A FR question regarding a Monstrous Class

[Thrall_Of_Ao]

Hello everyone. Hopefully, if you're reading this you're at least vaguely familiar with Forgotten Realms, and have at least a passing knowledge of MCL (monstrous class levels).

So, with no further adue, here's my question.

I've created a Draegloth PC (essentially a drow with the Half-Fiend Template), using the MCL progression found in Champions of Ruin, a FR rules supplement (Owning or having access to that book is extremely helpful to understanding the rest).

Now, after creating the character, I did some research on WOTC's website, to see if I could find anything useful on the MC in question.

What I found is this: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rp/20020814a

Now, I noticed in the CoR book, there was NO mention of certain universally drow traits (like light blindness, SR, etc.), but the Draegloth in the article DID have these things.

Which is correct? Did the book just forget to include those things, or worse, expect readers to add them on their own, or did this MCLP simply exempt these things on purpose in an effort to "balance" the Class?

Any serious feedback regarding this question is greatly appreciated.

-TOA

[Corolinth]

Which is correct? Did the book just forget to include those things, or worse, expect readers to add them on their own, or this the MCL simply exempt these things on purpose in an effort to "balance" the Class?How is that scenario worse? Really, how is it "worse" to expect your player base to add something that makes sense? Other rpg systems do it all the time. But I digress.

I just went looking through Drow of the Underdark to check the draegloth listed in there. They aren't listed as having light blindness. [Scrubbed]
But then again, the writers also completely left out one of the monster's stat blocks.

This is one where you could go either way. Here you go:

1) It makes perfect sense for draegloth to not have light-blindness. Draegloth are descended from a drow priestess and a glabrezu. Glabrezu do not have light-blindness, draegloth are half glabrezu, and therefore draegloth do not have light-blindness.

2) It makes perfect sense for draegloth to have light-blindness. Draegloth are descended from a drow priestess and a glabrezu. Drow have light-blindness, draegloth are half drow, and therefore draegloth also have light-blindness.

Here's another option:

3) Some draegloth take after the drow parent, and some draegloth take after their glabrezu parent. Some draelogth have light-blindness, some do not.

Draegloth get all of the drow spell-like abilities, and they get unholy blight. They do not get spell resistance. I don't know why. Half-fiends get spell resistance, and draegloth are half-fiends. Furthermore, both drow and glabrezu (the parents) have spell resistance. When two black people get married and have sex, the wife does not give birth to a Chinese baby. I can't tell you why draegloth don't have spell resistance. I also can't tell you why they have double the energy resistance of a normal tana'ri, except to say that somebody screwed up.

Before you get pounded with replies about what it says in the book being RAW [Scrubbed] I'm going to take a moment and give you some advice:

[Scrubbed] this isn't really RAW, anyway. It's an optional supplement.

Talk to your DM (I assume you two are talking a lot, since you're making a PC with an enormous level adjustment and several racial hit dice). Pitch your case to him. Tell your DM what you just told us. Sit down with your DM for an hour or two, and hammer out all the stuff that doesn't make sense. Read through the flavor text about what a draegloth is (the child of a blasphemous union between a drow priestess and a summoned demon). Then look at the stats the draegloth is given. Look for the stuff that doesn't make sense. Discuss with your DM how to change the draegloth stats to match up with what the draegloth is according to its description. Keep in mind, though, you have four arms and that needs to be balanced out somehow.

Smell that homebrewed goodness.

[AtomicKitKat]

I just dug through Champions of Ruin and Monsters of Faerun. In MoF, they define them as having "Immunities, Resistances, Drow abilities" under "Special Qualities". This apparently includes Darkvision(as mentioned in the "Fluff text" portion), but they don't bother to say what else. In CoR, they don't mention the "Drow Traits" at all, so I presume it's an oversight on their part. The +20 energy resistance is probably a holdover from 3.0, when you could overcome energy resistance by overloading the damage type in a single round, as opposed to 3.5, where ER counts for each attack. If you have other 3.0 creatures, look for one with 20 resistance, compare it to the 3.5 version, and see how far to drop the Draegloth.

[Jack Mann]

Corolinth, you understand neither what is meant here by RAW nor why we place importance on it.

I do not mean this as an insult. It is simply a statement of fact. Your post shows that, if you've read through any explanations, you did not comprehend the meaning behind them. Perhaps this is due to poor communication on our part. If so, I apologize. I've tried to clarify this in the past (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47350).

No one here holds the RAW as sacred. It isn't. We have said many, many times in just the last few weeks, even, that the RAW is often stupid, and needs to be changed at times.

