PDA

View Full Version : D&D 5e/Next Lovecraftian races; deep one, ghoul, and night-gaunt (nearing completion)



Requilac
2017-12-09, 03:13 PM
For a while now I have been working on something to close to a mini-supplement for D&D that includes several lovecraftian monsters and character choices. One of the things i wished to add to this is a collection of PC races which came from the cthulhu mythos. While most of those monsters are not something that a normal character should be able to play, so far I have managed to find three that would work as PC races; the deep one, ghoul and night-gaunt. I am running under the assumption that you know what these creatures are or will look it up on your own, so I will not really be adding any fluff texts in. Please be aware that the ghoul is supposed to be like the ones which came form the cthulhu mythos, so they are not the same thing as typical D&D ghouls. The biggest differences between the two is that lovecraft ghouls are neither undead, mindless nor inherently evil like typical ghouls are. You can find all the races in this link (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/rJdZ9C-Fz). Any suggestions on how to change or edit these is very appreciated. If you believe there is any other creatures from the cthulhu mythos which could be PC races please inform me about those too so I may add them in.

I am well aware of how questionable the balance of the night-gaunt is, so I actually created a thread before this one that discusses how it should be designed. You can see the design process i went through in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?543874-How-does-one-build-a-night-gaunt-PC-race-(a-blind-but-flying-humanoid)). Before you make any suggestions on the night-gaunts blind senses trait though please look this thread first.

SwordMeow
2017-12-11, 04:11 PM
Dire Fur Trout:
average of 7d6+14 is 38 not 40
capitalize Water Breathing
tail slap is a melee weapon attack, it should be 1d6+3(str mod), so consider lowering to 1d4+str or 1+str. Actually why is a small fish so strong
don't make the str save with disadvantage, just make it DC 13 or raise the DC (its cr 1/4 so dc 13 is fine), so it would be pushed into the dire trout's space? also it should be called Dire Fur Trout, then "and be knocked prone."

Requilac
2017-12-11, 04:30 PM
Dire Fur Trout:
average of 7d6+14 is 38 not 40
capitalize Water Breathing
tail slap is a melee weapon attack, it should be 1d6+3(str mod), so consider lowering to 1d4+str or 1+str. Actually why is a small fish so strong
don't make the str save with disadvantage, just make it DC 13 or raise the DC (its cr 1/4 so dc 13 is fine), so it would be pushed into the dire trout's space? also it should be called Dire Fur Trout, then "and be knocked prone."

That is not even what I am homebrewing here though. The dire fur trout is something that I made weeks ago and put in my signature, I am asking for someone to PEACH my lovecraftian races that were part of the actual post. You are very off topic.

SwordMeow
2017-12-11, 07:25 PM
That is not even what...

Huh, my bad, first day on this website.

Requilac
2017-12-11, 08:12 PM
Huh, my bad, first day on this website.

It is fine, I was just a little confused why you brought that up.

Requilac
2017-12-12, 10:37 AM
Umm, seeing as how it has been 4 days and no one has said anything on the races that either means nobody cares or that I designed them so well no one can dispute their flawless ness. Either way, unless someone states other wise than I will consider them completed.

Gaslampgenie
2017-12-12, 03:32 PM
Hi! I'll start off with the disclaimer that I'm very new to d&d/Pathfinder so I'll try to stick to flavor rather than mechanics.

I'm a big fan of lovecraftian mythos and I really like what you are getting at here.
My only suggestions are regarding the deep one:
Maybe add some kind of aversion to light given that the deep ones would only surface at night and return to the depths during the day (If I remember correctly)
Deep Ones primarily live in water and there should be some kind of drawback to living on land for too long, possibly some kind of stress on sanity.

Again, love what you put together and sorry I can't help with the mechanical side of the races

Requilac
2017-12-12, 03:48 PM
Hi! I'll start off with the disclaimer that I'm very new to d&d/Pathfinder so I'll try to stick to flavor rather than mechanics.

