Curing Lycanthropy

[randomodo]

So, through a long string of events involving a semi-pacifist cleric casting Spare the Dying, my party captured rather than killed a Halfling wereboar. They have since decided that they want to cure him.

I'm not 100% certain what the official rules are for curing lycanthropy (which, though it's inaccurate, sounds better than "porcinthropy"). Perhaps since it's a curse, finding someone who can cast Remove Curse, might do the trick. But I was thinking of making it more involved, inasmuch as this person had been infected for over a year and had begun to embrace the curse.

So, any ideas for what you've done as players or DM or what you might recommend? I could figure something out on my own, of course, but crowdsourcing it is more fun and frequently results in ideas I wouldn't have thought of. Hence why this forum is a good thing :)

[Lines]

It's as simple as remove curse. One third level spell slot, one action to cast, no save permissible, goodbye lycanthropy.

Edit: Unless it's a natural lycanthrope, in which case it requires wish. If you're intending on making curing it a big thing, make it born a lycanthrope.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Some ideas:

Requires a special potion. The recipe is a secret known only to an group of vampiric werebeast-hunters, and they don't want to share it with outsiders. One of the ingredients is only found in the Underdark.
Remove Curse is sufficient, but it must be cast inside a Druidic circle on a full moon.
Only the gods can cure lycanthropy, but there just happens to be a small-time demigod who's looking for a new cleric. All you have to do is build a shrine and gain X number of new converts.


Edit: yeah, Lines has the RAW. It's on page 206 of the MM. I still think my suggestions are more fun.

[Lines]

Some ideas:

Requires a special potion. The recipe is a secret known only to an group of vampiric werebeast-hunters, and they don't want to share it with outsiders. One of the ingredients is only found in the Underdark.
Remove Curse is sufficient, but it must be cast inside a Druidic circle on a full moon.
Only the gods can cure lycanthropy, but there just happens to be a small-time demigod who's looking for a new cleric. All you have to do is build a shrine and gain X number of new converts.


Edit: yeah, Lines has the RAW. It's on page 206 of the MM. I still think my suggestions are more fun.

Mine doesn't preclude other ways. If it's an infected one it takes nothing more than a remove curse, if its a born lycanthrope the DM is free to work out other ways to have it cured. Though I'd be open to having my players come up with sneaky workarounds too, like killing him and casting reincarnate.

[Shining Wrath]

Per RAW, it's a curse, you can remove it. In fact you can remove it in combat and turn the ferocious snarling pig-thing into a naked commoner who has no idea why he's in the middle of this battle.

That might be simple (and funny in combat) but it might not be as much fun as some other methods. Perhaps Remove Curse for lycanthropy requires as a material component saliva from the beast-form of the afflicted person. Or saliva from the "parent" lycanthrope that infected this one, if you want to have a minor quest.

[randomodo]

Thanks, all. Plenty of good ideas there.

[Lines]

Per RAW, it's a curse, you can remove it. In fact you can remove it in combat and turn the ferocious snarling pig-thing into a naked commoner who has no idea why he's in the middle of this battle.

That might be simple (and funny in combat) but it might not be as much fun as some other methods. Perhaps Remove Curse for lycanthropy requires as a material component saliva from the beast-form of the afflicted person. Or saliva from the "parent" lycanthrope that infected this one, if you want to have a minor quest.

I strongly advise against doing this unless you have to, which you really don't when having them be a natural lycanthrope is such an easy alternative.

[JackPhoenix]

Per RAW, it's a curse, you can remove it. In fact you can remove it in combat and turn the ferocious snarling pig-thing into a naked commoner who has no idea why he's in the middle of this battle.

That might be simple (and funny in combat) but it might not be as much fun as some other methods. Perhaps Remove Curse for lycanthropy requires as a material component saliva from the beast-form of the afflicted person. Or saliva from the "parent" lycanthrope that infected this one, if you want to have a minor quest.

I agree. Solving the problem with one spell is boring. Perhaps Remove Curse works only before the cursed creature turns for the first time, but even then, 3.5's race to find and feed the infected creature wolfsbane (and surviving consuming the poisonous plant) before the full moon was more intersting.

Remove Curse may be part of the solution, but it shouldn't be the whole solution...at least not at the default spell level. As 9th level spell? Sure

[DireSickFish]

One cure from some Werewolf stuff I've seen is either the one that created him has to die. Or you need to eat the heart of the one that killed you (so that killing the "first" werewolf doesn't instantly end all Lycanthropes). This will also be something of a moral delema because they'd have to kill one person (albeit an evil monster person) to save another.

I usually rule that enough Belladonna after getting bit will cure it just to make it a relatively simple cure for a timed quest. Have to pick fresh Belladonna before the curse takes.

If this is Forgotten Realms then finding a priest of Selun could work. They could work with him to turn him into a good werebore. There's precedent for all the evil Lycanthropes being able to turn good with Selun's influence.

[Ninja_Prawn]

They could work with him to turn him into a good werebore.

Are you implying that good people are boring?! How very dare you!

Also, I love how you make enlisting the aid of Faerûn's oldest goddess sound like some kind of community service rehabilitation programme.

I agree that there is a clear precedent though. If Viktor Mazan, a werewolf, can became a Lawful Good archfey, this guy can surely live a moral life without needing to cure himself.

[Regitnui]

In the end of the M:tG card set known as Avacyn Reborn, there was a massive wave of power emitted by an archangel that temporarily cured every werewolf in the world. it didn't take, instead reducing the curse so that the afflicted kept their minds while transforming. Now if players want to pull that stunt on a single therianthrope (the proper term for any were-beat), especially one that had been a monster for the greater part of a year, they'd have to jump through more hoops than casting one spell. What those hoops would be would depend on the circumstance, but a good one would be a druidic ritual that chases the 'beast spirit' out of the body (animal stats) which then must be defeated. That returns the humanoid to the state between infection and first transformation. Only then can remove curse be cast and permanently wipe out the therianthropic curse.

[DireSickFish]

Also, I love how you make enlisting the aid of Faerûn's oldest goddess sound like some kind of community service rehabilitation programme.



It could be like that. "Don't worry man I used to eat people just like you. Once you hit rock bottom the only way to go is up. The urge to rip out a hart and eat it never quite goes away but you learn to manage."

[gullveig]

But I was thinking of making it more involved, inasmuch as this person had been infected for over a year and had begun to embrace the curse.

If I was the player, I would not like to be cured when I embrace the curse... Just sayin'

[Lines]

It could be like that. "Don't worry man I used to eat people just like you. Once you hit rock bottom the only way to go is up. The urge to rip out a hart and eat it never quite goes away but you learn to manage."

Rip it out of what? They're a bit too big to burrow.

[Lines]

I agree. Solving the problem with one spell is boring. Perhaps Remove Curse works only before the cursed creature turns for the first time, but even then, 3.5's race to find and feed the infected creature wolfsbane (and surviving consuming the poisonous plant) before the full moon was more intersting.

