local wildlife disproportionately (clear-cutting, etc.), I could see the inner beast becoming awakened for that while still being NG.

Hmm, alright, I was wrong about the preassumptions regarding their alignment in MM. I don't have the book with me right now so I wasn't aware of that detail. All I recalled was their alignment, as it generally stands out from the others. :)

[ravenkith]

If I was running a game and had my guys run up against lycanthropes (I don't have to, I'm the DM after all - can choose NOT to use them at all), I would let them, as part of a nature, arcana or history check, uncover lore about how becoming one changes a person, and alters their priorities, etc. etc.

Essentially, I'd let them figure out that becoming a were-creature automatically alters your baseline personality to the point where your character will eventually become an NPC, on a time line set by the full moon, naturally.

REGARDLESS of what type of lycanthrope you are, whether or not you embrace your curse, the first full moon the animal takes control. It may not rampage, but the player experiences lost time, wakes up next to a dead deer in the woods, etc .....if you make it to a second full moon, the change becomes permanent, and your character is now an NPC. There'll be plenty of hints, as they start having to make will saves and 'lose time' more often as the second full moon approaches.

Upon being cured by remove curse, the character gains immunity to the lycanthropic disease and cannot be reinfected by any kind of lycanthrope, but instead, suffers the effects of being poisoned until the get a remove curse or whatever.

This allows for story hooks and temporary benefits, but still encourages players not to plan on being a lycanthrope long-term.

[Lines]

If I was running a game and had my guys run up against lycanthropes (I don't have to, I'm the DM after all - can choose NOT to use them at all), I would let them, as part of a nature, arcana or history check, uncover lore about how becoming one changes a person, and alters their priorities, etc. etc.

Essentially, I'd let them figure out that becoming a were-creature automatically alters your baseline personality to the point where your character will eventually become an NPC, on a time line set by the full moon, naturally.

REGARDLESS of what type of lycanthrope you are, whether or not you embrace your curse, the first full moon the animal takes control. It may not rampage, but the player experiences lost time, wakes up next to a dead deer in the woods, etc .....if you make it to a second full moon, the change becomes permanent, and your character is now an NPC. There'll be plenty of hints, as they start having to make will saves and 'lose time' more often as the second full moon approaches.

Upon being cured by remove curse, the character gains immunity to the lycanthropic disease and cannot be reinfected by any kind of lycanthrope, but instead, suffers the effects of being poisoned until the get a remove curse or whatever.

This allows for story hooks and temporary benefits, but still encourages players not to plan on being a lycanthrope long-term.

What's the point of embracing the curse if you still lose control? Isn't getting control by kind of merging with the beast (sounds like you're changing the bit where you keep the character if your alignment doesn't change) the whole point?

[Ronnocius]

What's the point of embracing the curse if you still lose control? Isn't getting control by kind of merging with the beast (sounds like you're changing the bit where you keep the character if your alignment doesn't change) the whole point?

I don't think embracing the curse is meant to be a benefit. In my understanding, when you embrace the curse, the curse controls you. I don't think embracing the curse is meant for werebears, more for the evil lycanthropes. So whenever you embrace the curse, your alignment becomes the alignment of the curse. So while you're not embracing the curse, you're actively fighting it for control of your body. Pretty much my analysis of the MM means that when you embrace the curse, you could become an NPC because you are no longer your character. In that, the curse controls your character. If the DM lets you keep your character once it has embraced the curse, he's letting you play the curse, in your character's body.

Of course the werebear fluff text goes against this, but the wereboar fluff seems to kind of agree with it.

[MadBear]

What's the point of embracing the curse if you still lose control? Isn't getting control by kind of merging with the beast (sounds like you're changing the bit where you keep the character if your alignment doesn't change) the whole point?

Obviously with the way they run it, no, that isn't the goal. The goal would be having an interesting story hook, that tells an interesting story, without the character getting a permanent power boost.

[Lines]

Obviously with the way they run it, no, that isn't the goal. The goal would be having an interesting story hook, that tells an interesting story, without the character getting a permanent power boost.

I never asked if it was the goal. I asked what the point of embracing the curse is if you don't get control anyway.

[Thrudd]

Remember, werebears aren't likely to infect someone against their will or unknowingly: they are good, after all. So a PC would likely need to seek them out and ask to be "cursed", and the werebear would probably evaluate them first and force them to prove they are worthy somehow, or flat out deny them. Also, while a player may not need to change their alignment, embracing the life of a werebear may entail a shift in personality that leads them to a solitary life in the woods, meaning they will no longer want to go on adventures and will become an NPC.

[Lines]

I don't think embracing the curse is meant to be a benefit. In my understanding, when you embrace the curse, the curse controls you. I don't think embracing the curse is meant for werebears, more for the evil lycanthropes. So whenever you embrace the curse, your alignment becomes the alignment of the curse. So while you're not embracing the curse, you're actively fighting it for control of your body. Pretty much my analysis of the MM means that when you embrace the curse, you could become an NPC because you are no longer your character. In that, the curse controls your character. If the DM lets you keep your character once it has embraced the curse, he's letting you play the curse, in your character's body.

Of course the werebear fluff text goes against this, but the wereboar fluff seems to kind of agree with it.

Not sure about control, but embracing seems to me to be sort of merging with the nature of the beast - if you don't embrace you wrestle for control, you win most of the time but lose occasionally, especially around the full moon. Embracing it means merging with it, letting it become part of you so instead of fighting for control you both have the same will and therefore changing who you are - which is why the DM gets control, your nature has changed (and usually in an evil direction) enough that you're basically a different person now, and that's why the DM doesn't get control if you already had that alignment, you aren't really changing who you are if your nature was already that of the beast in question.


Remember, werebears aren't likely to infect someone against their will or unknowingly: they are good, after all. So a PC would likely need to seek them out and ask to be "cursed", and the werebear would probably evaluate them first and force them to prove they are worthy somehow, or flat out deny them. Also, while a player may not need to change their alignment, embracing the life of a werebear may entail a shift in personality that leads them to a solitary life in the woods, meaning they will no longer want to go on adventures and will become an NPC.

Seems there's a pretty easy solution - promise you'll embrace the curse (so it knows you'll be neutral good and won't have any worries on that front) and have a level 5 cleric on hand with remove curse so it can rest assured that there is no harm done if you can't control yourself. And the book says nothing about having to go live in the woods - it says they tend to be solitary creatures, but half my players are introverts and here they are in a group.

[Ronnocius]

Not sure about control, but embracing seems to me to be sort of merging with the nature of the beast - if you don't embrace you wrestle for control, you win most of the time but lose occasionally, especially around the full moon. Embracing it means merging with it, letting it become part of you so instead of fighting for control you both have the same will and therefore changing who you are - which is why the DM gets control, your nature has changed (and usually in an evil direction) enough that you're basically a different person now, and that's why the DM doesn't get control if you already had that alignment, you aren't really changing who you are if your nature was already that of the beast in question.

I suppose both work, depends how you interpret the text.


Remember, werebears aren't likely to infect someone against their will or unknowingly: they are good, after all. So a PC would likely need to seek them out and ask to be "cursed", and the werebear would probably evaluate them first and force them to prove they are worthy somehow, or flat out deny them. Also, while a player may not need to change their alignment, embracing the life of a werebear may entail a shift in personality that leads them to a solitary life in the woods, meaning they will no longer want to go on adventures and will become an NPC.

I agree. If a PC was cursed by a werebear, it would likely still become an NPC because it would try to protect nature or do something other than go adventuring.

[Lines]

I suppose both work, depends how you interpret the text.
As stated earlier, a generous interpretation is that that's why they have so much ambiguous or contradictory stuff in the lycanthrope entry.


I agree. If a PC was cursed by a werebear, it would likely still become an NPC because it would try to protect nature or do something other than go adventuring.
Just as long as you let the player know you're houseruling it well ahead of time, because as it is if the player was neutral good beforehand it's their choice.

[RickAllison]

Not sure about control, but embracing seems to me to be sort of merging with the nature of the beast - if you don't embrace you wrestle for control, you win most of the time but lose occasionally, especially around the full moon. Embracing it means merging with it, letting it become part of you so instead of fighting for control you both have the same will and therefore changing who you are - which is why the DM gets control, your nature has changed (and usually in an evil direction) enough that you're basically a different person now, and that's why the DM doesn't get control if you already had that alignment, you aren't really changing who you are if your nature was already that of the beast in question.

I kind of take issue with the concept of the DM gaining control of the character just because of the shift in alignment, as well as the concept of immediately shifting alignment. Why would an NG embracing the werebear be any different than an LN, or CG? It seems to me that a big part of why the DM can take over the PC is because only two of the five wereforms freely infect other creatures (werewolf and wereboar) and those are CE and NE. The more acceptable alignments are represented by wereforms that don't want to pass on the curse except to the worthy (werebears, NG), don't want more competition for food and territory (weretigers, TN), or only pass it on to potential clan inductees (wererats, LE). Thus, the main creatures that would actually spread the curse represent alignments that can have a PC be taken by the DM anyway.

[Lines]

I kind of take issue with the concept of the DM gaining control of the character just because of the shift in alignment, as well as the concept of immediately shifting alignment. Why would an NG embracing the werebear be any different than an LN, or CG? It seems to me that a big part of why the DM can take over the PC is because only two of the five wereforms freely infect other creatures (werewolf and wereboar) and those are CE and NE. The more acceptable alignments are represented by wereforms that don't want to pass on the curse except to the worthy (werebears, NG), don't want more competition for food and territory (weretigers, TN), or only pass it on to potential clan inductees (wererats, LE). Thus, the main creatures that would actually spread the curse represent alignments that can have a PC be taken by the DM anyway.

Main reason seems to be how large a shift in personality it is. NG>werebear keeps your alignment, some preferences may change (it doesn't actually say they have to, but I'd reward a player for roleplaying becoming more gruff and finding themselves more inclined to protect nature etc) but you're still the same person albeit possibly with some extra urges, but new desires does not a completely different person make. NG>werewolf, however, if you embrace it you've now changed from the kind of person who willingly risks his life to save others because it's the right thing to do into someone who maims and kills because it's fun, at which point the DM can choose to have the character become an NPC because there's not really much left of who the person originally was.

[RickAllison]

Main reason seems to be how large a shift in personality it is. NG>werebear keeps your alignment, some preferences may change (it doesn't actually say they have to, but I'd reward a player for roleplaying becoming more gruff and finding themselves more inclined to protect nature etc) but you're still the same person albeit possibly with some extra urges, but new desires does not a completely different person make. NG>werewolf, however, if you embrace it you've now changed from the kind of person who willingly risks his life to save others because it's the right thing to do into someone who maims and kills because it's fun, at which point the DM can choose to have the character become an NPC because there's not really much left of who the person originally was.

Well my post did cover how shifting to a werebear is very different than shifting to a werewolf, but what I don't get is how it's suddenly decided they are completely different. Definitely, an LG paladin suddenly become a CG slavering beast is a big shift, but what about something like LN to NG?

Part of my issue is one of RP. It makes no sense that overnight, someone's alignment (itself a concept with numerous issues in this edition because it's very ill-defined) can totally shift. If someone gave him/herself over totally to the beast side, that would probably make them an NPC. But the cursed LN who finds himself working outside the law to help people without benefit to himself? Why should he become an NPC as he transitions to NG?

[pwykersotz]

Well my post did cover how shifting to a werebear is very different than shifting to a werewolf, but what I don't get is how it's suddenly decided they are completely different. Definitely, an LG paladin suddenly become a CG slavering beast is a big shift, but what about something like LN to NG?

Part of my issue is one of RP. It makes no sense that overnight, someone's alignment (itself a concept with numerous issues in this edition because it's very ill-defined) can totally shift. If someone gave him/herself over totally to the beast side, that would probably make them an NPC. But the cursed LN who finds himself working outside the law to help people without benefit to himself? Why should he become an NPC as he transitions to NG?