I'm a big fan of lovecraftian mythos and I really like what you are getting at here.
My only suggestions are regarding the deep one:
Maybe add some kind of aversion to light given that the deep ones would only surface at night and return to the depths during the day (If I remember correctly)
Deep Ones primarily live in water and there should be some kind of drawback to living on land for too long, possibly some kind of stress on sanity.

Again, love what you put together and sorry I can't help with the mechanical side of the races

It has been a while since I read the shadow over inssmouth, but i am fairly certain the deep ones would only surface at night. But if I was understanding it correctly, this was not because they disliked sunlight so much as it was because they were trying to avoid being detected by the humans who dynamited them in the past. I do not think they actually had any kind of sensitivity towards of light, I am pretty sure it was just a strategic decision they went with. To me it would also be kind of weird if they did have something like sunlight sensitivity, because sunlight still filters into the ocean and IIRC correctly the reef the deep ones lived in was not very deep in the water at all so sunlight would have been reaching down there too. I cannot prove any of these statements with solid evidence though.

I considered giving the deep one some sort of drawback to spending on too much land also but decided against it. If they did have something like that than it would be extremely hard for a deep one to be played in any campaign that did not take place on the water. Most campaigns are not going to have a massive body of water to acesss at all times, and even if they did then the trait would become quite trivial. In other words, this trait would either have two outcomes on someone, (a) they would never want to play it or (b) they have the accommodations to essentially make it a non-existent ribbon abiltiy. While it would be thematically appropriate for them to have such a feature, I excluded it do to meta reasons for the most part.

Thank you for your suggestions! I Hope you have a great time learning to play D&D too.

Gaslampgenie
2017-12-12, 03:56 PM
Fair enough! Last thought: is Dagon already a deity in the books? could be a cool flavor piece for deep ones to worship him.

Flashy
2017-12-12, 04:10 PM
Deep One: What mechanical difference are you trying to establish between the wording on amphibious and just granting a swim speed? If there isn’t something specific you’re looking for I’d replace the overcomplicated business about movement costs and being effectively considered as something else with “You have a swim speed of 30 ft.” They’ve printed official races with swim speeds, it’s hardly going to break the game.

Ghoul: A little weak if anything. Superior darkvision IS better than what other races get, but I don’t see the difference between 60 and 120 ft darkvision as much of a power break and most of the other abilities fall somewhere between ribbons and minor bonuses.

Night Gaunt: I’ve seen the other thread on this and it’s so hard to evaluate theoretically that it’s honestly just down to playtesting. My only comment is that the 150 ft blind-sort-of-sight should probably specifically call out that you can’t target creatures in that range with spells/abilities that specify a target you can see and clarify exactly where you make attack rolls at disadvantage. Night Camoflauge also makes me a little itchy (it’s both powerful and pretty easy to use) and I’d be inclined to bring it more in line with the wood elf ability to hide when only lightly obscured.

Requilac
2017-12-12, 04:29 PM
Fair enough! Last thought: is Dagon already a deity in the books? could be a cool flavor piece for deep ones to worship him.

By the canon campaign setting for D&D 5e, no he does not exist nor do any of the other great old ones. Technically the forgotten realms does have a set of creatures called by the same title, but all of these are actually WotC’s own personal creations and have no similarity to the Lovecraft ones. To my knowledge so far the official 5e books have only mentioned Dendar, ghaunadar, kezef, moander, tyranthraxus, and Zargon. And even then Only dendar has actually had a position in any official campaigns though (Tomb of annihalation).

Requilac
2017-12-12, 04:43 PM
Deep One: What mechanical difference are you trying to establish between the wording on amphibious and just granting a swim speed? If there isn’t something specific you’re looking for I’d replace the overcomplicated business about movement costs and being effectively considered as something else with “You have a swim speed of 30 ft.” They’ve printed official races with swim speeds, it’s hardly going to break the game.

The reason I did this is because many DMs consider a swim speed overpowered and typically exclude races which have them from games. My wording of it makes it so that you cannot swim any farther than you can walk, so you cannot move a massive amount of feet (probably 60) in 1 turn. It is meant to limit their abilities and make the swimming ability more controllable.