Remove Curse may be part of the solution, but it shouldn't be the whole solution...at least not at the default spell level. As 9th level spell? Sure

Yes it should. If you want it to be more difficult there's another way right there, just have it be a natural born lycanthrope.

[Ninja_Prawn]

If I was the player, I would not like to be cured when I embrace the curse... Just sayin'

It's not a player, it's an NPC. And NPCs don't have feelings.

[Lines]

It's not a player, it's an NPC. And NPCs don't have feelings.

That is I assume why so many lycanthropes run in packs, if you get within 5 feet of a cleric you'll get decursed so you need buddies to recurse you =D

[Regitnui]

That is I assume why so many lycanthropes run in packs, if you get within 5 feet of a cleric you'll get decursed so you need buddies to recurse you =D

"Damn, that last party had a cleric in it!" He said, gingerly rubbing his ankle. "Aww." she said, settling down beside him. "Need a bite? I do owe you one." "Thanks," he said, reaching out an arm. "I don't recall doing anything as nice for you." She ignores the offered arm, aiming lower. "That's precisely why I'm offering," she replies, before transforming and sinking her teeth into a sensitive spot.

[Ninja_Prawn]

"Damn, that last party had a cleric in it!" He said, gingerly rubbing his ankle. "Aww." she said, settling down beside him. "Need a bite? I do owe you one." "Thanks," he said, reaching out an arm. "I don't recall doing anything as nice for you." She ignores the offered arm, aiming lower. "That's precisely why I'm offering," she replies, before transforming and sinking her teeth into a sensitive spot.

Ugh, this is turning into the 'aasimar love' thread all over again!

[Temperjoke]

"Damn, that last party had a cleric in it!" He said, gingerly rubbing his ankle. "Aww." she said, settling down beside him. "Need a bite? I do owe you one." "Thanks," he said, reaching out an arm. "I don't recall doing anything as nice for you." She ignores the offered arm, aiming lower. "That's precisely why I'm offering," she replies, before transforming and sinking her teeth into a sensitive spot.

Reminds me of a female vampire that posed as a prostitute to get victims.

[Regitnui]

Ugh, this is turning into the 'aasimar love' thread all over again!

Must've gotten bitten when we weren't looking. :P

[eastmabl]

Holding aside the lycanthropy love fest - I like how NPCs and PCs sometimes work on different rules in 5e.

For PCs, who aren't terribly keen on losing their characters, a single casting of remove curse works. However, for the NPCs, they need to have something more. They're not as awesome as the PCs, and most of their importance tends to be tied up in plot.

Thus, make it harder for the NPCs, who use different rules, while allowing PCs the easy access to a cure.

[Lines]

Holding aside the lycanthropy love fest - I like how NPCs and PCs sometimes work on different rules in 5e.

For PCs, who aren't terribly keen on losing their characters, a single casting of remove curse works. However, for the NPCs, they need to have something more. They're not as awesome as the PCs, and most of their importance tends to be tied up in plot.

Thus, make it harder for the NPCs, who use different rules, while allowing PCs the easy access to a cure.

You just identified one of the parts I hate most about 5e - that NPCs and PCs work on different rules.

I make a world, it has people in it. Some might be named Bob, some Alice, some Charlie, and the idea that despite being the same species as Alice and Bob and born to the same parents, Charlie is made of some magical special snowflake substance that means he works differently to every other other person, he's a delightful pile of dragon tears and unicorn crap that was just born better for no explicable reason. Make the characters that happen to be played by the players use a completely different chassis to every other apparently genetically similar character and you've got a nonsense world in which some people are just special and unique and deserve a trophy for being born.

[Temperjoke]

Holding aside the lycanthropy love fest - I like how NPCs and PCs sometimes work on different rules in 5e.

For PCs, who aren't terribly keen on losing their characters, a single casting of remove curse works. However, for the NPCs, they need to have something more. They're not as awesome as the PCs, and most of their importance tends to be tied up in plot.

Thus, make it harder for the NPCs, who use different rules, while allowing PCs the easy access to a cure.

"What do you mean you can't heal my werewolf bite?!?! I literally just saw you wiggle your fingers over that adventurer's arm, and she was perfectly fine!"
"Sorry kid, call it the fickleness of the gods, call it bad writing, either way, you've now become a npc with a tragic backstory."
"....I'm going to bite you first when I turn. God, my wife is going to be pissed when she hears that I've got a tragic backstory now."


You just identified one of the parts I hate most about 5e - that NPCs and PCs work on different rules.

I make a world, it has people in it. Some might be named Bob, some Alice, some Charlie, and the idea that despite being the same species as Alice and Bob and born to the same parents, Charlie is made of some magical special snowflake substance that means he works differently to every other other person, he's a delightful pile of dragon tears and unicorn crap that was just born better for no explicable reason. Make the characters that happen to be played by the players use a completely different chassis to every other apparently genetically similar character and you've got a nonsense world in which some people are just special and unique and deserve a trophy for being born.

How is this a 5e problem? This seems more like an RPG problem in general, quit twisting everything to try and prove you're right about 5e.

[JoeJ]

The problem isn't lycanthropy, it's Remove Curse; a 3rd level spell that trivializes one of the most common plot drivers in fantasy. An easy fix, however, is to simply change the duration to 1 minute (no concentration required). That way it still negates its opposite, Bestow Curse, and it still lets you drop a cursed magic item, but it only provides a very temporary relief for other kinds of curses.

[Lines]

How is this a 5e problem? This seems more like an RPG problem in general, quit twisting everything to try and prove you're right about 5e.

Why on earth would that be an RPG problem in general? Go back to 3.5 everything's on the same chassis, go play Edge of the Empire and you'll notice any NPC of note has talents, just like your character does. 4e had NPCs work completely differently (minions all had 1hp, for instance) and that was a somewhat more acceptable sacrifice made to facilitate heavy focus on combat balance and tactics, in 5e it doesn't seem to have a reason. Meet a npc at your local church and it's not a cleric it's a priest, a generic statblock person with no domain who apparently just popped out of thin air that way.

Having the player characters made out of a completely different substance to the non player characters is verisimilitude destroying, and in 5e it was a completely unnecessary thing to do - they didn't even use it to enable the tactical variety 4e had, it legitimately seems to have been done out of pure laziness (something it shares with templates and magic item crafting/prices). Love a lot of what they did with 5e, which has the side effect of making the idiot decisions stand out more.

[pwykersotz]

Why on earth would that be an RPG problem in general? Go back to 3.5 everything's on the same chassis, go play Edge of the Empire and you'll notice any NPC of note has talents, just like your character does. 4e had NPCs work completely differently (minions all had 1hp, for instance) and that was a somewhat more acceptable sacrifice made to facilitate heavy focus on combat balance and tactics, in 5e it doesn't seem to have a reason. Meet a npc at your local church and it's not a cleric it's a priest, a generic statblock person with no domain who apparently just popped out of thin air that way.