I think the difficulty comes in as you try to ambiguate the transition. Most creatures that change to evil are filled with a lust or a hatred or a hunger of some sort that can only be satiated by doing terrible things. I think it might clear up a bit if you define what sort of change (other than "I got a template!") has actually occurred. What sort of new passion or drive fills the character to necessitate the alignment change?

[Lines]

Well my post did cover how shifting to a werebear is very different than shifting to a werewolf, but what I don't get is how it's suddenly decided they are completely different. Definitely, an LG paladin suddenly become a CG slavering beast is a big shift, but what about something like LN to NG?

Part of my issue is one of RP. It makes no sense that overnight, someone's alignment (itself a concept with numerous issues in this edition because it's very ill-defined) can totally shift. If someone gave him/herself over totally to the beast side, that would probably make them an NPC. But the cursed LN who finds himself working outside the law to help people without benefit to himself? Why should he become an NPC as he transitions to NG?

He doesn't have to become an NPC, it's the DM's choice. But I'd assume it's because he is changing alignment overnight, he won't transition to NG so much as immediately become so, permanently.

[Thrudd]

Not sure about control, but embracing seems to me to be sort of merging with the nature of the beast - if you don't embrace you wrestle for control, you win most of the time but lose occasionally, especially around the full moon. Embracing it means merging with it, letting it become part of you so instead of fighting for control you both have the same will and therefore changing who you are - which is why the DM gets control, your nature has changed (and usually in an evil direction) enough that you're basically a different person now, and that's why the DM doesn't get control if you already had that alignment, you aren't really changing who you are if your nature was already that of the beast in question.



Seems there's a pretty easy solution - promise you'll embrace the curse (so it knows you'll be neutral good and won't have any worries on that front) and have a level 5 cleric on hand with remove curse so it can rest assured that there is no harm done if you can't control yourself. And the book says nothing about having to go live in the woods - it says they tend to be solitary creatures, but half my players are introverts and here they are in a group.

It's not in the rules specifically, no. But it is a sensible explanation that provides a way to prevent the use of lycanthropy as a free "power up" that is in the spirit of being a werebear.

If the DM is ok with the use/abuse of lycanthropy powers by their players, then they don't need to worry about it.

Ultimately, the rules say that permanent lycanthropes become "monsters" under DM control, regardless of type or alignment. Making exceptions to this are the DMs prerogative only, the players have no "rule legal" leg to stand on in arguing against their decision. Monster Manual stuff is DM-only.

[Lines]

It's not in the rules specifically, no. But it is a sensible explanation that provides a way to prevent the use of lycanthropy as a free "power up" that is in the spirit of being a werebear.

If the DM is ok with the use/abuse of lycanthropy powers by their players, then they don't need to worry about it.

Ultimately, the rules say that permanent lycanthropes become "monsters" under DM control, regardless of type or alignment. Making exceptions to this are the DMs prerogative only, the players have no "rule legal" leg to stand on in arguing against their decision. Monster Manual stuff is DM-only.

What? No. The rules say that the DM may take control of characters that embrace the curse if their alignment changes and presumably controls their character during a full moon if they don't embrace it. The character remaining under the players control isn't the DM making an exception, it's the DM deciding not to exercise his right to take control of the character, a right he only has if the player embraces the curse and their alignment changes. The players absolutely have a rule legal leg to stand on, make sure you're the alignment of the lycanthrope beforehand and you keep your character, end of story.

You are allowed to not like rules, but please do not pretend that the changes you would like are the rules as written.

[JoeJ]

Seems there's a pretty easy solution - promise you'll embrace the curse (so it knows you'll be neutral good and won't have any worries on that front) and have a level 5 cleric on hand with remove curse so it can rest assured that there is no harm done if you can't control yourself. And the book says nothing about having to go live in the woods - it says they tend to be solitary creatures, but half my players are introverts and here they are in a group.

So what's the down side of becoming a werebear? If it just makes you more powerful, that doesn't quite count as a curse.

[Lines]

So what's the down side of becoming a werebear? If it just makes you more powerful, that doesn't quite count as a curse.

If you're already neutral good, pretty much nothing (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CursedWithAwesome).

[Boci]

So what's the down side of becoming a werebear? If it just makes you more powerful, that doesn't quite count as a curse.

As I previously mentioned in this thread, lycanthropy as a curse already doesn't make much sense, as the notion comes from a part of European folklore that D&D does not incorporate into its world building. Nature in D&D isn't chaotic evil, so why is a werewolf, nature forced upon the civilized humanoid, chaotic evil? This makes even less sense if the PC is a druid.

[Lines]

As I previously mentioned in this thread, lycanthropy as a curse already doesn't make much sense, as the notion comes from a part of European folklore that D&D does not incorporate into its world building. Nature in D&D isn't chaotic evil, so why is a werewolf, nature forced upon the civilized humanoid, chaotic evil? This makes even less sense if the PC is a druid.

That's... actually a really good point.

Still, I can't see why we can't have each be a different view on it, 5e golem style - werewolves as old view you mentioned, werebears as Beorn style guardians, weretigers as the more current view of nature as unaligned, etc etc.

[JoeJ]

It seems rather pointless to argue about whether or not the player can keep control of their character as a werebear. According to the MM, werebears deliberately avoid biting so as not to pass on their "curse." You have to be an apprentice or specially chosen companion before they'll bite you. So unless the DM makes an exception, the character would have to have already left the party before they even get the chance to embrace the curse.

[Lines]

It seems rather pointless to argue about whether or not the player can keep control of their character as a werebear. According to the MM, werebears deliberately avoid biting so as not to pass on their "curse." You have to be an apprentice or specially chosen companion before they'll bite you. So unless the DM makes an exception, the character would have to have already left the party before they even get the chance to embrace the curse.

See cursed with awesome above - it's a weirdly common trait for people cursed with, well, awesome stuff to moan and complain and not try to figure out ways to minimise the downsides.

First off, neutral good is about doing good. So yeah, while they probably tend to go loner mode, the second a werebear who is or has access to a friendly cleric decides to do so, they can easily start biting either willing or evil people (murderers, rapists etc). If the latter refuses to embrace the curse you just remove the curse, if they do embrace it bam, suddenly they're an innately good person who doesn't need to be imprisoned or executed now and the former can become big and strong and useful (seriously, free armies of neutral good werebears is gonna be hella useful) with no chance of being unable to control themselves, if their self control isn't perfect you just remove the curse. And this doesn't need to be a common thing - by its very nature, as soon as one person starts doing it it's going to spread, half the point of lycanthropy is it's pretty easy to make new ones.

Secondly, if you can't find a neutral good werebear willing to do the neutral good thing of spreading it to a willing adventurer who will use it to do good deeds and has a cleric buddy on hand, just find any werebear and force him to bite you. Hell, incapacitate him and jam your arm onto a tooth and you're good. Before any protests about that not being a nice thing to do happen, please keep in mind he's refusing to help the side of good for no real reason - if you can't control yourself, it's not like remove curse can be saved against so there's no real downside in trying.

[JoeJ]

See cursed with awesome above - it's a weirdly common trait for people cursed with, well, awesome stuff to moan and complain and not try to figure out ways to minimise the downsides.

First off, neutral good is about doing good. So yeah, while they probably tend to go loner mode, the second a werebear who is or has access to a friendly cleric decides to do so, they can easily start biting either willing or evil people (murderers, rapists etc). If the latter refuses to embrace the curse you just remove the curse, if they do embrace it bam, suddenly they're an innately good person who doesn't need to be imprisoned or executed now and the former can become big and strong and useful (seriously, free armies of neutral good werebears is gonna be hella useful) with no chance of being unable to control themselves, if their self control isn't perfect you just remove the curse. And this doesn't need to be a common thing - by its very nature, as soon as one person starts doing it it's going to spread, half the point of lycanthropy is it's pretty easy to make new ones.

According to the MM, "A werebear is a loner by nature, fearing what might happen to innocent creatures around it when its bestial nature takes over." That doesn't sound very much like an innately good person with no chance of being unable to control themselves.


Secondly, if you can't find a neutral good werebear willing to do the neutral good thing of spreading it to a willing adventurer who will use it to do good deeds and has a cleric buddy on hand, just find any werebear and force him to bite you. Hell, incapacitate him and jam your arm onto a tooth and you're good. Before any protests about that not being a nice thing to do happen, please keep in mind he's refusing to help the side of good for no real reason - if you can't control yourself, it's not like remove curse can be saved against so there's no real downside in trying.

Despite your attempt at rationalization, this is nothing but a naked power grab carried out by by means of an unprovoked assault on an innocent creature. It's no different than knocking down a police officer and stealing their gun to use against criminals. If you're capable of planning and carrying that out, you're not Neutral Good.

Also, the bite only transmits the curse in bear or hybrid form. All the werebear has to do to thwart you is use an action to polymorph into its humanoid form.

[Lines]

According to the MM, "A werebear is a loner by nature, fearing what might happen to innocent creatures around it when its bestial nature takes over." That doesn't sound very much like an innately good person with no chance of being unable to control themselves.
Then if a problem arises, remove the curse. It's worth a try and there really is no downside to it, just have a vigilant cleric for the first month or so to make sure you're good. If not, remove it and nothing's been lost.


Despite your attempt at rationalization, this is nothing but a naked power grab carried out by by means of an unprovoked assault on an innocent creature. It's no different than knocking down a police officer and stealing their gun to use against criminals. If you're capable of planning and carrying that out, you're not Neutral Good.

Also, the bite only transmits the curse in bear or hybrid form. All the werebear has to do to thwart you is use an action to polymorph into its humanoid form.
No, it's knocking down a police officer and magically copying his gun when you don't have one and also the gun automatically makes you a good person, something you'd be justified in doing if for some reason he didn't want you to despite your proof that there were no possible downsides. And there are ways to stop him changing shape or hell at this point mind control would be justified, he's letting innocents die for no reason (in that with greater strength, you could save more). And yes, obviously it's a power grab - adventurers tend to seek power, and I fail to see how a power grab in order to do good things is a bad thing - power is only bad if used badly, and the curse ensures it will be used well.

I would download a car.

[JackPhoenix]

Then if a problem arises, remove the curse. It's worth a try and there really is no downside to it, just have a vigilant cleric for the first month or so to make sure you're good. If not, remove it and nothing's been lost.

Not for the first month...for the rest of the werebear's life. Neutral good or not, it's still a bear, there would be no need for the caution if there was no loss of control. Werebears aren't loners just because they like being alone, but because there's still danger they'll maul innocent when they turn. Also, clerics are pretty rare, normal NPCs do not have character classes.


No, it's knocking down a police officer and magically copying his gun when you don't have one and also the gun automatically makes you a good person, something you'd be justified in doing if for some reason he didn't want you to despite your proof that there were no possible downsides.

Also a gun that can go off at any time, and that you'll have to actively keep away from people just in case it starts shooting in the crowd.


And there are ways to stop him changing shape or hell at this point mind control would be justified, he's letting innocents die for no reason (in that with greater strength, you could save more). And yes, obviously it's a power grab - adventurers tend to seek power, and I fail to see how a power grab in order to do good things is a bad thing - power is only bad if used badly, and the curse ensures it will be used well.

At that point, you're evil, mind controlling good creature or forcing it to turn into a monster because you desire more power is not something a good person would do. The curse doesn't ensure you'll use its power for good...in fact, werebears are trying to not use that power at all and keep away from people in case they can't control themselves.

[Ronnocius]

Then if a problem arises, remove the curse. It's worth a try and there really is no downside to it, just have a vigilant cleric for the first month or so to make sure you're good. If not, remove it and nothing's been lost.

Actually, many things can go wrong. What if the rapist/murderer flees the area and disappears? What if the cleric dies? What if the criminal kills innocents before the curse is removed? The criminal could lose control during a full moon and infect dozens of people before the cleric stops him.


Quoting the MM "Though most werebears are of good alignment, some are every bit as evil as other lycanthropes." What if the criminal turns into an evil werebear? The rules for alignment change are what usually happens, not always.


Werebears are like half-orcs, except while half-orcs resist Gruumsh, werebears resist the curse, while manipulating it. They can still fall prey to the evil urges inside them.