The RAW is common ground, however. We hold it important because everyone is starting from that same common ground. House rules are good, and often necessary. Ignoring the rules to make the game more fun is a good idea, and I don't think anyone here would argue differently. But you cannot expect people to know what your house rules are if you don't tell them. In effect, you must tell them where you depart from the RAW.

RAW also is not synonymous with the core rules. The RAW includes any book used in a game. In general use, it's assumed to include all books published by Wizards of the Coast (or the game company that produces whichever game you're playing; RAW is not D&D-exclusive, after all). This is because most people who post on these boards (including most who ask for help) are using more than just the Core rules. Therefore, it's usually faster just to assume so, unless they specifically state they're using a limited selection.

If someone wants help within the scope of a house ruled system, they need to lay all of that out when they ask the question. Otherwise, any help we gave them would likely be useless, since our answers would assume the normal rules. Similarly, we cannot give them advice assuming our own house rules, because our house rules can't be assumed for their game. The only rule set that can be assumed (because the framework, at least, is used in nearly every D&D game) is the Rules as Written.

Suggesting house rules isn't a bad thing, especially if the person concerned is a DM (though it's somewhat more common for a player to solicit advice), but it's important to be clear where the house rules are. Which means you need to make sure that they're clear on what the RAW says.

Indeed, one of the single biggest reasons we talk about the RAW is to explain why we feel the need to change the RAW.

In this case, Thrall asked what the rules say. Therefore it's best to try and answer that question (even if you say "I'm not sure") before going into whatever house rules you think work here.

In this case, it seems that the rules are unclear, so it's going to be a somewhat arbitrary decision in any case. But there's a reason why we look at what the books say first, and why we make sure that it's clear where we start making house rules. It's because we want to make sure we are communicating as well as possible. Without the RAW as a reference point, that becomes much, much harder.

The [Scrubbed] comment was completely unnecessary, I thought.

[Seffbasilisk]

[Scrubbed]

Optional suppliments still provide RaW. RaW is 'Rules As Written'. Houserules are good, but RaW is the framework they're built off. Without a framework, might as well deviate into "I hit it!" "You hit it?" "Yeah. I say I hit it, so I DO!" "It dies. You win. Yaaaay."

RaW gives the framework which makes D&D more then just a 'I win!' 'No, I WIN!' game of childhood that is usually resolved via a beating or a parental intervention.

[Corolinth]

My general disdain towards the RAW as it pertains to game discussion (and this is not limited to this message board alone) is that the words written on the page are taken to be more important than why they work the way they do, and what they're trying to accomplish. Pages upon pages are devoted to bickering over what the rule says and what it means, people will argue for half an hour during a game about how the rule is supposed to be interpreted. Very few comments touch on what the rule actually accomplishes.

Ultimately what is more helpful to any given person, be it a player or a DM, is not what the rule says but rather what it does. Why does the rule work this way? Why, for example, does flanking allow a rogue to make sneak attacks? I'm not going to go into this any further in this thread, because I think I've already distracted it enough from the original poster's intent, and I'd like to get the thread steered back towards things that can help him.

You apparently have two official publications that are in conflict over the light-blindness issue. Light-blindness is a fairly superficial drawback for a draegloth. Drow have it to suit their racial history. As I outlined above, you have a perfectly legitimate reason for having it, or for not having it.

The spell resistance would be a bigger issue for me either as a player or as a DM. As a DM, the energy resistance would also be an issue (but not as a player - I'll take 20 resistance to four energy subtypes). The half-fiend template grants spell resistance. If a minor demon copulates with a human (who does not have spell resistance), the resulting half-fiend child has spell resistance. Why, then, doesn't the draegloth have spell resistance when both parents possess it naturally? The draegloth is simply a special type of half-fiend, after all. Likewise, the draegloth has double the energy resistance of its demonic father. Why should this be the case? It is worth noting that the demon that supposedly sires the draegloth (the glabrezu, at least according to novelization) is not a weak demon.

Now there is an answer to this. Lolth supposedly places her blessing on the child, creating a new breed of demon modeled after her children, the drow. In doing so, she strips their spell resistance to be more manageable for the draegloth's priestess mother, and makes them more resistant to energy damage to compensate, thereby allowing them to continue to menace the male drow wizards.