Ghoul: A little weak if anything. Superior darkvision IS better than what other races get, but I don’t see the difference between 60 and 120 ft darkvision as much of a power break and most of the other abilities fall somewhere between ribbons and minor bonuses.

Yeah the ghouls were a tough one to create. Deformed limbs is the most signifigant feature they get, In the right hands that can be an incredibly useful. To add on, it was kind of hard to come up with features for them, as they really are not all that different than humans. Have any ideas of what I could add in? Aside from something like keen hearing and scent, which seems like more than a little bit of an exaggeration of their abilities I do not really know what else I could put in.



Night Gaunt: I’ve seen the other thread on this and it’s so hard to evaluate theoretically that it’s honestly just down to playtesting. My only comment is that the 150 ft blind-sort-of-sight should probably specifically call out that you can’t target creatures in that range with spells/abilities that specify a target you can see and clarify exactly where you make attack rolls at disadvantage. Night Camoflauge also makes me a little itchy (it’s both powerful and pretty easy to use) and I’d be inclined to bring it more in line with the wood elf ability to hide when only lightly obscured.

I will make sure to add in the clause that you cannot target a creature beyond your 30 foot blindsight radius later today. As for night camoflouge, i have been rather “itchy” about that too since day one. I know they need something to help out with stealth but I have had trouble finding a way to word it. Just giving them proficiency in stealth itself seems kind of weird considering that they would actually stick out like a sore them in anywhere but completed darkness, and the wood elf ability does not make much more sense either because night-gaunts are best at hiding in total darkness due to their pitch black hides so a trait which allows them to hide when lightly obscured is kind of contradictory. I am willing to to consider any other suggestions on how to fix that though. Currently I cannot find a better solution than the one I have already created.

Requilac
2017-12-19, 09:06 PM
It has been a week and I have not heard anything. If any of you have any problem with how the races work state so now, as I will be making this the final draft if I do not get a response in 24 hours. Thank you all for helping me create this project.

Requilac
2017-12-21, 06:25 PM
Alrighty then, I am considering them completed!

Potato_Priest
2017-12-21, 07:19 PM
The reason I did this is because many DMs consider a swim speed overpowered and typically exclude races which have them from games. My wording of it makes it so that you cannot swim any farther than you can walk, so you cannot move a massive amount of feet (probably 60) in 1 turn. It is meant to limit their abilities and make the swimming ability more controllable.


You could just give them a swim speed of 30 ft. I've yet to see a DM who finds swim speeds overpowered, although fly and burrow speeds on the other hand are commonly rejected.

Voiceless is perhaps one of the most annoying features I've ever seen. Not only does it take you forever to communicate, but you can't do it without humanoid enemies understanding you regardless of what languages they speak.

Requilac
2017-12-21, 08:36 PM
You could just give them a swim speed of 30 ft. I've yet to see a DM who finds swim speeds overpowered, although fly and burrow speeds on the other hand are commonly rejected.

Voiceless is perhaps one of the most annoying features I've ever seen. Not only does it take you forever to communicate, but you can't do it without humanoid enemies understanding you regardless of what languages they speak.

I could give them a swim speed, but I think that the current wording of amphibious makes it more balanced for use. I have to disagree with you though, I have seen many DMs who find swimming speeds overpowered. Come to think of it, I think I am the only DM I have ever met that does not find them overpowered. I guess your experience has been different though. Anyway, I think that the limitation is fair to put in, so unless you have a really good case for why I should instead grant a swimming speed I will keep it the way it is.

Night gaunts can fly, have blindsense, and are immune the effects of any attack which requires them to see the enemy imposing that condition, those are all immensely powerful abilities. It is only fair that they have a weakness, and voiceless made the most thematic sense.

Edit: and not to mention the fact that they also ignore the verbal component requirement for spells, which is going to be extremely useful when in the right scenario to use it.