Having the player characters made out of a completely different substance to the non player characters is verisimilitude destroying, and in 5e it was a completely unnecessary thing to do - they didn't even use it to enable the tactical variety 4e had, it legitimately seems to have been done out of pure laziness (something it shares with templates and magic item crafting/prices). Love a lot of what they did with 5e, which has the side effect of making the idiot decisions stand out more.

For me, 3.5 was verisimilitude destroying in this regard, because every awesome blacksmith or cobbler needed to be super high level to actually be able to make the skill checks that would have them be that good. This increased their BAB, their saves, increased their resistance to Holy Word, etc. And it also forced plot-related abilities to be created with respect to game balance, lest the players build for and acquire them. It made it much harder for NPC's to simulate a relatable environment when all of them were so heavily bound up by game rules.

I'm pretty happy that symmetry between PC's and NPC's is gone.

[Regitnui]

Holding aside the lycanthropy love fest

Clarifying: That wasn't supposed to be a "love fest". It was supposed to be a Groin Attack.

MOVING ON!

The problem with the NPC therianthrope is that their entire relevance to the plot is their curse. It's not that the PC is something special, but that they have greater relevance to the campaign simply by being an PC. If a major supporting character was infected with wererat therianthropy and she asked the lplayers for a cure, surely there we have just as much reason to remove curse than if it were a PC? The problem is less NPC vs. PC and more spotlight vs. background.

[JoeJ]

Having the player characters made out of a completely different substance to the non player characters is verisimilitude destroying

I'd say it's just the opposite. Forcing every NPC in the world to have a class and level is verisimilitude breaking, as well as an extra chore for the DM. If I want an NPC who is a world class baker, I don't want to have to work out what level they are or how many feats they should have. In 5e I can just take a commoner, give them whatever bonus I think is appropriate to their cooking utensils proficiency, and call it done. Or I can create a sage who knows every ritual spell, but has no spell slots. Or brother and sister thieves who have, respectively, at will Knock and at will Arcane Lock (street names are Lock for the girl and Key for the boy).

[Temperjoke]

Why on earth would that be an RPG problem in general? Go back to 3.5 everything's on the same chassis, go play Edge of the Empire and you'll notice any NPC of note has talents, just like your character does. 4e had NPCs work completely differently (minions all had 1hp, for instance) and that was a somewhat more acceptable sacrifice made to facilitate heavy focus on combat balance and tactics, in 5e it doesn't seem to have a reason. Meet a npc at your local church and it's not a cleric it's a priest, a generic statblock person with no domain who apparently just popped out of thin air that way.

Having the player characters made out of a completely different substance to the non player characters is verisimilitude destroying, and in 5e it was a completely unnecessary thing to do - they didn't even use it to enable the tactical variety 4e had, it legitimately seems to have been done out of pure laziness (something it shares with templates and magic item crafting/prices). Love a lot of what they did with 5e, which has the side effect of making the idiot decisions stand out more.

You call it laziness, I call it trying to avoid the extreme amount of rules and lawyering that intimidates people. They are trying to give more freedom to the DM to do things how they want. You want all your holy people to be full clerics instead of ordinary priests? Have at it, but then I hope you're also able to explain why all those NPCs with full player classes can't solve the problem that requires your players to do so.

[Soular]

Clarifying: That wasn't supposed to be a "love fest". It was supposed to be a Groin Attack.

If that's a groin attack, sign me up for another!

Batman can't stop thinking about sex. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enOHraf3LEk)

[Regitnui]

If that's a groin attack, sign me up for another!


Here I am trying to be subtle... The curse of lycanthropy is spread by bite. Do I really need to spell that out to the teenager boys among us?

[randomodo]

I hope you're also able to explain why all those NPCs with full player classes can't solve the problem that requires your players to do so.

I ran a game like that once. The answer was (in that case) that there were a wide variety of conflicting factions, and if any one faction sent someone high level to handle a contentious problem, then all of the other factions would feel compelled to do so as well, and nobody wanted to upset the delicate cold war-like equilibrium, so the high-level rivals agreed to send a bunch of low-level reps instead: the PCs.

[Shining Wrath]

I strongly advise against doing this unless you have to, which you really don't when having them be a natural lycanthrope is such an easy alternative.

I am AFB but I don't think natural lycanthropes are immune to Remove Curse. There's lots of precedent for the idea of generational curses.

[Telok]

If I want an NPC who is a world class baker, I don't want to have to work out what level they are or how many feats they should have. In 5e I can just take a commoner, give them whatever bonus I think is appropriate to their cooking utensils proficiency, and call it done.

Actually there are stats for npcs. If there's ever a conflict then by the rules the baker is a cr 0 commoner with one hit die and proficency in cooking tools. Rules-wise, d20+1 and if you want a higher proficency bonus then he's a higher cr and has more hit dice. If you want to fiat a higher bonus then no edition of D&D has ever said that you couldn't.

[JoeJ]

Actually there are stats for npcs. If there's ever a conflict then by the rules the baker is a cr 0 commoner with one hit die and proficency in cooking tools. Rules-wise, d20+1 and if you want a higher proficency bonus then he's a higher cr and has more hit dice. If you want to fiat a higher bonus then no edition of D&D has ever said that you couldn't.

If I fiat a higher bonus, then I'm making my NPCs different than PCs, which is what Lines claimed was verisimilitude breaking. Personally, I wouldn't use NPC classes like 3.5 has at all, because it just adds extra work for no gain. Basically, the fewer things I have to calculate or look up when creating an NPC, the better.

[Soular]

Here I am trying to be subtle... The curse of lycanthropy is spread by bite. Do I really need to spell that out to the teenager boys among us?

If you were going for subtlety maybe you shouldn't have written it like a scene out of 50 Shades of Lycanthropy.

:redface:

[JoeJ]

Here I am trying to be subtle... The curse of lycanthropy is spread by bite. Do I really need to spell that out to the teenager boys among us?

Leave it to GitP to prove that a werewolf attack can be TMI.

[KorvinStarmast]

If you want something less boring than a Remove Curse spell, you can try the AD&D 1e method, and turn this whole thing into a quest to save the player character ....
(Summarized from 1e DMG p 22).

... character bitten for 50% or more of his or her normal hit points has a 100% chance of becoming a lycanthrope of the some type that attacked.
If the player eats any belladonna within an hour after being bitten, there is a 25% chance the disease will not manifest itself and thus the character will not be afflicted by it.
If not, then a 12th or higher level patriarch must administer a cure disease spell within three days after being bitten.
If unable to find a patriarch of a high enough level after the initial three days, instead have the priest attempt a remove curse.
This spell must be performed on the player character when he or she is in wereform .
The beast will need to make a saving throw against magic, and while in wereform will fight valiantly to put as much distance as it can between itself and the patriarch performing the spell ...