So the question really isn't which is correct. The question is which will give you an interesting character that you want to play, and that your DM will allow in his campaign. Not having spell resistance or light-blindness is interesting in its own right, but it makes you less like the drow that gave birth to you. You would be a twisted abomination of the drow race, resembling your parent solely through your skin and hair color, and maybe that's what you want to play. On the other hand, with the spell resistance, light-blindness, and less energy resistance, you would resemble a drow with a more fiendish streak, and a slight hint of the spiders they worship (through your extra pair of arms).

There are discrepancies. Don't worry about that. Ask yourself which character is more interesting to you, because you are the one playing it.

[Thrall_Of_Ao]

So far so good, I think your comments have helped me pinpoint the primary issues that need to be addressed in this particular situation.

As much as I would like to comment further and in more depth upon the RAW issue, I'd much rather get feedback on my current issue. This is not to say that I don't appreciate your feedback, but I can easily see this degenerating into a RAW vs. Homebrew philisophical flamewar thread.

Now, to begin, I am a GM as well as a player, so I understand the value and meaning of RAW as was explained by Jack. In this case, I believe that the primary issue is 3.0 vs. 3.5 differences, along with some simple mistakes/oversites made in CoR.

Since I am playing in a 3.5 game, and generally consider that editions rulings to be the most up to date, that is what I am using as my primary point of reference.

The drow traits that are missing are missing from the CoR MC:

Per the MM 3.5 pg. 103-

A-Light Blindness (blinds 1st round, dazzled subsequent round in affected area)

B-Spell resistance 11+Character level

C-+2 racial bonus to resist spell and spell-like abilities

D-Immunity to sleep inducing spells and effects.

Since trait A is not only a Drow trait, but one common to other creatures, may of which are denizens of the Underdark, and since the article I referenced included it, I believe it was left out by mistake.

Since both parents have SR, and in the article it was included (11+9), I believe that it's a reasonable to include trait B also. Since Drow are level adjustment +2 it would be fair to put it at the 3ed level of the MC.

Finally, I don't have MoF, but since there are other races besides Drow which have NO level adjustment (Dwarves) that posess this trait, I think that the Draegloth should posess it as a basic starting trait.

The same argument applies to trait D, particularly because it is clearly stated in the beggining of the entry "...in addition to High Elf traits, except as noted...".

Regarding the energy resistance: 20(at 10th MC level) in the four basic energy types. Although the Glabrezu Tanar'ri Demon (MM pg. 43) do have only 10 for some energy, they have complete immunity to others, and, unlike the Demon, Draegloth have no form of Damage Reduction nor do they attain such high resistances till exactly 10th level (having ER:5 levels 1-4 and ER:10 levels 5-9).

-TOA

[Yuki Akuma]

My general disdain towards the RAW as it pertains to game discussion (and this is not limited to this message board alone) is that the words written on the page are taken to be more important than why they work the way they do, and what they're trying to accomplish. Pages upon pages are devoted to bickering over what the rule says and what it means, people will argue for half an hour during a game about how the rule is supposed to be interpreted. Very few comments touch on what the rule actually accomplishes.

So, um... we... we shouldn't have a common ground when it comes to rules discussions? We should just talk about our own house rules and completely ignore the RAW?

When you're talking to such a widely diverse group of people as the posters on a message board, you need to be very careful about what you assume they already know. Everyone who has a certain book knows, or can find out easily, what's written in it.

This is why everyone tries to stick to the RAW here, not because we love it for some reason. The RAW is stupid half the time.

Stabilising by having your head forced into a bucket of water while you're bleeding to death? What the hell?

[Inyssius Tor]

Yeah. If you don't at least note the RAW, you end up with debacles like the one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40237&page=13) quoted in The Glyphstone's sig.

[Thrall_Of_Ao]

The spell resistance would be a bigger issue for me either as a player or as a DM. As a DM, the energy resistance would also be an issue (but not as a player - I'll take 20 resistance to four energy subtypes). The half-fiend template grants spell resistance. If a minor demon copulates with a human (who does not have spell resistance), the resulting half-fiend child has spell resistance. Why, then, doesn't the draegloth have spell resistance when both parents possess it naturally? The draegloth is simply a special type of half-fiend, after all. Likewise, the draegloth has double the energy resistance of its demonic father. Why should this be the case? It is worth noting that the demon that supposedly sires the draegloth (the glabrezu, at least according to novelization) is not a weak demon.

Now there is an answer to this. Lolth supposedly places her blessing on the child, creating a new breed of demon modeled after her children, the drow. In doing so, she strips their spell resistance to be more manageable for the draegloth's priestess mother, and makes them more resistant to energy damage to compensate, thereby allowing them to continue to menace the male drow wizards.