Potato_Priest
2017-12-21, 08:40 PM
I could give them a swim speed, but I think that the current wording of amphibious makes it more balanced for use. I have to disagree with you though, I have seen many DMs who find swimming speeds overpowered. Come to think of it, I think I am the only DM I have ever met that does not find them overpowered. I guess your experience has been different though. Anyway, I think that the limitation is fair to put in, so unless you have a really good case for why I should instead grant a swimming speed I will keep it the way it is.


But does this ability actually do anything different than a swim speed? It seems to be exactly the same thing.

Requilac
2017-12-22, 12:03 PM
But does this ability actually do anything different than a swim speed? It seems to be exactly the same thing.

The major difference between the current wording of amphibious and a swimming speed is that giving them a swimming speed would increase the total amount of feet a deep one could move in one turn, while the phrasing of amphibious does not add to their total movement it just makes it easier to swim. If that does not make sense, then let me explain. Assume that we are in an area that has both a heavy presence of both water and land, such as on a beach or boat. A creature with 30 walking speed and 30 swimming speed could move 30 feet on land then dive in the water to move an extra 30 feet, meaning that they are able to move a total of 60 feet in one round. A creature such as the current draft of the deep one though does not have a swimming speed, it simply does not cost 10 feet of movement for them to swim through 5 feet of water like it normally would. A creature with such a feature could still only move a total of 30 feet per turn, but they could decide to swim through the water without expending the extra movement like most people would have to do. In short, The current wording of amphibious gives the deep one an alternative choice to using walking speed but does not increase the total amount they could move in one turn like a swimming speed would.

Potato_Priest
2017-12-22, 01:34 PM
The major difference between the current wording of amphibious and a swimming speed is that giving them a swimming speed would increase the total amount of feet a deep one could move in one turn, while the phrasing of amphibious does not add to their total movement it just makes it easier to swim. If that does not make sense, then let me explain. Assume that we are in an area that has both a heavy presence of both water and land, such as on a beach or boat. A creature with 30 walking speed and 30 swimming speed could move 30 feet on land then dive in the water to move an extra 30 feet, meaning that they are able to move a total of 60 feet in one round. A creature such as the current draft of the deep one though does not have a swimming speed, it simply does not cost 10 feet of movement for them to swim through 5 feet of water like it normally would. A creature with such a feature could still only move a total of 30 feet per turn, but they could decide to swim through the water without expending the extra movement like most people would have to do. In short, The current wording of amphibious gives the deep one an alternative choice to using walking speed but does not increase the total amount they could move in one turn like a swimming speed would.

Actually, this is not how different speeds work. According to PHB page 190, you subtract the distance you've already moved using one speed from the distance you can move with the other when you switch. Thus, if you move 20 feet through water using your swim speed and then switch to your land speed of 30, you only have 10 feet of movement left.

Requilac
2017-12-22, 02:58 PM
Actually, this is not how different speeds work. According to PHB page 190, you subtract the distance you've already moved using one speed from the distance you can move with the other when you switch. Thus, if you move 20 feet through water using your swim speed and then switch to your land speed of 30, you only have 10 feet of movement left.

Wait, what? I just checked and that does seem to be the case? All the DM’s I have had have always have never played it that way, and most of them where AL. I guess it is one of those rules that people never decided to follow. I have been familiar with 5e rules for almost 3 years, and never once had I seen anyone actually follow the rules for speeds by RAW. I will just give them a swimming speed then. It is rather strange that I had never heard anyone reference that particular section before.

MxKit
2017-12-27, 10:23 PM
Ghoul does seem a little underpowered; if you wanted to adjust it, and especially with the movement rules being what they are and looking at what Tabaxi gets, you might just change their Deformed Limbs feature to: "You have a climbing speed of 20 feet. In addition, crawling no longer costs you an extra foot of movement speed." Maybe add a slight AC increase to demonstrate how hard they are to really injure, since they're basically undead. Or add a feature that notes that they're treated as undead by spells, for better or worse.