Long and involved, to be sure, but perhaps an epic story can come out of this at levels 4 and below where players don't have Remove Curse handy. Maybe not necessary to jack up the cleric levels ... but it's something to consider.

[Sigreid]

I liked the old AD&D Cure. If I remember right, there was a time limit and you had to seek out a priest who would mix a concoction of wolves bane or night shade in a silver goblet and survive the poison or something like that. In any event, the cure was difficult and dangerous even if you could find someone who knew how to do it.

[pwykersotz]

I liked the old AD&D Cure. If I remember right, there was a time limit and you had to seek out a priest who would mix a concoction of wolves bane or night shade in a silver goblet and survive the poison or something like that. In any event, the cure was difficult and dangerous even if you could find someone who knew how to do it.

Yeah, I kind of wish Remove Curse wasn't a spell. I wouldn't mind a "Suppress Curse" or something, but I wish that curses were like artifacts. You had to find the right way to break them that might be a quest in and of itself.

[Lines]

For me, 3.5 was verisimilitude destroying in this regard, because every awesome blacksmith or cobbler needed to be super high level to actually be able to make the skill checks that would have them be that good. This increased their BAB, their saves, increased their resistance to Holy Word, etc. And it also forced plot-related abilities to be created with respect to game balance, lest the players build for and acquire them. It made it much harder for NPC's to simulate a relatable environment when all of them were so heavily bound up by game rules.

I'm pretty happy that symmetry between PC's and NPC's is gone.

What, and an expert being only slightly better at what he does (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?480171-The-ol-5e-problem-how-to-deal-with-Small-bonuses) than a complete random is better? A level 1 expert with a +1 modifier in the relevant stat, points in the skill, skill focus and a masterwork tool will have +10 to his skill check, taking 10 means he can ensure he always gets a total of 20 on his skill check, enough to consistently complete challenging skill checks, and with better base stats and/or some apprentices make formidable skill checks. That seems to fit perfectly, they'll be able to make complex things on their own if well trained, though will probably need apprentices or some other bonus for truly awesome tasks.

And what is a plot related ability? Are we talking abilities that NPCS have? Because if so, them also being available to the players is a huge upside, it renders your plot far more interesting. For an easy example involving D&D itself, read the comic this site is based around, it's done in 3.5 with everybody being based around the same chassis and that improves how the story reads immensely, things are still homebrewed and invented (like the Snarl and its appropriate ritual) but every time a villain does something clever it adds to the story because it's not some arbitrary NPC ability forever out of reach of the players for no explicable reason, Xykon gets those abilities because he's a sorcerer.

[Lines]

You call it laziness, I call it trying to avoid the extreme amount of rules and lawyering that intimidates people. They are trying to give more freedom to the DM to do things how they want. You want all your holy people to be full clerics instead of ordinary priests? Have at it, but then I hope you're also able to explain why all those NPCs with full player classes can't solve the problem that requires your players to do so.

That's easy. They can be lower level clerics, they can be unsuited to whatever task the PC is doing (say being born with low constitution, which you'll notice adventurers basically never are) or they can just be adepts (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/npcClasses/adept.htm) or healers (http://alcyius.com/dndtools/classes/healer/index.html) or the like. And in some cases a temple will have clerics or paladins of a martial enough bent that they don't need help from the players, it's not like every single place you go has to be in dire straits.


I'd say it's just the opposite. Forcing every NPC in the world to have a class and level is verisimilitude breaking, as well as an extra chore for the DM. If I want an NPC who is a world class baker, I don't want to have to work out what level they are or how many feats they should have. In 5e I can just take a commoner, give them whatever bonus I think is appropriate to their cooking utensils proficiency, and call it done. Or I can create a sage who knows every ritual spell, but has no spell slots. Or brother and sister thieves who have, respectively, at will Knock and at will Arcane Lock (street names are Lock for the girl and Key for the boy).

And taking a commoner, giving them skill focus: baking as their first level feat and calling it a day is not a difficult task and adds to the world since now the PCs aren't made of some special snowflake substance. Regarding the later stuff, that sounds incredibly realism destroying - how do they have at will second level spells? And how are the players supposed to acquire that ability? If two street level criminals can do that, why can't the players learn to?

[pwykersotz]

What, and an expert being only slightly better at what he does (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?480171-The-ol-5e-problem-how-to-deal-with-Small-bonuses) than a complete random is better?
Yes. Definitively.


A level 1 expert with a +1 modifier in the relevant stat, points in the skill, skill focus and a masterwork tool will have +10 to his skill check, taking 10 means he can ensure he always gets a total of 20 on his skill check, enough to consistently complete challenging skill checks, and with better base stats and/or some apprentices make formidable skill checks. That seems to fit perfectly, they'll be able to make complex things on their own if well trained, though will probably need apprentices or some other bonus for truly awesome tasks.

And what is a plot related ability? Are we talking abilities that NPCS have? Because if so, them also being available to the players is a huge upside, it renders your plot far more interesting. For an easy example involving D&D itself, read the comic this site is based around, it's done in 3.5 with everybody being based around the same chassis and that improves how the story reads immensely, things are still homebrewed and invented (like the Snarl and its appropriate ritual) but every time a villain does something clever it adds to the story because it's not some arbitrary NPC ability forever out of reach of the players for no explicable reason, Xykon gets those abilities because he's a sorcerer.

See, as a player in an imaginary world who is given a vast and yet finite trove of classes, races, and abilities to select from, I can intuit and understand that the world is vast and wondrous and that while I have perhaps the most powerful tools to represent my characters great capacities, I don't have ALL the tools.

GM-given asymmetrical abilities are fantastic because they are free from the baggage of a rules-heavy system that shoehorns NPC's into imperfect rule boxes that can't possibly be even as expansive as the real world, much less a world of magic and wonder.

With respect to your example, I agree things need to be relatable to PC abilities. You don't want to give all your peasants laser vision with no explanation and make the PC's wonder why they don't have it. Or even give an enemy caster multiple 9th level spells per day (since no one else gets that). But with asymmetrical design you can mix and match a much better variety of features to properly emulate the NPC you envision rather than the one the game dictates you MUST have given another piece of criteria. I had a much heavier workload that made me delve into (frankly) useless levels of detail in 3.5 when creating NPC's. In my opinion, when your focus is running a good game in your free time, there is no contest between the systems. 5e wins hands down. However, if your goal is to extrapolate a ruleset into a living world with a massive level of completion and countless interesting facets, there is no contest, 3.5 wins hands down. It's why I love both systems.

[Lines]

Edit: Adding in the first part.