[Lines]

Actually, many things can go wrong. What if the rapist/murderer flees the area and disappears? What if the cleric dies? What if the criminal kills innocents before the curse is removed? The criminal could lose control during a full moon and infect dozens of people before the cleric stops him.


Quoting the MM "Though most werebears are of good alignment, some are every bit as evil as other lycanthropes." What if the criminal turns into an evil werebear? The rules for alignment change are what usually happens, not always.


Werebears are like half-orcs, except while half-orcs resist Gruumsh, werebears resist the curse, while manipulating it. They can still fall prey to the evil urges inside them.

They're neutral good, they're so neutral good that if a chaotic evil person embraces the curse they become neutral good. They don't have evil urges, they have good urges.

The rules for alignment change are not what usually happens, it specifically says their alignment becomes the one defined for the lycanthrope, which is neutral good in the case of werebears. If a werebear is evil, that means it is an evil person who has not embraced it, as it specifically states that anyone who does embrace it becomes neutral good.

How would they flee the area? You chain them up and tell them to embrace the curse, using mind reading or divination to check whether they have (or just asking them to transform and perform complex tasks, something they can only do if they embrace it). If they don't embrace the curse you remove it, if they do embrace the curse they're neutral good now.

[Lines]

Not for the first month...for the rest of the werebear's life. Neutral good or not, it's still a bear, there would be no need for the caution if there was no loss of control. Werebears aren't loners just because they like being alone, but because there's still danger they'll maul innocent when they turn. Also, clerics are pretty rare, normal NPCs do not have character classes.
A month should be enough to figure out whether your control's perfect. If it's not, remove it and you've lost nothing, if it is you've got a straight upgrade. Cleric wise fine, if you want to have verisimilitude destroying generic NPCs who don't have classes for some reason instead of real NPCs that make sense just have a priest NPC prepare remove curse.


Also a gun that can go off at any time, and that you'll have to actively keep away from people just in case it starts shooting in the crowd.
If you don't have perfect control over the gun you can just go adventuring (which tends to be away from people), if that's not practical you can remove the gun forever with a third level spell.


At that point, you're evil, mind controlling good creature or forcing it to turn into a monster because you desire more power is not something a good person would do. The curse doesn't ensure you'll use its power for good...in fact, werebears are trying to not use that power at all and keep away from people in case they can't control themselves.
I wouldn't say acquiring power from someone who is letting their refusal to innovate get in the way of saving lives is an evil act - and even if it does make you evil, the second you embrace the curse you'll become neutral good so that's not much of an issue. And the curse doesn't ensure you'll use its powers for good, being the kind of person who looks past the irrational 'oh boo hoo it gives you the urge to act like a bear' thing and uses it to great effect in saving lives and destroying evil does.

[jprepo1]

Lycanthropy is pretty broken for PC's at the moment, unless, as mentioned, it is being used as a short term plot device that could result in the removal of the PC.

[Boci]

Umm...


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



Also, the bite only transmits the curse in bear or hybrid form. All the werebear has to do to thwart you is use an action to polymorph into its humanoid form.

So which is it? Is the werebear a danger to others around them, or capable of thwarting those activly seeking infection? Because it doesn't seem like they could be both that much in control and that unable to account for their actions.

I'm tempted to say there is a fluff-mechanics disconect here, but really there's a fluff-fluff/mechanics disconect. The fluff says werebears are reclusive by nature, because they fear what they could do, but we see no mechanics for this, and their alighment (largely a fluff issue in 5th ed) makes such a fear unlikely.

Really the only way to marry these two sentiments I can think of is to see werebears as culturally paranoid secluded themselves to protect others despite being as likely to unintentionally bite someone as a fighter is to accidently skewer an innocent civilian with their spear.

Ultimaly the issue is one of world building. Lines likes the idea of an informed, scholarly setting, where the exact parameters of lycanthropty have been mapped and the condition is understood. As such, someone or even whole cultures may very well look favorable upon werebears.

Others seem to favouring a less academivcally rigorous setting, where lycanthroy is a mystery, and a scary one of that. Shrouded in half truths and superstition, only the insane would activly seek it out.

Both have solid story potential.

[Lines]

Umm...






So which is it? Is the werebear a danger to others around them, or capable of thwarting those activly seeking infection? Because it doesn't seem like they could be both that much in control and that unable to account for their actions.

I'm tempted to say there is a fluff-mechanics disconect here, but really there's a fluff-fluff/mechanics disconect. The fluff says werebears are reclusive by nature, because they fear what they could do, but we see no mechanics for this, and their alighment (largely a fluff issue in 5th ed) makes such a fear unlikely.

Really the only way to marry these two sentiments I can think of is to see werebears as culturally paranoid secluded themselves to protect others despite being as likely to unintentionally bite someone as a fighter is to accidently skewer an innocent civilian with their spear.

Ultimaly the issue is one of world building. Lines likes the idea of an informed, scholarly setting, where the exact parameters of lycanthropty have been mapped and the condition is understood. As such, someone or even whole cultures may very well look favorable upon werebears.

Others seem to favouring a less academivcally rigorous setting, where lycanthroy is a mystery, and a scary one of that. Shrouded in half truths and superstition, only the insane would activly seek it out.

Both have solid story potential.

Good way of putting it, nice work. Though the setting itself doesn't have to be scholarly, you just need one werebear willing to work for the greater good and look past superstition to get the whole thing rolling.

[Cazero]

And it doesn't strike obvious to any of you that werebear are Neutral Good precisely because they live secluded lives to avoid collateral damage and that any werebear not doing that would be just as Chaotic Evil as werewolves?

[Lines]

And it doesn't strike obvious to any of you that werebear are Neutral Good precisely because they live secluded lives to avoid collateral damage and that any werebear not doing that would be just as Chaotic Evil as werewolves?

Nope, weretigers are even more solitary and they're true neutral. Embracing the curse means you get control over your transformations, looks like werebears are doing that thing where the protagonist was cursed with awesome and spends the whole time bitching about it.

It's like watching Angel - he whines about being a vampire and wants to become human, despite the super strength, immortality etc. Why not just research that whole resouling curse thing (he's hundreds of years old and it took Willow a few years to become a powerful wizard, he can do it), get rid of the true happiness clause and cast it on every vampire he can? And then go around vamping everybody and cursing them, add more people doing research to improve reliability and efficiency, eventually everyone gets to keep their soul and live forever.

But that never happens, because for some reason (and it really does turn up all over the place) people in media keep complaining about being cursed with awesome (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CursedWithAwesome) and don't spend any time analyzing it and seeing if it can be used to benefit society. This is D&D, however, unlike a video game or book or other form of storytelling you have true agency, so if you find something like this you can experiment and see if you can put it to good ends. And if it turns out you can't, big deal, you've lost nothing and the potential gains were worth the time.

[Cazero]

Nope, weretigers are even more solitary and they're true neutral.Weretigers are solitary for completely different reasons. That argument is invalid.

Embracing the curse means you get control over your transformations, looks like werebears are doing that thing where the protagonist was cursed with awesome and spends the whole time bitching about it.
At what cost? Embracing the curse is a process, not a split second decision. And a werebear who finaly managed to embrace his curse (through the slaughter of dozens if not hundred of animals?) will have self-confidence issues about it because it's too damn dangerous.

It's like watching Angel - he whines about being a vampire and wants to become human, despite the super strength, immortality etc. Why not just research that whole resouling curse thing (he's hundreds of years old and it took Willow a few years to become a powerful wizard, he can do it), get rid of the true happiness clause and cast it on every vampire he can? And then go around vamping everybody and cursing them, add more people doing research to improve reliability and efficiency, eventually everyone gets to keep their soul and live forever.
There's a saying about Hell and good intentions. See Death Note. Kira is only killing criminals ! Mostly criminals. And people who oppose him. Also, it quickly rushes to his head and he wants to become a living god.

But that never happens, because for some reason (and it really does turn up all over the place) people in media keep complaining about being cursed with awesome (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CursedWithAwesome) and don't spend any time analyzing it and seeing if it can be used to benefit society. This is D&D, however, unlike a video game or book or other form of storytelling you have true agency, so if you find something like this you can experiment and see if you can put it to good ends. And if it turns out you can't, big deal, you've lost nothing and the potential gains were worth the time.
You can't experiment with lycanthropy and remain Neutral Good. Too dangerous. You might fall in Evil territory by the end of the day.

[Lines]

Weretigers are solitary for completely different reasons. That argument is invalid.
It's not invalid. You know werebears tend to be solitary, nothing says that that's why they are neutral good.


At what cost? Embracing the curse is a process, not a split second decision. And a werebear who finaly managed to embrace his curse (through the slaughter of dozens if not hundred of animals?) will have self-confidence issues about it because it's too damn dangerous.
Since when is it not a decision? All it says is 'if the character embraces the curse' - which means the player can just say 'Yep, I embrace the curse.' You can roleplay it as a long process if you want, but that's no more or less valid than roleplaying it as a conscious choice the character makes as soon as they're bitten.


There's a saying about Hell and good intentions. See Death Note. Kira is only killing criminals ! Mostly criminals. And people who oppose him. Also, it quickly rushes to his head and he wants to become a living god.
So what, the reverse is the path to heaven is paved with evil intentions? Intending to do good is not a bad thing, doing it without analysis and foresight however can lead to bad things. Which is why you do a detailed plan of how you're going to test lycanthropy with several failsafes, not that it's needed since remove curse is a touch range action that can't be saved against. And see Light's more wise and brave counterpart Lelouch, who has pretty selfish intentions overall but has the foresight and will to make his goals a reality and sacrifices himself for a better world. The only real problem there is Lelouch didn't have good enough intentions, if his primary goal had been the betterment of the world things would have turned out even better.


You can't experiment with lycanthropy and remain Neutral Good. Too dangerous. You might fall in Evil territory by the end of the day.
Hahaha what? So I guess Marie Curie fell to evil in a day because she experimented with something dangerous, huh? And it wouldn't even matter if you fall evil, the second you embrace the curse your alignment automatically switches to neutral good.

The real problem there is why on earth would experimenting with ways to benefit good and combat evil under safe, controlled conditions be anything but an incredibly good act? Again you can remove the lycanthropy instantly if anything goes wrong, the good and intelligent thing to do would be to carefully prepare contingencies (literally if you can persuade a bard to grab both the contingency and remove curse spells as part of his magical secrets) and then get a rigorous series of testing going, testing various conditions, applicants and methods in order to identify how exactly werebearness works and what can be done to ensure total control over it, then branch out into whether biting criminals and decursing them if they don't embrace it is a useful method of dealing with people who have committed horrible crimes and other such secondary benefits.

[Cazero]

It's not invalid. You know werebears tend to be solitary, nothing says that that's why they are neutral good.
Sorry, I thought the fluff text provided something more than solitary : yes. Something about werebears being solitary to avoid collateral damage from their curses, a pretty Neutral Good decision.


Since when is it not a decision? All it says is 'if the character embraces the curse' - which means the player can just say 'Yep, I embrace the curse.' You can roleplay it as a long process if you want, but that's no more or less valid than roleplaying it as a conscious choice the character makes as soon as they're bitten.
And fighting an addiction starts with a decision too. Your point?
Embracing the curse is very different from ignoring it, fighting it or taking advantage of it. You can't embrace something that meddle with everything you are just by saying you want to. Just because the rules don't say how long it takes doesn't mean you can do it as a free action.


So what, the reverse is the path to heaven is paved with evil intentions? Intending to do good is not a bad thing, doing it without analysis and foresight however can lead to bad things. Which is why you do a detailed plan of how you're going to test lycanthropy with several failsafes, not that it's needed since remove curse is a touch range action that can't be saved against. And see Light's more wise and brave counterpart Lelouch, who has pretty selfish intentions overall but has the foresight and will to make his goals a reality and sacrifices himself for a better world. The only real problem there is Lelouch didn't have good enough intentions, if his primary goal had been the betterment of the world things would have turned out even better.
The point is that Good has higher standards. You can't just have Good intents and be Good. You also have to avoid Evil acts such as Evil experimentation of Evil curses.
And Remove Curse having no save is not an argument. It's exploiting oversights in the rules.