I'd say that, given that Kenku can already communicate ideas via their mimicry with no extra time spent on it to get people to understand, the nightgaunts communicating through gestures and body language shouldn't have such a long time penalty. Twice as long, maybe? If you want to make them less powerful, maybe they can be one of the races that actually gives a negative ability modifier. Maybe they're offputting to nearly everyone and so get a negative to Charisma. You could also add a note that your blindsight meaning you can't read also means you can't benefit from class features such as copying things into a wizard spellbook, or adding new spells to your Book of Shadows via Book of Ancient Secrets, and that you can't forge handwriting or other written documents or use calligrapher's supplies or painter's tools (or at least have a negative to using them). (I'd also add that you can't discern color with your blindsight at all. Which should be self-evident, but since Darkvision always mentions it, might be best to mention it there, too.)

As for the Deep One, their Slippery feature just kinda feels... meh. It's just a feeling, though; I feel like a slightly increased AC for them, too, due to their scales, would be more fitting than them being slippery, since iirc none of them were really described as naturally slimy. I know the kuo-toa have Slippery, but they also seem to have a base 11 AC due to having natural armor, and I feel like that would make more sense for Deep Ones specifically, especially given everything else they're getting. That's just me, though, and it might just be a personal taste thing!

Finally, if you're looking for other ideas on Lovecraftian races, maybe a Byakhee, Yithian, and/or Serpent Person race could be fun! Or a "spawn of Yog-Sothoth," taking Wilbur Whateley (...rather than his brother...) as inspiration. Or a Gof'nn hupadgh Shub-Niggurath, but I feel like that would actually make an interesting Warlock or Cleric subclass, rather than a race. (And if you're looking for other familiar ideas, even though it's not a dreamlands one, maybe you could make a rat-thing familiar!)

Requilac
2017-12-27, 11:14 PM
Ghoul does seem a little underpowered; if you wanted to adjust it, and especially with the movement rules being what they are and looking at what Tabaxi gets, you might just change their Deformed Limbs feature to: "You have a climbing speed of 20 feet. In addition, crawling no longer costs you an extra foot of movement speed." Maybe add a slight AC increase to demonstrate how hard they are to really injure, since they're basically undead. Or add a feature that notes that they're treated as undead by spells, for better or worse.

How does your wording of deformed limbs really make them any stronger? It seems to be the exact same thing as what I have created. I will give them the lizardfolk's AC calculation though to make them a bit stronger. And I am pretty sure that being treated as undead by spells is actually a negative feature to have, so if we are trying to make them stronger that seems like the wrong approach to go with. You are effected by protection from good and evil, can be sensed through detect good and evil, and most healing spells will not effect you at all in exchange for... umm, are there actually any benefits to being considered undead by spells? There has to be something but I cannot remember any.




I'd say that, given that Kenku can already communicate ideas via their mimicry with no extra time spent on it to get people to understand, the nightgaunts communicating through gestures and body language shouldn't have such a long time penalty. Twice as long, maybe? If you want to make them less powerful, maybe they can be one of the races that actually gives a negative ability modifier. Maybe they're offputting to nearly everyone and so get a negative to Charisma. You could also add a note that your blindsight meaning you can't read also means you can't benefit from class features such as copying things into a wizard spellbook, or adding new spells to your Book of Shadows via Book of Ancient Secrets, and that you can't forge handwriting or other written documents or use calligrapher's supplies or painter's tools (or at least have a negative to using them). (I'd also add that you can't discern color with your blindsight at all. Which should be self-evident, but since Darkvision always mentions it, might be best to mention it there, too.)

Fair enough, I will edit it so that it only takes twice as long to communicate through voiceless. Someone else already pointed out that it might have been a little excessive. I personally think that giving them a negative to charisma would not be quite accurate, because although they may be less persuasive and attractive, they should not really be worse at lieing, resisting getting possessed in the case of saving throws, and certainly not intimidating. I probably should have mentioned that they can't write either though, good catch. Most people would probably assume that anyway, but specificity never hurts. I will add in the part about color blindness too, even though I doubt it is going to come up.