Yes. Definitively.
See, no. I don't want a world in which a barbarian who has never touched a book before is nearly as good at identifying the meaning of a mysterious magical rune as a very intelligent wizard who has studied all his life is, and as the wizard levels and approaches the limits of mortal knowledge the barbarian can still sometimes make the check while the wizard fails.


See, as a player in an imaginary world who is given a vast and yet finite trove of classes, races, and abilities to select from, I can intuit and understand that the world is vast and wondrous and that while I have perhaps the most powerful tools to represent my characters great capacities, I don't have ALL the tools.

GM-given asymmetrical abilities are fantastic because they are free from the baggage of a rules-heavy system that shoehorns NPC's into imperfect rule boxes that can't possibly be even as expansive as the real world, much less a world of magic and wonder.

With respect to your example, I agree things need to be relatable to PC abilities. You don't want to give all your peasants laser vision with no explanation and make the PC's wonder why they don't have it. Or even give an enemy caster multiple 9th level spells per day (since no one else gets that). But with asymmetrical design you can mix and match a much better variety of features to properly emulate the NPC you envision rather than the one the game dictates you MUST have given another piece of criteria. I had a much heavier workload that made me delve into (frankly) useless levels of detail in 3.5 when creating NPC's. In my opinion, when your focus is running a good game in your free time, there is no contest between the systems. 5e wins hands down. However, if your goal is to extrapolate a ruleset into a living world with a massive level of completion and countless interesting facets, there is no contest, 3.5 wins hands down. It's why I love both systems.

Which I can respect a lot more. Sacrifices always need to be made - simplicity, tactical balance, simulationism etc all tend to have tradeoffs, and while I think you lose more than you gain in having PCs and NPCs made out of a fundamentally different substance that doesn't mean everyone has to have my opinion.

My main problem is that they could have easily done both, in addition to a list of NPCs there would only need to have been a few pages somewhere in the DMG or MM with some malleable classes suited to NPCs, 3.5 did ok at it but it's been many years and an improved version would have been nice. There are pages and pages of random tables dedicated to things like what airs, odors and noises there should be in your dungeon, but they couldn't spare a few for those who are happy to put in a bit of extra effort in exchange for the world making more sense?

[JoeJ]

And taking a commoner, giving them skill focus: baking as their first level feat and calling it a day is not a difficult task and adds to the world since now the PCs aren't made of some special snowflake substance. Regarding the later stuff, that sounds incredibly realism destroying - how do they have at will second level spells? And how are the players supposed to acquire that ability? If two street level criminals can do that, why can't the players learn to?

And if skill focus: baking isn't good enough to make them the world class baker that I need? My way, I just erase one number and write in a higher one. No need to change their hit dice or CR at all.

The siblings have those spells as innate abilities. You can think of them as mutants. PCs can't get all the innate abilities that exist. They can't gain the ability to petrify people by sight, for example. In this case, however, it is possible for a PC to obtain this ability, or at least an improved version of it. It's just spell mastery with only one spell instead of two, and without the ability to change spells by studying.

[Lines]

And if skill focus: baking isn't good enough to make them the world class baker that I need? My way, I just erase one number and write in a higher one. No need to change their hit dice or CR at all.

The siblings have those spells as innate abilities. You can think of them as mutants. PCs can't get all the innate abilities that exist. They can't gain the ability to petrify people by sight, for example. In this case, however, it is possible for a PC to obtain this ability, or at least an improved version of it. It's just spell mastery with only one spell instead of two, and without the ability to change spells by studying.

I never said your way wasn't simpler, just that it makes less sense. It's probably simpler to have a dragon leave all his magic items in his horde instead of wearing them and land then fight the barbarian toe to toe until it dies, doesn't mean it makes sense.

Sure, nobody can get all the innate abilities that exist. But if the thieves are human and the PCs are human, how come the PCs haven't had the chance to acquire or start with the abilities? We know humans can start off with the abilities, why can't the human the player is using?

[Azedenkae]

Kill it and use reincarnate.

[Lines]

Kill it and use reincarnate.

Beat you to it =D


like killing him and casting reincarnate.

[JoeJ]

I never said your way wasn't simpler, just that it makes less sense.

I disagree. It makes more sense that the entire human race (and dwarf, elf, halfling, etc.) doesn't fit into a small number of pre-defined classes that improve in discrete levels. Classes are good as a way of reducing player choices down to a manageable few; they're terrible for modeling an entire world.


Sure, nobody can get all the innate abilities that exist. But if the thieves are human and the PCs are human, how come the PCs haven't had the chance to acquire or start with the abilities? We know humans can start off with the abilities, why can't the human the player is using?

The player character didn't get to choose their race, height, or eye color either. Why would it make sense for them to have chosen an innate magical ability? The player didn't get to choose this because that's not a player option in the game. It's a class ability for wizards, however, so they can choose to acquire it if they want.

[Lines]

I disagree. It makes more sense that the entire human race (and dwarf, elf, halfling, etc.) doesn't fit into a small number of pre-defined classes that improve in discrete levels. Classes are good as a way of reducing player choices down to a manageable few; they're terrible for modeling an entire world.
Except they're already modelling the world as pre-defined classes that improve in discrete levels. All putting NPCs on a different chassis is splitting your modelling between two arbitrary methods, making it make even less sense.


The player character didn't get to choose their race, height, or eye color either. Why would it make sense for them to have chosen an innate magical ability? The player didn't get to choose this because that's not a player option in the game. It's a class ability for wizards, however, so they can choose to acquire it if they want.
And why isn't it an option for players in the game? If other humans can have it, why can't they?

[JoeJ]

Except they're already modelling the world as pre-defined classes that improve in discrete levels. All putting NPCs on a different chassis is splitting your modelling between two arbitrary methods, making it make even less sense.

No, they're using that for PCs. The rest of the world is not limited to classes or levels.


And why isn't it an option for players in the game? If other humans can have it, why can't they?

Did you miss the part where I explained how PCs can get this?

[Lines]

No, they're using that for PCs. The rest of the world is not limited to classes or levels.
That's a good way of reframing exactly what I just said...?


Did you miss the part where I explained how PCs can get this?
No, I just must have missed the part where that's relevant, since I sure as hell can't find it. They can get a completely different ability with similar effects from 18 levels of wizard, which the thieves don't have. I asked how a player was supposed to get that ability, not how the player was supposed to get spell mastery.

[JoeJ]

No, I just must have missed the part where that's relevant, since I sure as hell can't find it. They can get a completely different ability with similar effects from 18 levels of wizard, which the thieves don't have. I asked how a player was supposed to get that ability, not how the player was supposed to get spell mastery.

You want that ability exactly? Okay. Get spell mastery, only use it with one spell and never change what that spell is.

[Lines]

You want that ability exactly? Okay. Get spell mastery, only use it with one spell and never change what that spell is.

That isn't that exact ability though. That's a completely separate ability that shares a similar effect, the source is completely different - theirs doesn't need 18 levels of wizard. I'm not asking how to get spell mastery, I'm asking how to get the ability they have.