Hahaha what? So I guess Marie Curie fell to evil in a day because she experimented with something dangerous, huh? And it wouldn't even matter if you fall evil, the second you embrace the curse your alignment automatically switches to neutral good.

The real problem there is why on earth would experimenting with ways to benefit good and combat evil under safe, controlled conditions be anything but an incredibly good act? Again you can remove the lycanthropy instantly if anything goes wrong, the good and intelligent thing to do would be to carefully prepare contingencies (literally if you can persuade a bard to grab both the contingency and remove curse spells as part of his magical secrets) and then get a rigorous series of testing going, testing various conditions, applicants and methods in order to identify how exactly werebearness works and what can be done to ensure total control over it, then branch out into whether biting criminals and decursing them if they don't embrace it is a useful method of dealing with people who have committed horrible crimes and other such secondary benefits.
Lycanthropy is a goddamn magic curse. If you believe you have any control whatsoever on it, you're being an arrogant fool.
But assuming it's even possible to experiment with lycanthropy under safe, controlled conditions, you can't do it without violating strong Good principles. Like the right to not be infected with something that might turn you into a bloodthirsty monster. And experimenting on someone who's insane enough to volunteer to that is probably still unethical.
Then you can't apply the knowledge you obtained from those experiments without violating strong Good principles. Because you're still injecting people with something that might turn them into bloodthirsty monsters.

[Boci]

Lycanthropy is a goddamn magic curse. If you believe you have any control whatsoever on it, you're being an arrogant fool.
But assuming it's even possible to experiment with lycanthropy under safe, controlled conditions, you can't do it without violating strong Good principles. Like the right to not be infected with something that might turn you into a bloodthirsty monster. And experimenting on someone who's insane enough to volunteer to that is probably still unethical.
Then you can't apply the knowledge you obtained from those experiments without violating strong Good principles. Because you're still injecting people with something that might turn them into bloodthirsty monsters.

So a chaos sorceror can never be good? Because they have actual codified mechanics of unreliability.

[Cazero]

So a chaos sorceror can never be good? Because they have actual codified mechanics of unreliability.
Gee, let's see how different the situations are.
Lycanthropy scientific study : jailing dozens of people for months after injecting them with an horrific Evil curse. And that's assuming dozens will be enough. You need lots of volunteers for torture and imprisonment if you intend to stay Good, and you're still an arrogant fool thinking you can actually jail that many monsters. Trying to capture rampaging lycanthropes to skip that tedious volunteering part is even more dangerous and arrogant.
Chaos sorcerer : every spell has some entropy. So every time you cast magic it can go wrong. Use magic only as last resort and you're set for life.

[Lines]

Sorry, I thought the fluff text provided something more than solitary : yes. Something about werebears being solitary to avoid collateral damage from their curses, a pretty Neutral Good decision.
Doesn't mean that it's an actually justified fear, but in any case it's worth researching - medications, spells, meditation, practise, all different ways of gaining greater control over it seem worth investigating, and even if nothing works then at worst it's back to the drawing board, nothing has been lost. You don't have to be 100% sure that what you're researching is practical for it to be worth a


And fighting an addiction starts with a decision too. Your point?
Embracing the curse is very different from ignoring it, fighting it or taking advantage of it. You can't embrace something that meddle with everything you are just by saying you want to. Just because the rules don't say how long it takes doesn't mean you can do it as a free action.
And it also doesn't mean you can't. There's nothing in the rules that says it has to be a long drawn out process, it can just as easily be roleplayed as feeling something new surge up within you and deciding to embrace it. I'd imagine that's how it works for werewolves, for instance - you're bitten and the urge to run, to chase, to hunt, to kill, to be free of all restraints and rip and tear wells up and you go with the flow, lose yourself and drop your inhibitions forever. The curse is no longer the beast within, you are now the beast. You drop to all fours as you run, scenting prey and howling, knowing the chase is on and you never have to worry or doubt yourself again.

Bam, curse embraced and alignment changed to chaotic evil within the space of one turn. Now apply your interpretation of the werebear thought process instead and you're (neutral) good.


The point is that Good has higher standards. You can't just have Good intents and be Good. You also have to avoid Evil acts such as Evil experimentation of Evil curses.
But that isn't an evil act. It doesn't hurt anyone and contains great potential benefit, and I'm pretty sure considering that it turns those who embrace it neutral good that werebear is a good curse. And how is it in your words 'Evil experimentation'? You are, in safe and controlled conditions, experimenting with ways to empower the forces of good and redeem evil people. That's what we in the morally positive adventuring community call a good thing.


And Remove Curse having no save is not an argument. It's exploiting oversights in the rules.
It absolutely is an argument, considering it's a perfect way to remove any danger from experimenting with lycanthropy. And how is it an oversight in the rules? If they wanted it not to affect the unwilling, it would specify 'one willing creature' as many other spells do (the fly spell for instance says 'you touch a willing creature'.


Lycanthropy is a goddamn magic curse. If you believe you have any control whatsoever on it, you're being an arrogant fool.
Who said I believed I had any control over it? Believing I have such control without rigorous testing would be the height of arrogance and foolishness, yes - which is why the optimal solution is to, under controlled conditions, test whether I have any control whatsoever on it. And then test what control randomly selected groups of volunteers had on it, altering one factor at a time and trying as many safe ideas as possible to see exactly how the curse acts and under what conditions, if any, it can be controlled. There's already a bit of data, you can ask some pre-existing werebears how they deal with it and use that as a starting point for your experiments, but I doubt some loners not engaging in double blind studies with proper control groups or even getting together to discuss solutions as a group will have made all the headway that it is possible to make.
And I have put many curses and cursed items to positive use over the years, my favourite was an a necklace that healed you but eventually twisted and grew your flesh, any injury you took would be overhealed to the point where you grew kilograms of extra flesh if you took a cut. We put it on a cow, knocked it unconscious and butchered our way into feeding a hoard of refugees.


ABut assuming it's even possible to experiment with lycanthropy under safe, controlled conditions, you can't do it without violating strong Good principles. Like the right to not be infected with something that might turn you into a bloodthirsty monster. And experimenting on someone who's insane enough to volunteer to that is probably still unethical.
Then you can't apply the knowledge you obtained from those experiments without violating strong Good principles. Because you're still injecting people with something that might turn them into bloodthirsty monsters.
How is that a good principle? Obviously it's wrong to infect someone who doesn't want to be infected unless doing so would provide massive benefit, that's why you experiment on yourself and on volunteers. And how is volunteering insane? Werebears bite trusted disciples, and they don't even have proper restraints and clerics on hand to instantly remove the curse if it doesn't prove controllable. In testing, yes you're injecting people with something that might turn them into bloodthirsty monsters, but you're doing it under conditions in which they can do no harm and can be instantly restored, and once you're out of testing you're injecting people under those same conditions but with the results from the testing that you can use to make sure they don't turn into bloodthirsty monsters.

Again, this is a very strongly good act. You build werebear proof cells, make preparations, gather volunteers, bite people and then remove the curse shortly after, interviewing them on their experiences. You make sure there's no way they can escape if they can't control themselves and then test various theories with the ultimate aim of finding out whether the curse can be perfectly controlled, if it can you give huge benefits to society and if it can't you've only lost time and money - which is how research works, not everything pans out.


Gee, let's see how different the situations are.
Lycanthropy scientific study : jailing dozens of people for months after injecting them with an horrific Evil curse. And that's assuming dozens will be enough. You need lots of volunteers for torture and imprisonment if you intend to stay Good, and you're still an arrogant fool thinking you can actually jail that many monsters. Trying to capture rampaging lycanthropes to skip that tedious volunteering part is even more dangerous and arrogant.
Why on earth would you have more than one at a time, and why would you do it for months? You'd start with one subject and initially decurse them one round after they've been bitten. You wouldn't introduce any more factors than need to be introduced, and the only reason to keep someone confined for a long period of time would be to test the effects of spending a long time cursed and using whatever technique you're currently testing to improve self control. The jail's there so they can't run off if they can't control it, latter series testing should be done in a larger area that can still be blocked off, if lycanthropy is going to be used to benefit the populace it's going to need to be tested out and about, though obviously only after they've been cursed and decursed multiple times in different tests and developed proper control.

[Shining Wrath]

Setting aside all rules lawyering about whether or not the DM *must* take control of a PC, and when, the tradition for fantasy is that lycanthropy is a curse, and the flavor text in the MM supports that traditional view. I'm sure there are books with sparkly vampires where that's not the case (and to be fair, less atrocious tomes), but with the exception of werebears, becoming a were creature is something a person should shun.

Werebears of course hark back to Beorn, who in his turn goes back to Norse berserkers. And while they aren't evil, they are still feral, uncouth, and not entirely trustworthy. And the MM text on werebears indicates that they are reluctant to pass their infection on.

So my Rule 0 would be that becoming a lycanthrope, including a werebear, and embracing the curse, means the PC is now my NPC. Even if there is no alignment change, the PC is no longer the person they were, but is now the person that weres. The exception would be if we rolled up were-creatures at the start of the campaign because that could be fun - but then, the PC is not changed into a lycanthrope during the game.

Of course a DM can avoid this issue by simply not having any werebears in their campaign.

[Lines]

Setting aside all rules lawyering about whether or not the DM *must* take control of a PC, and when, the tradition for fantasy is that lycanthropy is a curse, and the flavor text in the MM supports that traditional view. I'm sure there are books with sparkly vampires where that's not the case (and to be fair, less atrocious tomes), but with the exception of werebears, becoming a were creature is something a person should shun.

Werebears of course hark back to Beorn, who in his turn goes back to Norse berserkers. And while they aren't evil, they are still feral, uncouth, and not entirely trustworthy. And the MM text on werebears indicates that they are reluctant to pass their infection on.

So my Rule 0 would be that becoming a lycanthrope, including a werebear, and embracing the curse, means the PC is now my NPC. Even if there is no alignment change, the PC is no longer the person they were, but is now the person that weres. The exception would be if we rolled up were-creatures at the start of the campaign because that could be fun - but then, the PC is not changed into a lycanthrope during the game.

Of course a DM can avoid this issue by simply not having any werebears in their campaign.
Sounds fair, though I should note a couple of objections - if a longer wants to go become a weretiger, I can't see that being a horrible thing. The other objection is that there is no rules lawyering going on - it states straight out that if the alignment doesn't change, the player keeps control. Not a lot of wiggle room there, and it's plainly the intent.

[Cazero]

Doesn't mean that it's an actually justified fear, but in any case it's worth researching - medications, spells, meditation, practise, all different ways of gaining greater control over it seem worth investigating, and even if nothing works then at worst it's back to the drawing board, nothing has been lost. You don't have to be 100% sure that what you're researching is practical for it to be worth a
The curse doesn't come with a degree in medicine, so the starter options are pretty limited. And studying medicine is pretty difficult when you avoid potentialy knowledgeable people on purpose.


It absolutely is an argument, considering it's a perfect way to remove any danger from experimenting with lycanthropy. And how is it an oversight in the rules? If they wanted it not to affect the unwilling, it would specify 'one willing creature' as many other spells do (the fly spell for instance says 'you touch a willing creature'.
If you can permanently turn an hostile high CR creature into a possibly grateful CR 0 peasant in one round with a spell that needs neither save nor attack roll and isn't Wish (and even then), you have what we call a rule dysfunction. Argue all you want. I rest my case.


Who said I believed I had any control over it? Believing I have such control without rigorous testing would be the height of arrogance and foolishness, yes - which is why the optimal solution is to, under controlled conditions, test whether I have any control whatsoever on it. And then test what control randomly selected groups of volunteers had on it, altering one factor at a time and trying as many safe ideas as possible to see exactly how the curse acts and under what conditions, if any, it can be controlled. There's already a bit of data, you can ask some pre-existing werebears how they deal with it and use that as a starting point for your experiments, but I doubt some loners not engaging in double blind studies with proper control groups or even getting together to discuss solutions as a group will have made all the headway that it is possible to make.
So, you're basicaly saying that all the testing you're gonna do will produce results that the DM will have to fiat. While that Good serum you want is a possibility, it doesn't sound very plausible to me.