So the question really isn't which is correct. The question is which will give you an interesting character that you want to play, and that your DM will allow in his campaign. Not having spell resistance or light-blindness is interesting in its own right, but it makes you less like the drow that gave birth to you. You would be a twisted abomination of the drow race, resembling your parent solely through your skin and hair color, and maybe that's what you want to play. On the other hand, with the spell resistance, light-blindness, and less energy resistance, you would resemble a drow with a more fiendish streak, and a slight hint of the spiders they worship (through your extra pair of arms).

There are discrepancies. Don't worry about that. Ask yourself which character is more interesting to you, because you are the one playing it.

Very interesting ideas, but due to the fact that there are plenty of arcane spells and effects that completely side step the energy resistance of the creature, I'd tend to disagree.

While ER:20 is powerful, please see my last post regarding it. Please also keep in mind that ER is only to 4 energy types. That leaves Holy, Unholy, Sonic and Force effects that will affect the creature (and SR 11 till 10th isn't that much of a defense).

The true weakness of the Draegloth is that, while fairly tough and possessing a variety of great abilities, they are fairly low in hit points until higher levels. Only smart play of such a MC will be survivable. This goes for many other MCes (like the variety of true dragon classes presented in Dragon magazine).

In my opinion, the Matron Mothers do not hold power because they are necessarily more powerful than their underlings. They do so through a combination of propoganda ("Lolths blessing is on them, to turn against them is to turn against Lolth and risk the wrath of the Spider Goddess"), social moors that reinforce female dominance, and careful manipulation (Positive/Negative reinforcement and resource management).

They use the same methods with the Draegloth, but possibly even more intensely than with others, indoctrinating them day in and day out, keeping careful watch on them at almost all times. Combine this, with the fact that most Draegloth, due to their Demonic parentage revel in evil for evils sake, find the "Right hand of the matron", set up, a pretty sweet deal.

There is the rare exception of course (in a society built upon intrigue such as the Drow's, this is bound to happen) Read the article, you'll see what I mean.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rp/20020814a

-TOA

[Yuki Akuma]

Holy, Unholy and Force are not energy types. Energy types are acid, cold, fire, electricity and sonic. All other damage is "normal" damage (even if it's also Force damage).

[AtomicKitKat]

Holy, Unholy and Force are not energy types. Energy types are acid, cold, fire, electricity and sonic. All other damage is "normal" damage (even if it's also Force damage).

Well, they're not exactly "normal" damage. DR applies to weapon damage, surprisingly not to falling damage(Why not? I would classify it as bludgeoning, personally).

As far as the ER of the Draegloth, I would probably bring it down to 10 in each of the four, to bring it in line with the Yochlol(also in MoF, reprinted in Fiendish Codex 1.).

[Thrall_Of_Ao]

Holy, Unholy and Force are not energy types. Energy types are acid, cold, fire, electricity and sonic. All other damage is "normal" damage (even if it's also Force damage).

Yuki, I didn't specifically say they WERE energy types. I said that the ER was only VS. 4.

The other 4 things I mentioned were effects that the Draegloth would have no natural defense against.

Please read carefully:

>...Please also keep in mind that ER is only to 4 energy types. That leaves Holy, Unholy, Sonic and Force effects that will affect the creature (and SR 11 till 10th isn't that much of a defense).

The primary point of my statement was to bring to light the fact that, unlike the DR which is effective against all damage except one (or rarely two), ER is specific. While the Yochol and many other Demons have DR as well as many other powerful magical abilites like shape shifting and high level spell-like abilities, a full grown Drageloth (e.g. 10th MC level) is little more than a very strong and tough drow with natural attacks, natural armor and strong energy resistances.

While I do agree that ER 20 is powerful, I don't think it's entirely unbalanced. I trust that the writers new what they were doing when they wrote the material (twice the same way).
I personally don't see a reason to alter cannon material unless it is A: Glaringly in error B. Is simpy too unbalancing to a campaign.

Please note that a true half-fiend would have the following abilities in addition (or in exchange of) the Draegloths.

-Natural flight speed equal to land speed (due to bat wings)
-Smite good 1x per day dealing damage equal to HD (+5 total)
-ER 10 to acid, cold, electricity, and fire (in exchange of ER 20)
-Damage reduction 5/magic
-Natural weapons are considered magic vs. DR
-SR equal to HD+10 (15 total)

Please also note, the Half-Fiend is only LE+4 (vs. the Draegloths +10)

There are multiple feats and spells, several of which are contained in the PHB alone, that can seriously hinder if not entirely negate it's ER. While I concede that if you are facing it at it's CR (5), your party will probably not have the capabilities to utilize most of these options, it simply means that they will have to use tactics more complex that "Blast it with the fireball".