[JoeJ]

That isn't that exact ability though. That's a completely separate ability that shares a similar effect, the source is completely different - theirs doesn't need 18 levels of wizard. I'm not asking how to get spell mastery, I'm asking how to get the ability they have.

Give up the ability to increase in level, along with all the class abilities that you have and they don't.

[Lines]

Give up the ability to increase in level, along with all the class abilities that you have and they don't.

Why on earth would I need to give up the ability to increase in level? Why would anything be unable to increase in level unless it did not have the intellectual capacity?

[Laserlight]

Returning to the topic: Poul Anderson, in the classic fantasy Three Hearts and Three Lions, had a werewolf who had inherited the potential for lycanthropy. None of the ancestors had actually had it manifest, because in their day, the boundary between the human empire/Law and the twilight realm/Chaos was farther away; but as Chaos moved closer, the curse manifested. The solution in this case was for the wolf to move away from the border marches and in to the heartland of the empire. Any DM should be able to take "not cured, just moved" as a plot hook.

Hm. Combine that "ancestral curse" with something like jus primae noctis as exercised by several generations of barons, and as the border of Chaos advances, you could find entire villages filled with werewolves....

[Lines]

Returning to the topic: Poul Anderson, in the classic fantasy Three Hearts and Three Lions, had a werewolf who had inherited the potential for lycanthropy. None of the ancestors had actually had it manifest, because in their day, the boundary between the human empire/Law and the twilight realm/Chaos was farther away; but as Chaos moved closer, the curse manifested. The solution in this case was for the wolf to move away from the border marches and in to the heartland of the empire. Any DM should be able to take "not cured, just moved" as a plot hook.

Hm. Combine that "ancestral curse" with something like jus primae noctis as exercised by several generations of barons, and as the border of Chaos advances, you could find entire villages filled with werewolves....

Can't you just fill entire villages with werewolves the normal way? You know, biting?

[JoeJ]

Why on earth would I need to give up the ability to increase in level? Why would anything be unable to increase in level unless it did not have the intellectual capacity?

See above about class and level being a way to reduce player choices to a manageable few, not a way to model the world. They're also a way of balancing the game. It's a package deal (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfTfXLLJlzM): you get to increase in level, but you're also restricted to the class choices available.

[RickAllison]

See above about class and level being a way to reduce player choices to a manageable few, not a way to model the world. They're also a way of balancing the game. It's a package deal (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfTfXLLJlzM): you get to increase in level, but you're also restricted to the class choices available.

So the way I'm seeing it is that the PCs could totally do it, but they have to go about it the same way. To get the single spell mastery, they need to spend years honing the ability to cast one spell in particular. That is why PCs don't have those options, they spend time studying to gain the class features, whereas NPCs spend time refining specific abilities that are more restrictive (Double Expertise [Baking], for example). PCs don't get the ability as a result of an opportunity cost to the time put into the class levels.

[Lines]

See above about class and level being a way to reduce player choices to a manageable few, not a way to model the world. They're also a way of balancing the game. It's a package deal (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfTfXLLJlzM): you get to increase in level, but you're also restricted to the class choices available.

But you're arguing my point for me now. That's stupid and verisimilitude reducing, you're making player and non player characters further and further apart in terms of capabilities, making the gap between two humans born to the same parents wider and wider. Despite being genetically close to identical, they are now somehow made of completely different substances, one is able to get an ability the other would take a lifetime to imitate but is completely unable to grow.

[JoeJ]

So the way I'm seeing it is that the PCs could totally do it, but they have to go about it the same way. To get the single spell mastery, they need to spend years honing the ability to cast one spell in particular. That is why PCs don't have those options, they spend time studying to gain the class features, whereas NPCs spend time refining specific abilities that are more restrictive (Double Expertise [Baking], for example). PCs don't get the ability as a result of an opportunity cost to the time put into the class levels.

Right. But also, some NPCs are just born as dragons or mutants or something else that isn't available as a PC race.


But you're arguing my point for me now. That's stupid and verisimilitude reducing, you're putting further separations between the capabilities of a player and non player character.

But it's less verisimilitude breaking to separate PCs from everybody else than it is to try and shoehorn the entire universe into a class/level structure. The problem is inherent to the basic idea of using classes and levels at all. If you use point based character creation, like GURPS, you don't have this problem. (You do have other problems, of course. There are always trade-offs in game design.) Remember, though, that PCs are not a representative sample of the population; they are action heroes who can accomplish feats that others can barely even dream of.

[Lines]

Right. But also, some NPCs are just born as dragons or mutants or something else that isn't available as a PC race.
But they aren't. They're just humans. If they're humans with some weird mutation, why does it occur and why can't players have that mutation?


But it's less verisimilitude breaking to separate PCs from everybody else than it is to try and shoehorn the entire universe into a class/level structure. The problem is inherent to the basic idea of using classes and levels at all. If you use point based character creation, like GURPS, you don't have this problem. (You do have other problems, of course. There are always trade-offs in game design.) Remember, though, that PCs are not a representative sample of the population; they are action heroes who can accomplish feats that others can barely even dream of.
But it's easily doable. You're already using a class/level structure, so that aspect of verisimilitude has already been paid for, why not use it for everything else? There were only a few NPC classes in 3.5 and they did a good job of covering most characters that you aren't likely to fight, create a few more (again the DMG has huge amounts of pages dedicated to random crap, they coulda spared a few for making the world make sense) for 5e and you're done.

[JoeJ]

But they aren't. They're just humans. If they're humans with some weird mutation, why does it occur and why can't players have that mutation?

No one knows, and for the same reason players can't play mind flayers.


But it's easily doable. You're already using a class/level structure, so that aspect of verisimilitude has already been paid for, why not use it for everything else? There were only a few NPC classes in 3.5 and they did a good job of covering most characters that you aren't likely to fight, create a few more (again the DMG has huge amounts of pages dedicated to random crap, they coulda spared a few for making the world make sense) for 5e and you're done.

So give more work to the DM in order to make the world less realistic? I don't see an up side to that. The NPC classes in 3e did a terrible job of covering the nonadventuring world, although that's less because of the classes themselves than because it was a bad idea to begin with. If I ever DM that version again I will definitely not use that part of the rules.

Getting back on topic:

Can't you just fill entire villages with werewolves the normal way? You know, biting?

Biting is for eating. It only spreads the curse if the primary purpose fails badly enough that the food survives.

[Lines]

No one knows, and for the same reason players can't play mind flayers.
Sure they can, 8HD of aberration and a level adjustment of +7. There is no LA type numbers on the monster entries in 5e for simplicity, and there are no rules for such a thing in the DMG because of designer laziness. Again, just kind of proving my point here.