Why on earth would you have more than one at a time, and why would you do it for months? You'd start with one subject and initially decurse them one round after they've been bitten. You wouldn't introduce any more factors than need to be introduced, and the only reason to keep someone confined for a long period of time would be to test the effects of spending a long time cursed and using whatever technique you're currently testing to improve self control. The jail's there so they can't run off if they can't control it, latter series testing should be done in a larger area that can still be blocked off, if lycanthropy is going to be used to benefit the populace it's going to need to be tested out and about, though obviously only after they've been cursed and decursed multiple times in different tests and developed proper control.
Months of time is a strict minimum. You're working on something based on the moon cycle. You need to observe the evolution of the condition in individual subjects over several consecutive cycles, and if you really intend to prepare a long deployment you better put that number of cycles in the dozens. If you really want to be cautious you need to monitor the entire lifespan of afflicted subjects starting during infancy. That's several generations of work, and we're talking about elves who can live centuries here.
Dozens of subjects is to make sure your results are not coincidental and is also mandatory in a world with different intelligent races. You could pick them one by one if you had a couple millenias to spare. Parralel tests also make data collection a lot faster. Working on one dude at a time could take hundreds of years before you get any valuable results.

[RickAllison]

As a side note, why in the Nine Hells are werewolves Chaotic Evil? Wolves (and werewolves, by their fluff) have a clear hierarchical structure they adhere to. They should be Neutral Evil at worst. Wereboars, on the other hand, are based on a genus without any sense of social structure and even act like it within the fluff of the monster manual, so they should be more inclined toward Chaotic Evil.

[Jarlhen]

Enjoyed the read here.

I'm still not sure. I mean the only benefit to a melee character I can see is the resistance to non-magic weapons. I mean I'm assuming you can't wear weapons or armor while in werewolf shape.

[Lines]

The curse doesn't come with a degree in medicine, so the starter options are pretty limited. And studying medicine is pretty difficult when you avoid potentialy knowledgeable people on purpose.
So you stop avoiding those people. And medicine's likely not your best bet, I'd assume mental discipline (seriously, try really hard to get some monks to volunteer) or magic would be your best bets, but there's no real reason not to try anything you can think of.


If you can permanently turn an hostile high CR creature into a possibly grateful CR 0 peasant in one round with a spell that needs neither save nor attack roll and isn't Wish (and even then), you have what we call a rule dysfunction. Argue all you want. I rest my case.
You don't have a case to rest, they deliberately decided not to use the willing creature wording.


So, you're basicaly saying that all the testing you're gonna do will produce results that the DM will have to fiat. While that Good serum you want is a possibility, it doesn't sound very plausible to me.
No. The monster manual says that embracing turns you neutral good and that embracing gives you control, by the rules it works fine. Such testing is only needed if the dm fiats a possible loss of control, in which case fiat's already happening. Not sure where you're getting the serum idea from, considering it's a self control issue I'd mostly be going with self restraint techniques.


Months of time is a strict minimum. You're working on something based on the moon cycle. You need to observe the evolution of the condition in individual subjects over several consecutive cycles, and if you really intend to prepare a long deployment you better put that number of cycles in the dozens. If you really want to be cautious you need to monitor the entire lifespan of afflicted subjects starting during infancy. That's several generations of work, and we're talking about elves who can live centuries here.
Dozens of subjects is to make sure your results are not coincidental and is also mandatory in a world with different intelligent races. You could pick them one by one if you had a couple millenias to spare. Parralel tests also make data collection a lot faster. Working on one dude at a time could take hundreds of years before you get any valuable results.
Except that since you can turn them back and forth at will, you really don't need to jail more than one at a time. You can parallel test heaps, it's just for the majority of tests you don't need to stay a werebear. And you don't need to test it on heaps of races, there are humans bloody everywhere - just make sure you can get humans going bear mode without losing control, have them go set up similar facilities and then start testing on other races. There are various factors which can speed up or slow down the testing, but regardless of the speed considering the potential good that being able to create a huge number of neutral good combat powerhouses in a world full of evil monsters can do it's worth a shot.

[pwykersotz]

Lines, the main issue I take with your arguments in this case is not one of logic, since your case is one of a few sound interpretations of the RAW. But it's rather the "Twilight Syndrome" that it's propagating. I have no problems with players finding ways to exploit an otherwise terrible situation and gain some good out of it, but you're interpretation basically takes a classic curse and turns it into something bland, just a template upgrade. The genre that Lycanthropy is drawn from is one of gothic horror, and keeping associations with that provides a rich background tapestry that is understandable just by the mention of the word "Werewolf".

To get rid of all that and turn it into just another game mechanic seems wasteful to me in the extreme. It's like how you could extrapolate that, since Elysium has deadly creatures in it, that the plane's fluff about being good doesn't really hold. The heavens and hells are pretty much just afterlife soul-containers that serve no real purpose other than "place to go when you die". This doesn't seem to me like it's helping to create a rich and interesting world nearly as much as it's plugging in numbers to an equation just throwing away the few messy bits that contradict.

My 2cp is that I've never liked Werebears as good creatures and won't run it as such. I would potentially let someone tame their curse, but I wouldn't put alignment on the template, just impulses. Basically, like a Geas, except you'd have disadvantage to resist the urges and take damage as with Geas if you succeeded.

[Cazero]

I'll just stop arguing about the silly RAW worship and focus on the science.


Except that since you can turn them back and forth at will, you really don't need to jail more than one at a time.
Irrelevant. You want to know what happen to subjects cursed for long period of time. What if the urges come back every full moon?


You can parallel test heaps, it's just for the majority of tests you don't need to stay a werebear.
Irrelevant. The curse might affect behavior regardless of the current form. You need a lot of control experiments.


And you don't need to test it on heaps of races, there are humans bloody everywhere - just make sure you can get humans going bear mode without losing control, have them go set up similar facilities and then start testing on other races.
...So you don't need to do parallel testing because you can do parallel testing. Right.

[Boci]

I'll just stop arguing about the silly RAW worship and focus on the science.

Translation: the rules don't say what I want them to, so I'm going to ignore them.

Which is fine. I noted lycanthropy as the gothic curse it is commonly associated with has great story potential, and this is likely the interpretation WotC intended to go for (thematic problems I previously noted not withstanding). But there's no need to get so high and mighty because someone likes the results of following the rules as presented in favour of gothic horror origin, especially for the werebear, which was never amajor feature of gothic horror.


Lines, the main issue I take with your arguments in this case is not one of logic, since your case is one of a few sound interpretations of the RAW. But it's rather the "Twilight Syndrome" that it's propagating. I have no problems with players finding ways to exploit an otherwise terrible situation and gain some good out of it, but you're interpretation basically takes a classic curse and turns it into something bland, just a template upgrade. The genre that Lycanthropy is drawn from is one of gothic horror, and keeping associations with that provides a rich background tapestry that is understandable just by the mention of the word "Werewolf".

Right, but that's a werewolf, not a werebear. I'm not being nitpicky, how much does the game benefit from having werebears being loner werewolves who hit harder, as oppose to werebears being totally different (a point Lines has made several times)?

Also Twilight was bad because of uninspired writing, not because it changed werewolf from their gothic horror origin. WoD also changed werewolf fluff, and whilst not everyone's cup of tea, it pretty objectively was not badly written.

[Soular]

Just make sure to be upfront with your players. It's all house-rules in that post (and from a flavor perspective, potentially awesome) so a player who was suddenly blindsided would be within their rights to be resentful.

Sadly, WotC left all of it really vague. It could be argued that it's all house rules. If the were-character was meant to be a permanent thing, why wasn't it put in the Player's Handbook? If a were-character isn't a monster, why is it only found in the Monster Manual? If monsters can gain experience, why isn't that in the Monster Manual?



That's bad DMing, because either the party is okay with the PC embracing, in which case you power tripping to kill a character for having the audacity to play the game the way you want them to, or the rest of the party is also against them going kill crazy, in which case its an out of character problem (a player wanting to go on a murder when the party and DM do not want the PCs to be involved in such heinous crimes) and as such needs to be solved out of character, not with an IC power trip from the DM.


You seem to have forgotten the fact that werebears are Neutral Good. It would be strange for them to go full rampage killing innocents.

I posit that no good aligned character would willingly keep the curse. If you read carefully, the Monster Manual states that individuals that fight the curse succumb to bloodlust during an uncontrolled shapeshift. Okay, you say, but what about when a were-bear embraces the curse? Well the MM has this to say:

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

Sounds to me like the curse, even if embraced, isn't fully controlled. Such a character has no place in a good aligned party. What kind of idiot would sleep soundly knowing that the guy they left on watch could Hulk out and attack them? How can they rely on that guy during a protracted underground campaign, unsure of when the next full moon may happen?

What of the character? What would a good-aligned character do if they went Super-pedobear in a crowded inn, killing and maiming innocent people? What would good-aligned NPCs do to such a character? There is a reason why they live solitary lives away from civilization. Just like real bears are not evil, but will still kill humans out of fear, anger, hunger...

Please take a moment to re-read the Lycanthropes entry in the MM. Does it really seem like WotC is encouraging players to get lycanthropy in the way they would get say, a +1 sword?

It's not a matter of forcing my players to play my game, but rather enforcing the same vibe as the old-school D&D we grew up with (BECMI). The same vibe that 5E is desperately trying to replicate. There is nothing wrong with creating your own world.

Heck, run a World of Darkness campaign with 5E rules if you want. That would be awesome. But stop trying to legitimize it with selective reading of the rules. You don't need to because it's your game.


What's the point of embracing the curse if you still lose control? Isn't getting control by kind of merging with the beast (sounds like you're changing the bit where you keep the character if your alignment doesn't change) the whole point?


I don't think embracing the curse is meant to be a benefit. In my understanding, when you embrace the curse, the curse controls you. I don't think embracing the curse is meant for werebears, more for the evil lycanthropes. So whenever you embrace the curse, your alignment becomes the alignment of the curse. So while you're not embracing the curse, you're actively fighting it for control of your body. Pretty much my analysis of the MM means that when you embrace the curse, you could become an NPC because you are no longer your character. In that, the curse controls your character. If the DM lets you keep your character once it has embraced the curse, he's letting you play the curse, in your character's body.

I mostly agree with you Ronnocius, except I think that a were-bear PC, while unlikely, is possible.

Eslin, you are trying to read something into the fluff that quite frankly, isn't there.

The point is that you get to keep your character. If you don't embrace the curse you re-roll immediately. I am trying to remember a movie I saw where one of the characters was a were-wolf. He lived in a mansion in a forest, and would chain himself down in an iron cage every full moon in order to keep himself from killing people.

In 5E terms, the man had embraced and accepted his curse. Had he succumbed to it he would have turned irrevocably evil. But the fact that he didn't, and tried to protect those around him shows that he was in control and only lost that control during the full moon. That's exactly how I expect WotC meant to portray were-bears.


Obviously with the way they run it, no, that isn't the goal. The goal would be having an interesting story hook, that tells an interesting story, without the character getting a permanent power boost.

Someone really gets it!


So what's the down side of becoming a werebear? If it just makes you more powerful, that doesn't quite count as a curse.

That's pretty much how Eslin has been trying to sell it since the MM first came out. Problem is his view is as myopic now as it was then. To his credit, his view makes sense if you don't read the Lycanthropes section of the MM, have no idea what "curse" means, place munchkin power-gaming over game balance, and desire to take a piss on D&D tradition. I will give him that.


As I previously mentioned in this thread, lycanthropy as a curse already doesn't make much sense, as the notion comes from a part of European folklore that D&D does not incorporate into its world building. Nature in D&D isn't chaotic evil, so why is a werewolf, nature forced upon the civilized humanoid, chaotic evil? This makes even less sense if the PC is a druid.