As for the Deep One, their Slippery feature just kinda feels... meh. It's just a feeling, though; I feel like a slightly increased AC for them, too, due to their scales, would be more fitting than them being slippery, since iirc none of them were really described as naturally slimy. I know the kuo-toa have Slippery, but they also seem to have a base 11 AC due to having natural armor, and I feel like that would make more sense for Deep Ones specifically, especially given everything else they're getting. That's just me, though, and it might just be a personal taste thing!

The deep ones were said to be somewhat froglike, so I would imagine that calling them slimy is pretty accurate actually. And as for the AC thing, i do not quite think their scales were so tough as to warrant increased AC really. They did not seem particularly tough to me in any of the stories I have read either. I am not too attached to it, but slippery seems like a better representation of what they were like.




Finally, if you're looking for other ideas on Lovecraftian races, maybe a Byakhee, Yithian, and/or Serpent Person race could be fun! Or a "spawn of Yog-Sothoth," taking Wilbur Whateley (...rather than his brother...) as inspiration. Or a Gof'nn hupadgh Shub-Niggurath, but I feel like that would actually make an interesting Warlock or Cleric subclass, rather than a race. (And if you're looking for other familiar ideas, even though it's not a dreamlands one, maybe you could make a rat-thing familiar!)

Umm MxKit, these are PC races they need to at least be bipedal to qualify. The byakhee could be an interesting monster to create, but they should by no means be a playable PC race. Some goes for Yithian, they would certainly be much too strange by an anatomical stand point to be something a player could use. And D&D already has a serpent person race unfortunately, they are in VGtE and are called yuan-ti pure bloods. I already discussed with Aniikinis why I was not including a Whilbur Whateley like race in the night-guant thread, ultimately it came down to the fact that we do not have a good enough picture of his abilities to determine what features to add in. And an unrelated side note what is a... Gof'nn hupadgh Shub-Niggurath? Which story is that from, because I have never heard of them.

I did not want to include the rat-thing familiar because it seemed specific to that warlock (whose name I can't remember) from the dreams at the witch house, not quite something that every arcanist would be able to pick up. It seemed like his own custom monster he created to me, not so much as a species of monsters. I could be wrong, but I just find it weird for an arcanist to summon something so specific.

MxKit
2017-12-28, 03:07 AM
How does your wording of deformed limbs really make them any stronger? It seems to be the exact same thing as what I have created. I will give them the lizardfolk's AC calculation though to make them a bit stronger. And I am pretty sure that being treated as undead by spells is actually a negative feature to have, so if we are trying to make them stronger that seems like the wrong approach to go with. You are effected by protection from good and evil, can be sensed through detect good and evil, and most healing spells will not effect you at all in exchange for... umm, are there actually any benefits to being considered undead by spells? There has to be something but I cannot remember any.

You know, you're right about the climbing speed thing, I don't know what I was thinking about there. I think the idea of giving them a claw attack flitted through my mind, but I didn't think about it for long, so I don't know what wires got crossed there, lol.

As for the undead thing, I was actually certain I've seen a number of spells that specify that they don't work against undead, but so far the only one I've found that specifies it doesn't work against undead is command. I do know that undead are not actually humanoids, so that any spells that specify they target humanoids specifically, such as charm person, do not actually target undead by RAW. Similarly, someone would have to use dominate monster against you rather than dominate person, etc. You're right that the healing thing probably wouldn't make it an even trade-off, though; to give benefit without the drawbacks, they'd have to just flat-out have an elfish ability to resist charms, or maybe a note that spells that target humanoids specifically do not affect them. But just dropping the idea and leaving it as-is would also work, I was just wanting to explain my line of thought.


Fair enough, I will edit it so that it only takes twice as long to communicate through voiceless. Someone else already pointed out that it might have been a little excessive. I personally think that giving them a negative to charisma would not be quite accurate, because although they may be less persuasive and attractive, they should not really be worse at lieing, resisting getting possessed in the case of saving throws, and certainly not intimidating. I probably should have mentioned that they can't write either though, good catch. Most people would probably assume that anyway, but specificity never hurts. I will add in the part about color blindness too, even though I doubt it is going to come up.