So give more work to the DM in order to make the world less realistic? I don't see an up side to that. The NPC classes in 3e did a terrible job of covering the nonadventuring world, although that's less because of the classes themselves than because it was a bad idea to begin with. If I ever DM that version again I will definitely not use that part of the rules.
In the edition of simplicity, ideally there'd be a choice. You'd include a bunch of NPCs in the back of the monster manual for those who want quick and easy, and you'd include NPC classes instead of several of their pages of useless rubbish in the DMG for those who wanted their world more realistic. The NPC classes did fine, the idea was good but the implementation somewhat broad - I've no idea where you're getting less realistic, we've already established one system being used to represent things is much more realistic than an illogical split system.


Getting back on topic:

Biting is for eating. It only spreads the curse if the primary purpose fails badly enough that the food survives.
What if they're deliberately trying to spread the pack?

[Regitnui]

NPC vs PC debaters, get a new topic. At least my misunderstood genius was on topic, if risqué.

Right, curing lycanthropy. If curing therianthropes were easy, you'd reduce a lot of the motivation for therianthropic purges, like the Silver Flame's Lycanthropic Purge that cleared Eberron of many werecreatures. Remove curse was a spell within reach for ninety-percent of the church's holy warriors, even if they couldn't cast it themselves. Surely the Purge would have been unnecessary if it was a simple case of capturing everyone who looks a bit beastly, casting mass remove curse on them all and letting them go when they're all befuddled and humanoid? The existence of shifters adds a sticking point, but again, shifters are a separate race; if remove curse left them looking the same, they're a shifter.

Needless to say, it wasn't that simple. Hence a bloody massacre of everyone even the slightest bit hairy that still leaves the shifters wary of anyone wearing a Silver Flame insignia.

[JoeJ]

Sure they can, 8HD of aberration and a level adjustment of +7. There is no LA type numbers on the monster entries in 5e for simplicity, and there are no rules for such a thing in the DMG because of designer laziness. Again, just kind of proving my point here.

There's no such thing as level adjustment, and mind flayer is not a PC race. I can't speak to you proving your point, since I don't even know what point you were trying to make here.


I've no idea where you're getting less realistic, we've already established one system being used to represent things is much more realistic than an illogical split system.

What? No we haven't. It's just the opposite. Shoehorning the entire world into a handful of classes breaks verisimilitude much worse than saying that only those few people who fit certain archetypes have what it takes to be PCs.


What if they're deliberately trying to spread the pack?

In the folklore, deliberately trying to spread the curse isn't really a thing. And since they're CE, another werewolf is much more likely to be a rival than an ally.

[Lines]

NPC vs PC debaters, get a new topic. At least my misunderstood genius was on topic, if risqué.
All good, I've pretty much won the debate anyways. Not much else to say.


Right, curing lycanthropy. If curing therianthropes were easy, you'd reduce a lot of the motivation for therianthropic purges, like the Silver Flame's Lycanthropic Purge that cleared Eberron of many werecreatures. Remove curse was a spell within reach for ninety-percent of the church's holy warriors, even if they couldn't cast it themselves. Surely the Purge would have been unnecessary if it was a simple case of capturing everyone who looks a bit beastly, casting mass remove curse on them all and letting them go when they're all befuddled and humanoid? The existence of shifters adds a sticking point, but again, shifters are a separate race; if remove curse left them looking the same, they're a shifter.

Needless to say, it wasn't that simple. Hence a bloody massacre of everyone even the slightest bit hairy that still leaves the shifters wary of anyone wearing a Silver Flame insignia.
Eberron was primarily a big thing in 3.5, where it took a 12th level cleric to remove which were quite rare in the setting. Most of Eberron doesn't square with 5e's RAW, see also atrocious magic item pricing and crafting.

[Lines]

There's no such thing as level adjustment, and mind flayer is not a PC race. I can't speak to you proving your point, since I don't even know what point you were trying to make here.
Of course there is, just not in 5e. The argument was verisimilitude - obviously being able to play a wide range of things enhances it, and your argument was that the illogical lack of ability of the player character to have the ability the non player character does was that it can't be done for the same reason people can't play mind flayers. To which the answer is that they certainly can, it just wasn't included in this edition out of laziness.


What? No we haven't. It's just the opposite. Shoehorning the entire world into a handful of classes breaks verisimilitude much worse than saying that only those few people who fit certain archetypes have what it takes to be PCs.
It doesn't reduce verisimilitude at all. We've already established the class system as a way of representing how people work - no game is going to have perfect representation, nothing's going to include rules on carbon bonding or genetic predispositions. We've accepted that some form of vaguely abstract representation is needed, settled on a system of representing people - and then split off into an entirely different system for an arbitrary subsection of the population?

That's realism breaking and you damn well know it. An extra set of classes to represent the rest wouldn't take up much space at all and would aid things immensely.


In the folklore, deliberately trying to spread the curse isn't really a thing. And since they're CE, another werewolf is much more likely to be a rival than an ally.
What? There are tons of examples in various kinds of media of werewolves deliberately spreading the curse. Wolves are pretty much the ultimate example of the pack creature, it's not exactly a stretch of the imagination, and it should be noted that they're immune to each others attacks.

[Regitnui]

All good, I've pretty much won the debate anyways. Not much else to say.

This is the internet. You just made it carry on for at least another day.


Eberron was primarily a big thing in 3.5, where it took a 12th level cleric to remove which were quite rare in the setting. Most of Eberron doesn't square with 5e's RAW, see also atrocious magic item pricing and crafting.

Rare because of the Purge. Remember, this is a world with 12 moons. You're practically guaranteed at least two rampages a week, and the curse would spread like wildfire. That was the entire reason that the Purge started; therianthropes were fairly common in Khorvaire until they were systematically hunted.

I'm not going to restart the whole magic item debate. I'll just say that item crafting was an NPC thing, sincr the PCs had better things to be doing most of the time. Even the artificer was more about temporary infusions than crafting permanent items..

[Lines]

This is the internet. You just made it carry on for at least another day.



Rare because of the Purge. Remember, this is a world with 12 moons. You're practically guaranteed at least two rampages a week, and the curse would spread like wildfire. That was the entire reason that the Purge started; therianthropes were fairly common in Khorvaire until they were systematically hunted.

I'm not going to restart the whole magic item debate. I'll just say that item crafting was an NPC thing, sincr the PCs had better things to be doing most of the time. Even the artificer was more about temporary infusions than crafting permanent items..

How was it in any way more about infusions? The artificer got like a billion item crafting feats, the ability to disenchant and a reserve of xp specifically for crafting. Like 90% of its power came from crafting. And I meant that 12th level clerics were rare, not werewolves.

[Regitnui]

How was it in any way more about infusions? The artificer got like a billion item crafting feats, the ability to disenchant and a reserve of xp specifically for crafting. Like 90% of its power came from crafting. And I meant that 12th level clerics were rare, not werewolves.