Lycanthropy is not nature, it's a magical curse. Druid shapeshifting is natural, lycanthropy is not.


Despite your attempt at rationalization, this is nothing but a naked power grab carried out by by means of an unprovoked assault on an innocent creature. It's no different than knocking down a police officer and stealing their gun to use against criminals. If you're capable of planning and carrying that out, you're not Neutral Good.


At that point, you're evil, mind controlling good creature or forcing it to turn into a monster because you desire more power is not something a good person would do. The curse doesn't ensure you'll use its power for good...in fact, werebears are trying to not use that power at all and keep away from people in case they can't control themselves.


But assuming it's even possible to experiment with lycanthropy under safe, controlled conditions, you can't do it without violating strong Good principles. Like the right to not be infected with something that might turn you into a bloodthirsty monster. And experimenting on someone who's insane enough to volunteer to that is probably still unethical.
Then you can't apply the knowledge you obtained from those experiments without violating strong Good principles. Because you're still injecting people with something that might turn them into bloodthirsty monsters.

Yet more enlightened souls knock down the flimsy house-of-cards rationale that Eslin has been trying to build.


And it doesn't strike obvious to any of you that werebear are Neutral Good precisely because they live secluded lives to avoid collateral damage and that any werebear not doing that would be just as Chaotic Evil as werewolves?

Wow. I never even thought of that.

[JackPhoenix]

Hahaha what? So I guess Marie Curie fell to evil in a day because she experimented with something dangerous, huh? And it wouldn't even matter if you fall evil, the second you embrace the curse your alignment automatically switches to neutral good.

You may think you're funny, but Marie Curie died from leukemia thanks to the radiation. Great example!


So you stop avoiding those people. And medicine's likely not your best bet, I'd assume mental discipline (seriously, try really hard to get some monks to volunteer) or magic would be your best bets, but there's no real reason not to try anything you can think of.

Werebears are neutral good because they avoid people. You stop avoiding them, you're exposing them to unnecesary danger, thus likely stop being neutral good.


No. The monster manual says that embracing turns you neutral good and that embracing gives you control, by the rules it works fine. Such testing is only needed if the dm fiats a possible loss of control, in which case fiat's already happening. Not sure where you're getting the serum idea from, considering it's a self control issue I'd mostly be going with self restraint techniques.

Yes...it turns you neutral good, thus you start avoiding people, and give you control...just enough to not bite in combat. That's it, they are not the same people, only with the superpowers. When they change, their bestial nature takes over and they are dangerous to the innocent around them...If you want to call that being in control, go aheadl. The villagers torn apart by werebear's claws will surely be glad they weren't bitten instead!


There are various factors which can speed up or slow down the testing, but regardless of the speed considering the potential good that being able to create a huge number of neutral good combat powerhouses in a world full of evil monsters can do it's worth a shot.

Combat powerhouses hiding in some forest away from the people, turning into monsters once a month (and that's doubtful...full moon lasts for 3 days, Faeron has 2 moons, Krynn 3 and Eberron 12...also, their lycantrophes are all monsters, but that's beside the point) that are taken over by their bestial nature when they change are less useful as soldiers then you might think.

If all werebears are neutral good, where is the mention of evil werebears comming from? If they are perfectly in control all the time, why do they have to keep away to protect the innocent from their bestial nature?

edit: huh, partially shadow monk'd...doesn't matter.

[Boci]

It's not a matter of forcing my players to play my game, but rather enforcing the same vibe as the old-school D&D we grew up with (BECMI).

Those two statements aren't as dissimilar as you seem to think they are. By putting a lycanthrope against the party and then punishing a player who tries to incorporate the curse into their character concept, conventional wisdom is you are being a bad DM. Either the group doesn't want a lycantrhope party member, in which case you talk to them OOC and explain things, or the whole group is fine and then you are punishing them for not playing the situation the way you wanted them to...i.e. bad DMing. Doesn't matter how WotC intended the game to be played.


If all werebears are neutral good, where is the mention of evil werebears comming from? If they are perfectly in control all the time, why do they have to keep away to protect the innocent from their bestial nature?

The way I see it the only way to reconcile the contradictory fluff we are given is that all werebears who embrace the curse are NG, an evil creature bitten could fight the curse and stay evil. So yeah, WotC likely messed up on the fluff, but Lines is being faithful to the fluff presented in their interpretation, so its strange to hear people accuse them of twisting it to suit their end.

[Soular]

The way I see it the only way to reconcile the contradictory fluff we are given is that all werebears who embrace the curse are NG, an evil creature bitten could fight the curse and stay evil. So yeah, WotC likely messed up on the fluff, but Lines is being faithful to the fluff presented in their interpretation, so its strange to hear people accuse them of twisting it to suit their end.

How so? Were-bears know that they can lose control and kill, and therefore live lone, solitary lives away from civilization. Why would they seek to infect someone else with their curse? That hardly seems "good."

If someone were to seek out a were-bear with the intent to gain power via the curse, does that not virtually ensure that the individual in question is not of the same moral standing of the were-bear? Again, why would he pass on the curse willingly, let alone to a person who places lust for personal power over the safety of innocents?

Embracing the curse does not mean that you are not a danger to those around you, the fluff is abundantly clear on this. Any PC that embraces his (her... xyr?) curse would have to live like the NG were-bears do. And that is a lifestyle that runs counter to an adventurer's lifestyle.

[JackPhoenix]

The way I see it the only way to reconcile the contradictory fluff we are given is that all werebears who embrace the curse are NG, an evil creature bitten could fight the curse and stay evil. So yeah, WotC likely messed up on the fluff, but Lines is being faithful to the fluff presented in their interpretation, so its strange to hear people accuse them of twisting it to suit their end.

There's a piece of the puzzle missing. What IS the change of the alignment? (Any change of alignment, not just lycanthropes) It doesn't change your memories, what does it do to your personality? 5e doesn't answer these questions. Personality isn't defined only by alignment..alignment itself plays only a small role. Unless you're celestial or a fiend, it is a choice. If you have character with the Personality Trait "I'll kill anyone who gets in my way without second thought", Ideal "I want more power at all cost", Bond "Everyone who's not a human deserves to die" and Flaw "I enjoy killing and causing suffering too much", what will change when you're forced to turn NG? And how long will it last before you return back to being CE?

[Boci]

Embracing the curse does not mean that you are not a danger to those around you, the fluff is abundantly clear on this. Any PC that embraces his (her... xyr?) curse would have to live like the NG were-bears do. And that is a lifestyle that runs counter to an adventurer's lifestyle.

The fluff says most, not all. That's hardly abundantly clear, as it seems to rather strongly imply you can not be a danger to those around you, its just atypical, like most PCs already are.


There's a piece of the puzzle missing. What IS the change of the alignment? (Any change of alignment, not just lycanthropes) It doesn't change your memories, what does it do to your personality? 5e doesn't answer these questions. Personality isn't defined only by alignment..alignment itself plays only a small role. Unless you're celestial or a fiend, it is a choice. If you have character with the Personality Trait "I'll kill anyone who gets in my way without second thought", Ideal "I want more power at all cost", Bond "Everyone who's not a human deserves to die" and Flaw "I enjoy killing and causing suffering too much", what will change when you're forced to turn NG? And how long will it last before you return back to being CE?

Good questions, with no universal answers. So logically, neither side is better than the other, or more true to the intention, or any other vague, positive sounding words/phrases.

[GlenSmash!]

Enjoyed the read here.

I'm still not sure. I mean the only benefit to a melee character I can see is the resistance to non-magic weapons. I mean I'm assuming you can't wear weapons or armor while in werewolf shape.

In wolf form? No. But in Hybrid form? It's entirely possible.

[Soular]

The fluff says most, not all. That's hardly abundantly clear, as it seems to rather strongly imply you can not be a danger to those around you, its just atypical, like most PCs already are.

Really? You are relying on a selective reading of the Monster Manual entry. Here is what I see:

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

Notice the word "when." When its bestial nature takes over, not "if" its bestial nature takes over. Nothing in what I read states that were-bears are immune to losing control during the full moon. At best, they can control their shape-shifting when there is no full moon.

[Soular]

In wolf form? No. But in Hybrid form? It's entirely possible.

I would suggest you take another look at the were-bear picture in the MM. Unless your character has ridiculously short legs and abnormally long arms, then I would rule that a separate suit of armor is required.

[RickAllison]

I would suggest you take another look at the were-bear picture in the MM. Unless your character has ridiculously short legs and abnormally long arms, then I would rule that a separate suit of armor is required.

Indeed. My werebear PC is going monk because then at least has a decent AC (which according to Jeremy Crawford, does stack with the natural armor bonus... Go figure :smallsmile:). In any case, the only way I can see really using armor with a form is to remain in that form full-time, or deal with over-sized armor if you get it for the were-form. I'm getting a Large quarterstaff for my monk, but my base form can't even wield it, she just uses it as a giant walking stick.

[JackPhoenix]

Indeed. My werebear PC is going monk because then at least has a decent AC (which according to Jeremy Crawford, does stack with the natural armor bonus... Go figure :smallsmile:). In any case, the only way I can see really using armor with a form is to remain in that form full-time, or deal with over-sized armor if you get it for the were-form. I'm getting a Large quarterstaff for my monk, but my base form can't even wield it, she just uses it as a giant walking stick.

If you refer to the SA I've linked in the Natural Armor thread, JC stated that it does not (or should not) stack by RAW or RAI, but he would likely allow it at his table, because "it's a grey area and he errs on the side of generosity"...just a clarification. So it's up to the GM if he allows it to stack or not.

[RickAllison]

If you refer to the SA I've linked in the Natural Armor thread, JC stated that it does not (or should not) stack by RAW or RAI, but he would likely allow it at his table, because "it's a grey area and he errs on the side of generosity"...just a clarification. So it's up to the GM if he allows it to stack or not.

A gray area does not indicate that it "does not (or should not) stack by RAW or RAI". That indicates that he acknowledges that RAW is ambiguous at best, and Sage Advice is the clearest place for RAI (it is Rules As Intended by the developers; Sage Advice is the word of the developers; thus, it does fall under RAI). His comment thus would mean that while his RAI is as such, it is up to GM (as is everything ultimately, but this is more clear with rule zero permisssion).

It is mildly ironic that it is possible to debate the rulings that exist to clarify existing debates. Kind of defeats the purpose...

[Lines]

You may think you're funny, but Marie Curie died from leukemia thanks to the radiation. Great example!
How is that an example? The question was whether experimentation was evil, she advanced the cause of human knowledge and investigated the use of radiation treatment in cancer therapy, she was eventually killed by it but she accomplished a huge amount before she died. Seriously, I'm going to want you to answer this one, this is one of the more ridiculous things I've heard said here - in what way was Marie Curie's experimentation evil?


Werebears are neutral good because they avoid people. You stop avoiding them, you're exposing them to unnecesary danger, thus likely stop being neutral good.
Or you just, you know, don't hurt people. Embracing the curse gives you control, declaring yourself a monster is your own choice.


Yes...it turns you neutral good, thus you start avoiding people, and give you control...just enough to not bite in combat. That's it, they are not the same people, only with the superpowers. When they change, their bestial nature takes over and they are dangerous to the innocent around them...If you want to call that being in control, go aheadl. The villagers torn apart by werebear's claws will surely be glad they weren't bitten instead!
Which is why, if the DM decides to houserule a lack of control despite your embracing of the curse, you do the experimentation above. Being a werebear has huge potential benefits for society, if it turns out there are downsides then find a cleric, some volunteers and a secure facility and start testing to figure out ways around those downsides.


Combat powerhouses hiding in some forest away from the people, turning into monsters once a month (and that's doubtful...full moon lasts for 3 days, Faeron has 2 moons, Krynn 3 and Eberron 12...also, their lycantrophes are all monsters, but that's beside the point) that are taken over by their bestial nature when they change are less useful as soldiers then you might think.