Sounds good! I can definitely see what you mean about Charisma. I don't see a reason why they should have any detriment to Intelligence or Wisdom, either, so leaving them as-is other than those small changes seems fair enough.


The deep ones were said to be somewhat froglike, so I would imagine that calling them slimy is pretty accurate actually. And as for the AC thing, i do not quite think their scales were so tough as to warrant increased AC really. They did not seem particularly tough to me in any of the stories I have read either. I am not too attached to it, but slippery seems like a better representation of what they were like.

Fair enough there! I can see the similarities to frogs, but I've always just seen them as completely fish rather than too froglike, just having a kind of froggy look because of the way their eyes look etc. That said, fish are also pretty slippery, so again, that was YMMV in the first place. Slippery could certainly work for them!


Umm MxKit, these are PC races they need to at least be bipedal to qualify. The byakhee could be an interesting monster to create, but they should by no means be a playable PC race. Some goes for Yithian, they would certainly be much too strange by an anatomical stand point to be something a player could use. And D&D already has a serpent person race unfortunately, they are in VGtE and are called yuan-ti pure bloods. I already discussed with Aniikinis why I was not including a Whilbur Whateley like race in the night-guant thread, ultimately it came down to the fact that we do not have a good enough picture of his abilities to determine what features to add in. And an unrelated side note what is a... Gof'nn hupadgh Shub-Niggurath? Which story is that from, because I have never heard of them.

Not necessarily! I know they're not allowed in AL play or anything, and that not all home games would allow them, but one of the Plane Shift supplements does have a Naga race in there. About half the art for them seems to show the Byakhee as mostly-bipedal when on the ground, though, so I was seeing them as about equivalent to Nightgaunts in that regard anyway. They mostly occurred to me because from what I've seen in other games, they tend to be statted with human levels of intelligence. But if you don't see them as being playable or bipedal enough to work, that's totally fine, I'm not pushing for it!

Yithians, I do get your point, though it's kind of unfortunate. And the Yuan-ti Purebloods could be adjusted and refluffed to be Serpent People, though I don't think they work as-is they'd still be easy to tweak, so there's no need to put much work into them. (I'd say give Int +2 and Cha +1 instead of the other way around, say they're typically dispassionate re: good or evil and tend towards law, change their innate spellcasting to the changeling's Shapechanger racial ability but say they are actually casting the spell to do it so it can be dispelled, and maybe take away their Poison Immunity.) I missed the Wilbur Whateley discussion entirely! But I totally get why you'd feel there's just not enough to build on there.

The gof'nn hupadgh Shub-Niggurath are from "The Moon-Lens" by Ramsey Campbell! It was first published by Arkham House back in 1964 along with other Mythos stories of his (like "The Insects from Shaggai," "The Render of the Veils," and "The Mine on Yuggoth." They used to be human worshippers of Shub-Niggurath, but she "found them worthy" and transformed them into satyr-like beings that become immortal. Hence why they'd probably work better as a subclass of some sort. :smallsmile:


I did not want to include the rat-thing familiar because it seemed specific to that warlock (whose name I can't remember) from the dreams at the witch house, not quite something that every arcanist would be able to pick up. It seemed like his own custom monster he created to me, not so much as a species of monsters. I could be wrong, but I just find it weird for an arcanist to summon something so specific.

Yeah, in the original story it was pretty much one specific creature, but in the expanded Mythos it got generalized to a specific type or race of creatures. Totally fair to want to stick with the original and not make it a familiar, though. Or to not make it a familiar because even with it being a type of creature and not just one creature, all rat-things are still canonically created by turning a cultist or victim into the creature. So it's still pretty specific even if not "there was only the one" specific, and kinda unpleasant even if the person was a volunteer...