Alright, fair point on the clerics. I misunderstood you.

PC artificers also got a class feature specifically designed for them not to do all the magic item work; a Dedicated Wright homunculus, which stayed at home and did the work while the artificer did the more fun stuff. So yeah, more about infusions and being magepunk batman than magic item crafting.

[JoeJ]

We're obviously not going to agree on this. Having NPC classes makes the game seem more realistic to you, but much less realistic for me.


What? There are tons of examples in various kinds of media of werewolves deliberately spreading the curse. Wolves are pretty much the ultimate example of the pack creature, it's not exactly a stretch of the imagination, and it should be noted that they're immune to each others attacks.

I said folklore, not modern fiction.

Werewolves are not wolves. They're chaotic evil savage beasts. When they form packs, it's with wolves and dire wolves. In other words, with similar but weaker creatures that they can rule. Having another werewolf show up would threaten their position. Even if it did want to create another werewolf, which I think is unlikely, it would be a real struggle for it to control its bloodlust enough to bite without killing.

[Lines]

Alright, fair point on the clerics. I misunderstood you.

PC artificers also got a class feature specifically designed for them not to do all the magic item work; a Dedicated Wright homunculus, which stayed at home and did the work while the artificer did the more fun stuff. So yeah, more about infusions and being magepunk batman than magic item crafting.

But you're still doing the magic item crafting. The homunculus is just a bonus to crafting - this is like saying spellcasting isn't your focus because you're having your familiar deliver the spells.


We're obviously not going to agree on this. Having NPC classes makes the game seem more realistic to you, but much less realistic for me.
Fair enough. If it's more realistic for you I'm glad it exists for your sake, and I'd even say I'm glad it's the default option because it's simpler and 5e should be simple as its baseline, but their decision to include a bunch of random, mostly useless crap in the DMG instead of a few pages of rules for this annoys the hell out of me.


I said folklore, not modern fiction.

Werewolves are not wolves. They're chaotic evil savage beasts. When they form packs, it's with wolves and dire wolves. In other words, with similar but weaker creatures that they can rule. Having another werewolf show up would threaten their position. Even if it did want to create another werewolf, which I think is unlikely, it would be a real struggle for it to control its bloodlust enough to bite without killing.
There's nothing to indicate that a werewolf who has embraced it has anything less than all the control it wants, it's just that it's chaotic evil - it feels good to kill, so why not do it? An unembraced werewolf is out of control, an embraced werewolf is a monster (in the figurative sense as well as the literal) that knows exactly what it's doing, which is worse. And neither chaotic nor evil mean that they don't want company, considering they're immune to each others attacks werewolves know they have nothing to fear from other werewolves - I can see many being loners, but I can also see many enjoying hunting in a group.

Folklore wise, and? How the game works is not determined by folklore. Whether something has influence is not determined by what year it happened, even modern things like Warcraft have an impact.

[Shining Wrath]

If you can't have a commoner who is very good at their job without having PC class levels, verisimilitude is gone. The NPCs in the back of the MM don't address this. Someone has to be able to craft plate mail and great swords and so on, or sew the Priest's Vestments and Fine Clothing that costs 15 GP (150 days pay for a common laborer implies a pretty decent rate of pay for the tailor, it doesn't take 150 days to create fine clothes).

So I just treat "commoner" and "Noble" and so on as classes you can advance in. You can have a 20th level baker with lots of proficiency in the tasks of a baker - and lots of HP if it matters, because the universe also respects proficiency with a spatula. This helps to explain why the king is hard to kill without every king having to be a 7th level warrior who gained his throne with his blade. It's a form of "plot armor" for important NPCs that makes sense in-game. Hit points, after all, are only weakly tied to your physical body, and there's no reason for advancing in one of the 12 PC classes to be the only way a humanoid can gain them.

[JoeJ]

Returning to the topic: Poul Anderson, in the classic fantasy Three Hearts and Three Lions, had a werewolf who had inherited the potential for lycanthropy. None of the ancestors had actually had it manifest, because in their day, the boundary between the human empire/Law and the twilight realm/Chaos was farther away; but as Chaos moved closer, the curse manifested. The solution in this case was for the wolf to move away from the border marches and in to the heartland of the empire. Any DM should be able to take "not cured, just moved" as a plot hook.

Hm. Combine that "ancestral curse" with something like jus primae noctis as exercised by several generations of barons, and as the border of Chaos advances, you could find entire villages filled with werewolves....

This would be a interesting theme for a campaign. Ordinary people start turning into monsters without warning. Nobody knows how many will be affected, but it will probably be a lot. Can the PCs reverse, or at least stop the advancing chaos? (And if they fail, that might be a great excuse to have mists rise up around the borders of the region as it becomes incorporated into Ravenloft.)


There's nothing to indicate that a werewolf who has embraced it has anything less than all the control it wants

If by "all it wants" you mean usually none, then yeah.

[Azedenkae]

Beat you to it =D

Fair enough. You're the faster gun sir. This time. :3

[Lines]

If by "all it wants" you mean usually none, then yeah.

Well, yeah. It's chaotic evil. Of course I mean usually none.

[JackPhoenix]

NPC vs PC debaters, get a new topic. At least my misunderstood genius was on topic, if risqué.

Right, curing lycanthropy. If curing therianthropes were easy, you'd reduce a lot of the motivation for therianthropic purges, like the Silver Flame's Lycanthropic Purge that cleared Eberron of many werecreatures. Remove curse was a spell within reach for ninety-percent of the church's holy warriors, even if they couldn't cast it themselves. Surely the Purge would have been unnecessary if it was a simple case of capturing everyone who looks a bit beastly, casting mass remove curse on them all and letting them go when they're all befuddled and humanoid? The existence of shifters adds a sticking point, but again, shifters are a separate race; if remove curse left them looking the same, they're a shifter.

Needless to say, it wasn't that simple. Hence a bloody massacre of everyone even the slightest bit hairy that still leaves the shifters wary of anyone wearing a Silver Flame insignia.

Don't forget that Eberron were-beasts works differently, both from the point of setting logic (12 moons means lot more full-moons) and by changing the rules to make for a better story (interestingly, this one is tied to mechanics...apparently, the Lycanthropic Purge was created before the setting was published and before 3.5e was released...back then, even afflicted therianthropes could spread the curse (which wasn't a curse but a disease, and had different rules for curing it from 5e...and I'm not sure if the cure wasn't discovered only after the events...the means to reliably identify if the person is infected was discovered near the end of the Purge). 3.5e's release made the infection less dangerous). During that time, ALL therianthropes were also evil for some reason (the explanation is in the novel Queen of Stone)

edit: ninja'd days ago...note to self: read the whole thread before replying to some post in the middle -.-

[Soular]

Biting is for eating. It only spreads the curse if the primary purpose fails badly enough that the food survives.

Haha! I love that line!