If all werebears are neutral good, where is the mention of evil werebears comming from? If they are perfectly in control all the time, why do they have to keep away to protect the innocent from their bestial nature?
The answer to that is obvious - evil werebears are the ones who refuse to embrace the curse, because embracing it makes you neutral good. If embracing it doesn't make you neutral good (which is a clear violation of the rules, it specifically says that it automatically makes you neutral good) then you've just opened up the other four lycanthropes for potential good use, because if embracing being a werebear doesn't change your alignment then neither do the other 4. And no, they aren't taken over by their bestial nature, the entire point of embracing the curse is that you and that nature are no longer separate things, it can't take over because you are it. This comes with a change in alignment naturally, since by merging with it that nature becomes permanently part of how your mind works, but fortunately for us the werebear's nature is neutral good.

[Lines]

A gray area does not indicate that it "does not (or should not) stack by RAW or RAI". That indicates that he acknowledges that RAW is ambiguous at best, and Sage Advice is the clearest place for RAI (it is Rules As Intended by the developers; Sage Advice is the word of the developers; thus, it does fall under RAI). His comment thus would mean that while his RAI is as such, it is up to GM (as is everything ultimately, but this is more clear with rule zero permisssion).

It is mildly ironic that it is possible to debate the rulings that exist to clarify existing debates. Kind of defeats the purpose...
Not sure it's ambiguous, the template specifically says +1 AC instead of a mage armour style 11+dex and 5e states specific beats general.


There's a piece of the puzzle missing. What IS the change of the alignment? (Any change of alignment, not just lycanthropes) It doesn't change your memories, what does it do to your personality? 5e doesn't answer these questions. Personality isn't defined only by alignment..alignment itself plays only a small role. Unless you're celestial or a fiend, it is a choice. If you have character with the Personality Trait "I'll kill anyone who gets in my way without second thought", Ideal "I want more power at all cost", Bond "Everyone who's not a human deserves to die" and Flaw "I enjoy killing and causing suffering too much", what will change when you're forced to turn NG? And how long will it last before you return back to being CE?

Nothing, since if it didn't change those things there'd be no point in the DM assuming control of your character due to alignment change. If all your personality traits indicated an incredibly good person and you embraced being a wereboar, by that logic you'd turn neutral evil and then pretty much instantly flip back to being good. Logic dictates if you embrace being a werebear your personality automatically changes to exclude aspects that would turn you back evil again. And yes, it is a choice - your choice comes when you decide whether to embrace being a werebear or not.

[Soular]

@ Lines

We have been going in circles over this for far too long. So I dug up another thread where you tried to make a case for power-gaming munchkinism to locate what I told you back then.

You know, back when you called yourself Eslin...

Lycanthropy-I-don-t-get-it (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?376246-Lycanthropy. I don't get it.)

And I repeat:

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

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

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

I went ahead and bolded the part you seem so incapable of comprehending. There is a reason for the Lycanthropes section's appearance in the Monster Manual, and not the Player's Handbook. It is there for the DM to use as a catalyst for his story-telling, not for the player to use to manipulate their DM into giving them power they wrongly feel entitled to.

[RickAllison]

I have another question. Throughout 5e, they've tried to comb out all the mechanical effects of alignment so it remains squarely in RP territory, so why did they bring that up for lycanthropy? In the sidebar, they make it clear that embracing the beast means becoming that were-form's alignment. Yet earlier, they stated that some werebears "are every bit as evil as other lycanthropes." Why pay so much attention to an RP mechanic that only has a mechanical effect in very specific circumstances (sprites, etc.), then completely disregard it in the fluff?

[JackPhoenix]

How is that an example? The question was whether experimentation was evil, she advanced the cause of human knowledge and investigated the use of radiation treatment in cancer therapy, she was eventually killed by it but she accomplished a huge amount before she died. Seriously, I'm going to want you to answer this one, this is one of the more ridiculous things I've heard said here - in what way was Marie Curie's experimentation evil?

It wasn't. Radioactivity isn't magical curse, it's predictable...yet it's dangerous and killed the woman who discovered it. Your experiments aren't evil because you're dangerous, they are evil because you want to mind control uncooperating good creature to forcibly change the outlook and personality of other living creatures (or you wanted to, then you started ignoring the part where you forced unwilling werebear to spread the curse against his will or started biting criminals to turn them NG). The example is that your experiments may have unforeseen consequences... much less predictable (because you're dealing with the behavior of thinking beings and magic) and with possible danger for lots of innocents.


Or you just, you know, don't hurt people. Embracing the curse gives you control, declaring yourself a monster is your own choice.

How much control? It gives you control over when to change into hybrid or beast form, and in case of the werebear, if you bite or "just" claw your victim to death. Why would werebears be afraid of hurting innocent "when their bestial nature takes over" if they were in complete control all the time? That doesn't make sense, does it? Unless you're taking only the parts you like and ignore everything else.


The answer to that is obvious - evil werebears are the ones who refuse to embrace the curse, because embracing it makes you neutral good. If embracing it doesn't make you neutral good (which is a clear violation of the rules, it specifically says that it automatically makes you neutral good) then you've just opened up the other four lycanthropes for potential good use, because if embracing being a werebear doesn't change your alignment then neither do the other 4. And no, they aren't taken over by their bestial nature, the entire point of embracing the curse is that you and that nature are no longer separate things, it can't take over because you are it. This comes with a change in alignment naturally, since by merging with it that nature becomes permanently part of how your mind works, but fortunately for us the werebear's nature is neutral good.

But if they refused to embrace the curse, they wouldn't be able to change form at will, and they would still be neutral good when they change during full moon. It doesn't matter what alignment they are in their human(oid) form, because they then have no advantages from being a werebear. In that case, the "humanoid" part would be evil, but the "werebear" one wouldn't.

All right, they aren't taken over by their bestial nature, because they are now bestial all the time...hm, I wonder, maybe that's why they are solitary and keep away from people, driving away (and mauling) trespassers in some forest. That's what their neutral goodness does, they do not help with experiments to create more of their kin...no wonder, being forced to hide in woods, away from your friends and family from the fear you'll hurt them sounds like a curse. Of course, if you're ignoring that part of their behavior, we can easily ignore the part about them being NG.


Since when is it not a decision? All it says is 'if the character embraces the curse' - which means the player can just say 'Yep, I embrace the curse.' You can roleplay it as a long process if you want, but that's no more or less valid than roleplaying it as a conscious choice the character makes as soon as they're bitten.

Nope, it's not choice you make when you're bitten:
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.

Also with werebear:
Typically, a werebear passes on its lycanthropy only to chosen companions or apprentices, spending the time that follows helping the new lycanthrope accept the curse in order to control it.


Nothing, since if it didn't change those things there'd be no point in the DM assuming control of your character due to alignment change. If all your personality traits indicated an incredibly good person and you embraced being a wereboar, by that logic you'd turn neutral evil and then pretty much instantly flip back to being good. Logic dictates if you embrace being a werebear your personality automatically changes to exclude aspects that would turn you back evil again. And yes, it is a choice - your choice comes when you decide whether to embrace being a werebear or not.

All right...if your personality changes so much, the curse is truly terrible, and only someone evil would inflict it on others...you're destroying who they are and making them into a copy of yourself, personality-wise... which is a copy of the lycantrope who infected you... etc, etc, up to the first werebear ever. No wonder people fight the curse. That's brainwashing...and you won't get usable soldiers that way, because when they embrace the curse, they'll turn into loners and go protect animals and plants in some forest instead of the villagers.

[Soular]

I have another question. Throughout 5e, they've tried to comb out all the mechanical effects of alignment so it remains squarely in RP territory, so why did they bring that up for lycanthropy? In the sidebar, they make it clear that embracing the beast means becoming that were-form's alignment. Yet earlier, they stated that some werebears "are every bit as evil as other lycanthropes." Why pay so much attention to an RP mechanic that only has a mechanical effect in very specific circumstances (sprites, etc.), then completely disregard it in the fluff?

Inconsistent vision among the designers, IMO.

I think that this with edition the designers wanted cut down on the mechanical crunch of the RP aspect, hence the loosening of alignment restrictions and such.

[Lines]

It wasn't. Radioactivity isn't magical curse, it's predictable...yet it's dangerous and killed the woman who discovered it. Your experiments aren't evil because you're dangerous, they are evil because you want to mind control uncooperating good creature to forcibly change the outlook and personality of other living creatures (or you wanted to, then you started ignoring the part where you forced unwilling werebear to spread the curse against his will or started biting criminals to turn them NG). The example is that your experiments may have unforeseen consequences... much less predictable (because you're dealing with the behavior of thinking beings and magic) and with possible danger for lots of innocents.
But you said it was evil. I was told experimenting with something dangerous makes you evil, I asked how Marie Curie was evil and you said it was a great example. How was it a great example?

I don't want to mind control him. That's a last resort for if he refuses to do good despite there being no danger of it going wrong, how is there possible danger for lots of innocents if you keep them restrained and have the ability to instantly remove the curse?


How much control? It gives you control over when to change into hybrid or beast form, and in case of the werebear, if you bite or "just" claw your victim to death. Why would werebears be afraid of hurting innocent "when their bestial nature takes over" if they were in complete control all the time? That doesn't make sense, does it? Unless you're taking only the parts you like and ignore everything else.
Because with ambiguous and contradictory explanations, I pick the one that is based on the rules. The fluff for the werebear is inconsistent and some of it contradicts what we know to be the case, so I go with the explanation that embracing the curse and merging your nature with that of the beast gives you control in that now there's only one person and one set of urges in there, you and yours. Sure those urges might include foraging for honey and berries, eating raw salmon and ripping and tearing, but that's what self control is for - if it was so bad that even embraced characters didn't have control, they could have easily included a line saying make a DC x wisdom save under such and such a circumstance or the DM controls your character, but they didn't. It's like the warlock - the fluff may say you're indebted to a patron, but you can just refluff or ignore that if you want to play a warlock but don't want to have fluff obligations that a sorcerer who is mechanically as strong as you doesn't have and it's not like you'll lose your class abilities.


But if they refused to embrace the curse, they wouldn't be able to change form at will, and they would still be neutral good when they change during full moon. It doesn't matter what alignment they are in their human(oid) form, because they then have no advantages from being a werebear. In that case, the "humanoid" part would be evil, but the "werebear" one wouldn't.
Sure, why not? All we know is it isn't the embraced werebears that are evil, since they have to be neutral good.


All right, they aren't taken over by their bestial nature, because they are now bestial all the time...hm, I wonder, maybe that's why they are solitary and keep away from people, driving away (and mauling) trespassers in some forest. That's what their neutral goodness does, they do not help with experiments to create more of their kin...no wonder, being forced to hide in woods, away from your friends and family from the fear you'll hurt them sounds like a curse. Of course, if you're ignoring that part of their behavior, we can easily ignore the part about them being NG.
This is why the concept of self control was invented. We have two seemingly mutually contradictory sides to things - the side saying they're neutral good, which is defined by intent and actions, if they're never going to actually help anybody they aren't neutral good, staying out of everyone's way is just neutral, and the fluff saying they stay away fearing what'll happen when their bestial nature takes over. Since we know the first one is true, the crunch tells us they gain control and become neutral good, the easiest way to resolve it is by having them both be true - they're neutral good and fluff wise werebears often fear x and y - that doesn't have to mean x and y is true, just that they fear it. If you want an example from somewhere else, just take every single instance of 'no! stay away from me, I'm a monster!' in fiction said by a character who from everything we've seen seems to be cursed with awesome stuff.

[Boci]

Really? You are relying on a selective reading of the Monster Manual entry. Here is what I see:

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

Notice the word "when." When its bestial nature takes over, not "if" its bestial nature takes over. Nothing in what I read states that were-bears are immune to losing control during the full moon. At best, they can control their shape-shifting when there is no full moon.

You're also relying on selective reading, because you're ignoring the implication of "most" to get the outcome you prefer.

[Soular]

You're also relying on selective reading, because you're ignoring the implication of "most" to get the outcome you prefer.