Requilac
2017-12-28, 07:22 AM
As for the undead thing, I was actually certain I've seen a number of spells that specify that they don't work against undead, but so far the only one I've found that specifies it doesn't work against undead is command. I do know that undead are not actually humanoids, so that any spells that specify they target humanoids specifically, such as charm person, do not actually target undead by RAW. Similarly, someone would have to use dominate monster against you rather than dominate person, etc. You're right that the healing thing probably wouldn't make it an even trade-off, though; to give benefit without the drawbacks, they'd have to just flat-out have an elfish ability to resist charms, or maybe a note that spells that target humanoids specifically do not affect them. But just dropping the idea and leaving it as-is would also work, I was just wanting to explain my line of thought.

That lack of healing is killer though. even if they are resistant to some other spells being unable to be healed is a pretty major disadvantage. I shall avoid it for now.



Not necessarily! I know they're not allowed in AL play or anything, and that not all home games would allow them, but one of the Plane Shift supplements does have a Naga race in there. About half the art for them seems to show the Byakhee as mostly-bipedal when on the ground, though, so I was seeing them as about equivalent to Nightgaunts in that regard anyway. They mostly occurred to me because from what I've seen in other games, they tend to be statted with human levels of intelligence. But if you don't see them as being playable or bipedal enough to work, that's totally fine, I'm not pushing for it!

Here is the description for Byakhee from The Festival; “There flapped rhythmically a horde of tame, trained, hybrid winged things... not altogether crows, nor moles, nor buzzards, nor ants, nor decomposed human beings, but something I cannot and must not recall." They really do not sound like anything that could be considered humanoid in shape to me. The night-guants were at the very least primate in shape, while byakhee were probably something closer to a bird or insect. Strange how MtG though would picture them as human-like. They were probably taking some artistic liberties when doing that.



Yithians, I do get your point, though it's kind of unfortunate. And the Yuan-ti Purebloods could be adjusted and refluffed to be Serpent People, though I don't think they work as-is they'd still be easy to tweak, so there's no need to put much work into them. (I'd say give Int +2 and Cha +1 instead of the other way around, say they're typically dispassionate re: good or evil and tend towards law, change their innate spellcasting to the changeling's Shapechanger racial ability but say they are actually casting the spell to do it so it can be dispelled, and maybe take away their Poison Immunity.) I missed the Wilbur Whateley discussion entirely! But I totally get why you'd feel there's just not enough to build on there.

I could look into into creating a serpent people race, though I confess that I really do not know a whole lot about them. I am not really what you would consider a new reader to Lovecraft, but in truth he wrote a lot of things, very many I sitll have not read. I guess the serpent race were more detailed somewhere in a story that is buried in the immense vaults of Lovecraft books I have not yet read. When I come across them I shall look into starting them though.



The gof'nn hupadgh Shub-Niggurath are from "The Moon-Lens" by Ramsey Campbell! It was first published by Arkham House back in 1964 along with other Mythos stories of his (like "The Insects from Shaggai," "The Render of the Veils," and "The Mine on Yuggoth." They used to be human worshippers of Shub-Niggurath, but she "found them worthy" and transformed them into satyr-like beings that become immortal. Hence why they'd probably work better as a subclass of some sort. :smallsmile:

Immortality is pretty significant, they do seem like something closer to a sub-class to me.



Yeah, in the original story it was pretty much one specific creature, but in the expanded Mythos it got generalized to a specific type or race of creatures. Totally fair to want to stick with the original and not make it a familiar, though. Or to not make it a familiar because even with it being a type of creature and not just one creature, all rat-things are still canonically created by turning a cultist or victim into the creature. So it's still pretty specific even if not "there was only the one" specific, and kinda unpleasant even if the person was a volunteer...

Yeah, that’s reason #2. We are playing D&D not CoC, I get the distinct feeling most players are not going to be comfortable with playing alongside a character that commits the whole rat-thing ritual. I highly doubt anyone is going to object to a zoog or cat of ulthar, but rat things are an entirely different matter altogether. There is no way that a good character would work alongside such a person who committed that ritual or even simply gained benefits from someone else doing it, especially certain clerics, druids and paladins.