One final word, ER is PER ROUND. See below per D20 SRD.

"Resistance To Energy
A creature with resistance to energy has the ability (usually extraordinary) to ignore some damage of a certain type each round, but it does not have total immunity.

Each resistance ability is defined by what energy type it resists and how many points of damage are resisted. It doesn’t matter whether the damage has a mundane or magical source.

When resistance completely negates the damage from an energy attack, the attack does not disrupt a spell. This resistance does not stack with the resistance that a spell might provide."

Thanks,
-TOA

[Corolinth]

Draegloth do not have a +10 level adjustment, they have a +4 level adjustment. You're getting +10 from the six racial hit dice that the draegloth possesses, but you could just as easily tack on six racial outsider hit dice to the half-fiend.

[Thrall_Of_Ao]

Draegloth do not have a +10 level adjustment, they have a +4 level adjustment. You're getting +10 from the six racial hit dice that the draegloth possesses, but you could just as easily tack on six racial outsider hit dice to the half-fiend.

My mistake, I meant ECL +10. But, although my point still stands, you have managed to expose my limited understanding of the entire system of templates, Racial hit dice, Monstrous Classes, and basic ECL computation.

Which basically brings up some interesting questions regarding MCes and LE, vs. Templates and the question of whether or not their even compatable...(which I may end up starting another thread on)

BUT, I'm not going to do that, because it would take this thread on a topic detour a mile long, and I'm trying really hard not to take the scenic rout.

The topic of this thread, just to bring things back into focus, IS: There are discrepancies between the Draegloth in CoR (Champions of Ruin) and the Draegloth I found while doing research on Wizards (see link in former posts), as well as basic drow abilties.
Which abilites that were left out should be included and how?

Now, since I've basically got a functional answer to that question (again see former posts), the only question that really remains is:

1. What monstrous type is a Draegloth

(Thanks for all the feedback, you've definitely inspired me to make at least one other thread due to the questions and statements made here)

-TOA

[AtomicKitKat]

Don't trust the SRD entry on Energy Resistance. 3.5 MM says per roundinstance(where instance means per single source of energy damage), as does the DMG.

[Thrall_Of_Ao]

Don't trust the SRD entry on Energy Resistance. 3.5 MM says per round, as does the DMG.

Well then I'm glad we agree, as per round is exactly what the SRD entry says, as opposed to, as it has been suggested, per source of energy damage.

If, like DR, it functions per source, then something would need to be changed. The MC progression would need to be altered (due to the reduction in power), or a house rule be instituted for ER.

As I haven't had to deal with it in play, I don't really have a call one way or another, but I suppose a reduction to 15 ER (progresses 5 pts. per. time added till tenth) along with the missing drow abilities would be fair.

-TOA

[AtomicKitKat]

Well then I'm glad we agree, as per round is exactly what the SRD entry says, as opposed to, as it has been suggested, per source of energy damage.

If, like DR, it functions per source, then something would need to be changed. The MC progression would need to be altered (due to the reduction in power), or a house rule be instituted for ER.

As I haven't had to deal with it in play, I don't really have a call one way or another, but I suppose a reduction to 15 ER (progresses 5 pts. per. time added till tenth) along with the missing drow abilities would be fair.

-TOA

Crap. I didn't notice that I'd said it the wrong way. In the hardcopy it does indeed say per attack.

Edit:
Only once does it say each round.

Resistance to Energy

...each round...

But then, in the example of a Janni:


each attack

In the Monster Manual

each time

and in the example of a Lillend


anytime

[Thrall_Of_Ao]

Indeed...
Seems like a fairly murky issue (it also makes me wonder about DR as well...).

In any case, the question of "what is a Draegloth" is a pertinent question, for two reasons that I can currently think of.

1. Would a hat of disguise work for it (fully or partially)?

2. Would it be able to be raised or ressurected?

There are three possibilities for what it is:

Outsider

Native Outsider

Monstrous Humanoid

Going by the 3.5 MM I, under Half-Fiend pg. 147, it says that "creatures type changes to outsider...normally half-fiends are native outsiders".

Then under "native subtype", pg. 312, it says that "...can be raised, reincarnated, and ressurected...".

Yet again, CoR says absolutely nothing about this, but the article I sited includes under the Draegloths entry the standard outsider exceptions to the three R's.

My guess: Native outsider, can be RR&Red.

Thanks in advance,
-TOA