No, I am giving your view the benefit of the doubt that they are not among the most that turn into evil, bloodthirsty savages. They get to keep being PCs.

That doesn't rule out that they lose control during a full moon.

[JackPhoenix]

Because with ambiguous and contradictory explanations, I pick the one that is based on the rules. The fluff for the werebear is inconsistent and some of it contradicts what we know to be the case, so I go with the explanation that embracing the curse and merging your nature with that of the beast gives you control in that now there's only one person and one set of urges in there, you and yours. Sure those urges might include foraging for honey and berries, eating raw salmon and ripping and tearing, but that's what self control is for - if it was so bad that even embraced characters didn't have control, they could have easily included a line saying make a DC x wisdom save under such and such a circumstance or the DM controls your character, but they didn't. It's like the warlock - the fluff may say you're indebted to a patron, but you can just refluff or ignore that if you want to play a warlock but don't want to have fluff obligations that a sorcerer who is mechanically as strong as you doesn't have and it's not like you'll lose your class abilities.

Where did you get rules you've chosen from? The only rules in MM are that when you embrace the curse, your alignment changes to the alignment of the creature, and that you can change shape at will instead of only involuntarily during full moon. Oh, and that the GM may take control of your character when you change alignment...which is strange, because even when you're originally NG, your personality changes. Nowhere does it say you're in completely in control, the werebear fluff suggests that even with their higher degree of control ("ability to control their monstrous nature and reject their violent impulses"), its far from perfect...in fact, their nature is "monstrous" and "bestial".


Sure, why not? All we know is it isn't the embraced werebears that are evil, since they have to be neutral good.

They are NG when they embrace the curse. There's nothing preventing them from going "hell, I'm immune to swords and strong as an ogre, why the hell am I sitting in this forest when I can just go to the village and take whatever I like?"


This is why the concept of self control was invented. We have two seemingly mutually contradictory sides to things - the side saying they're neutral good, which is defined by intent and actions, if they're never going to actually help anybody they aren't neutral good, staying out of everyone's way is just neutral, and the fluff saying they stay away fearing what'll happen when their bestial nature takes over. Since we know the first one is true, the crunch tells us they gain control and become neutral good, the easiest way to resolve it is by having them both be true - they're neutral good and fluff wise werebears often fear x and y - that doesn't have to mean x and y is true, just that they fear it. If you want an example from somewhere else, just take every single instance of 'no! stay away from me, I'm a monster!' in fiction said by a character who from everything we've seen seems to be cursed with awesome stuff.

They are helping everybody...by keeping the dangerous monster away from innocent. The monster being themselves, thanks to the curse someone was smart enough to spread to them, because he was thinking in terms of statistic gain. There's more then one way to play NG character, and the description in the MM says which way the werebears use. Hint: it's not the one where they run around in the cities, bite other people to give them superpowers and help with suspicious experiments.

[xanderh]

Enjoyed the read here.

I'm still not sure. I mean the only benefit to a melee character I can see is the resistance to non-magic weapons. I mean I'm assuming you can't wear weapons or armor while in werewolf shape.

Werewolves have a body, as well as arms with hands. If the arms and armour was made to accommodate the shape of the werewolf, there's no reason why you couldn't use weapons and armour. Magic armour would usually automatically fit the wearer as long as the general shape is similar enough , according to the DMG, so magical armour is even less of a problem. And as for mundane armour, you could buy two sets, one for each form.

[RickAllison]

Werewolves have a body, as well as arms with hands. If the arms and armour was made to accommodate the shape of the werewolf, there's no reason why you couldn't use weapons and armour. Magic armour would usually automatically fit the wearer as long as the general shape is similar enough , according to the DMG, so magical armour is even less of a problem. And as for mundane armour, you could buy two sets, one for each form.

Indeed. Also, it is immunity, not resistance. Resistance would be great, but that's given by Barbarian 1 and other sources. Immunity is a very rare thing to give to the players and might be one of the biggest reasons why DMs tend to be against it as a power boost, because it's massive.

Werebear, in particular, offers a massive boost in power for a melee attacker or grappler. Because the hybrid form is Large-sized, it gets to wield oversized weapons that double the base damage (the great-axe in the MM werebear entry is regular strength because it is a regular axe; it makes sense because otherwise he can't actually use it in his base form :smallwink:) although it would probably need to be custom-forged. It allows grappling-based PCs to wrestle up to Huge creatures without penalty, and they can also then carry around Small enemies without a reduction in speed. Have a helpful caster cast Enlarge on the werebear and he can grapple the Tarrasque itself, as well as being able to haul around Medium creatures without movement penalty.

As for the other were-forms, they also get nice bonuses like a 40 ft speed in non-humanoid form, Multiattack for classes that don't get it naturally, and the ability to blend in with other animals. Wereboar and Weretiger get decent control options with Charge and Pounce, Wereboars also get Relentless for survivability, and everything but Wereboars get some Keen Sense (smell for all, hearing for tigers and wolves). Boars also are quite decent choices for grapplers, as they basically have a greatsword/maul that can be used without having a hand free (2d6 tusks).

Now, for werewolves in particular? They get +1 AC that doesn't stack with armor (though it may or may not stack with Unarmored Defense), Keen Hearing and Smell, and pretty decent damage output with Multiattack and natural weapons for classes that might not normally get those. In other words, it could be great for Barbarians or Monks who would like +1 AC if the DM agrees with JC. It could also be fantastic for someone who wants to be very perceptive. With 20 Wisdom, Expertise (Perception) giving +12 at L17, and Observant, passive Perception for hearing and smelling would become 37, which actually beats Tiamat. At that point, the PC has the highest possible Perception without using True Polymorph.

[xanderh]

One downside is that polymorph and true polymorph don't work on lycanthropes, as they are shapechangers. This does also prevent your opponent from turning you into a newt, so there's also an upside to this.

[Shining Wrath]

One downside is that polymorph and true polymorph don't work on lycanthropes, as they are shapechangers. This does also prevent your opponent from turning you into a newt, so there's also an upside to this.

Those turned into newts get better, at least according to canon.

The example of Madame Curie's experimentation being akin to experimenting on lycanthropes misses the point that she didn't experiment on sapient life forms. The ethical guidelines on medical experimentation on humans are quite complex and would be difficult to meet in a typical D&D world.

[Lines]

Those turned into newts get better, at least according to canon.

The example of Madame Curie's experimentation being akin to experimenting on lycanthropes misses the point that she didn't experiment on sapient life forms. The ethical guidelines on medical experimentation on humans are quite complex and would be difficult to meet in a typical D&D world.

Ethics and good at not the same thing. I'm perfectly happy to round up some orcs which have been killing and pillaging, explain what's going to happen, bite them and shoot them in the face with silver tipped bolts if they don't embrace the curse. That's not the end of it obviously, but there's basically two end points - either it turns out to be a useful way of turning orcs good or you kill them.

Volunteer ethics wise, the ethical guidelines on human experimentation would be a lot different if we were able to instantly, perfectly and permanently undo any experimentation done at any time.

And it has missed no point - it has been stated in this thread that what Marie Curie did was evil. I am yet to hear an answer regarding how her experimentation was evil.

[Soular]

Ethics and good at not the same thing. I'm perfectly happy to round up some orcs which have been killing and pillaging, explain what's going to happen, bite them and shoot them in the face with silver tipped bolts if they don't embrace the curse. That's not the end of it obviously, but there's basically two end points - either it turns out to be a useful way of turning orcs good or you kill them.

Volunteer ethics wise, the ethical guidelines on human experimentation would be a lot different if we were able to instantly, perfectly and permanently undo any experimentation done at any time.

And it has missed no point - it has been stated in this thread that what Marie Curie did was evil. I am yet to hear an answer regarding how her experimentation was evil.

And I am still waiting to hear why going out of one's way to become a were-creature is a "good" act.

[pwykersotz]

And I am still waiting to hear why going out of one's way to become a were-creature is a "good" act.

While I vehemently disagree with it, he's actually stated this. The curse is, by nature, a forced alignment change with a transformation clause and a tiny increase in bloodlust. If you become neutral good to true form, you will, by your very own new forced nature, seek to not injure others and will take steps to prevent trouble. In addition, by setting up contingencies and safeguards (basically, having ready access to remove curse), you can safeguard yourself and others to quite a large degree by simply getting cured if things start going too wrong.

I of course, view the bloodlust more as a tiny bit of a problem, and I basically hate the idea of a Lycanthrope getting their alignment changed to NG anyway. I would rather have a training clause such as: "If you are of a good alignment, you can attempt to restrain the curse with a sheer act of will. Every night there is a full moon in the sky, make a Charisma saving throw versus a DC of 25, minus the number of times you have successfully saved in such an attempt in the past. Success means you collapse, impotent, to the ground and you restrain your bloodlust for that night. When the DC reaches 5, you are permanently able to hold yourself back and keep your mind during the transformation, though if you ever give into it, you must repeat the process from DC 25 again. Giving in can happen any time you are exposed to the sight or smell of blood during a full moon, and the DM sets the DC based on the circumstances."

It's not perfect, of course, but I'd view that as a start. But as Lines is famous for saying, those are houserules.

[Lines]

While I vehemently disagree with it, he's actually stated this. The curse is, by nature, a forced alignment change with a transformation clause and a tiny increase in bloodlust. If you become neutral good to true form, you will, by your very own new forced nature, seek to not injure others and will take steps to prevent trouble. In addition, by setting up contingencies and safeguards (basically, having ready access to remove curse), you can safeguard yourself and others to quite a large degree by simply getting cured if things start going too wrong.

I of course, view the bloodlust more as a tiny bit of a problem, and I basically hate the idea of a Lycanthrope getting their alignment changed to NG anyway. I would rather have a training clause such as: "If you are of a good alignment, you can attempt to restrain the curse with a sheer act of will. Every night there is a full moon in the sky, make a Charisma saving throw versus a DC of 25, minus the number of times you have successfully saved in such an attempt in the past. Success means you collapse, impotent, to the ground and you restrain your bloodlust for that night. When the DC reaches 5, you are permanently able to hold yourself back and keep your mind during the transformation, though if you ever give into it, you must repeat the process from DC 25 again. Giving in can happen any time you are exposed to the sight or smell of blood during a full moon, and the DM sets the DC based on the circumstances."

It's not perfect, of course, but I'd view that as a start. But as Lines is famous for saying, those are houserules.

Very reasonable of you. It should be noted that I really am all for houseruling things - pretty much every single game is played houseruled one way or another, and while a houserule isn't automatically a good thing (there are bad houserules, and each tends to make the game complex) the ability to houserule fits right into two major tenets of my D&D philosophy that more options improves things and that WotC are lazy or bad designers at times and can be improved upon.

Houserules are an essential part of making the game work the way you think it should - one DM might houserule that all lycanthropes must make wisdom saves or go nuts (as was a rule in 3.5), while another may rule that lycanthropy doesn't affect how you think at all, both will make the DMs game more the way he wants it and the only thing that they have in common is that the DM should tell the players ahead of time and give his reasoning.

[Cazero]

Volunteer ethics wise, the ethical guidelines on human experimentation would be a lot different if we were able to instantly, perfectly and permanently undo any experimentation done at any time.
Remove Curse removes the curse. Not the physical and mental trauma associated with abduction, inprisonment, hard restrains, physical and psychological torture, and being forcibly turned into a blood thirsty monster.
So no, they wouldn't be any different. It's impossible to guarantee the instant, perfect and permanent removal of all effects of an experimentation.
And with magic? That's a Wish level of recovery.

[Lines]

Remove Curse removes the curse. Not the physical and mental trauma associated with abduction, inprisonment, hard restrains, physical and psychological torture, and being forcibly turned into a blood thirsty monster.
So no, they wouldn't be any different. It's impossible to guarantee the instant, perfect and permanent removal of all effects of an experimentation.
And with magic? That's a Wish level of recovery.

Why on earth would there need to be abduction? Volunteers, man. Do it on yourself, experiment on your local self sacrificing for the greater good paladin.