The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able

[Inevitability]

Please post in the new thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?592054-The-LA-assignment-thread-VII-LA-LA-Land&p=24017360#post24017360), thanks in advance.

Thread number six already!

The purpose of the thread is unchanged: assign (mostly) balanced level adjustments to the many monsters in 3.5, regardless of type, size, or weirdness.

More information, a list of prior level adjustments, and explanations of some of the terms used in the thread can be found in the LA-assignment archive (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?518086-The-LA-assignment-archive&p=21798987).

[Inevitability]

Ssvaklor

http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r132/ooWynteroo/Horsley_Ralph-Ssvaklorjpg.jpg

No, my keyboard isn't sticky: it's actually spelled like that.

Ssvaklors are an interesting dragon/yuan-ti combination critter, that like so many of its kind doesn't inherit what makes either parent interesting. Fifteen dragon RHD are decent, but not great, especially in quantities like this. Medium size is completely ridiculous for any non-caster with this kind of RHD. 19 strength, 24 constitution, and 8-12 everywhere else isn't much to write home about either: nearly all brutes in the 5-10 HD range have similar, if not better ability scores.

The ssvaklor has base land and swim speeds of 40 ft., a reasonable amount of natural armor, two natural claws and a poisonous bite. They also have DR 10/magic, SR 18, scent, blindsense, and immunity to magical sleep, poison, and paralysis.

The serpentwyrm's special abilities are, to put it simply, disappointing. Its breath weapon is probably the most interesting, but it's poison-based, affects a small area, and only deals 1d4 constitution damage. Its spell-likes are ridiculously weak: 1/day Darkness, Entangle, Cause Fear, and Animal Trance might've been worth it at level 3, but they sure aren't now.

Ultimately, the ssvaklor just feels like a low-level monster that the developers tried to give a boost by inflating its RHD and increasing a few numbers. It's outclassed as a melee brute, as a breath weapon user, as a caster-type... I'd genuinely have trouble choosing between this and PrC-less human fighter, just to emphasize how terrible it is.

-0 LA, don't do dragonsnakes they're bad for you.


Greater Ssvaklor

Greater
\ˈgrā-tər \
comparative adjective
1. Describing basically the exact same monster but with twice the RHD.

Yeah, no amount of stat boosts and slightly-better SLAs is going to make this viable deep into epic. -0 LA once more.

[javcs]

Concur, -0 for the both of them.

As per usual for the dragon type, they suck for the number of RHD they have.

Edit: They are CR 10 ... and wtf how did they justify the greater as being CR 20.

[DeTess]

I don't think this one will generate much discusdion, unless there's a combo I'm missing. -0 for both of them.

[RedWarlock]

Tagging in on the thread to watch. The Ssvaklor is an interesting concept, but mechanically disappointing, even as a monster alone. Can’t see it getting anywhere as a playable.

[OgresAreCute]

Greater
\ˈgrā-tər \
comparative adjective
1. Describing basically the exact same monster but with twice the RHD.

I don't care who you are, that's funny.

-0 for the both of them.

[Unavenger]

See, dragon hit dice are often decent enough to straight-up take over fighter levels, so I'd probably actually take it over the straight-classed fighter. But not over a real build. -0, natch.

[Inevitability]

See, dragon hit dice are often decent enough to straight-up take over fighter levels, so I'd probably actually take it over the straight-classed fighter. But not over a real build. -0, natch.

Straight-classed fighter can do stuff like go Zhentarim Soldier or Dungeoncrasher, has a ton more feats (and terrible as most are, there's some good fighter-exclusive or fighter bonus feats), and also doesn't have to struggle as much with loot that doesn't fit their body type.

[Unavenger]

Straight-classed fighter can do stuff like go Zhentarim Soldier or Dungeoncrasher, has a ton more feats (and terrible as most are, there's some good fighter-exclusive or fighter bonus feats), and also doesn't have to struggle as much with loot that doesn't fit their body type.

True. I guess I just like high saves, skills, and having about twice as many hit points too much. :smalltongue:

Also, I quite like the DC 24+base con mod poison which paralyses enemies. That's a relatively strong meme at least - a lot of enemies will have a 50% failure chance or more, assuming they're not themselves poison-immune and you have a decent constitution.

[Efrate]

Easy -0 for both. Their poison might have some use for a poison maker with psionic minor creation, but greensickness is just better.

[Zaq]

Ugh, I missed the splinterwaif. They’re such neat critters! I think they’ve gotta be right around a very risky +2. +3 is unreasonable, but I will acknowledge that they have enough cookies to be worth more than their RHD alone.

Unlike, say, the ssvaklor. That’s an easy -0. I completely agree with the sentiment that they’re a low-level brute that got pumped full of RHD without any new tricks.

[Remuko]

Edit: They are CR 10 ... and wtf how did they justify the greater as being CR 20.

2/3 of HD = CR. 2/3 of 15 = 10. 2/3 of 30 = 20.

Concur with the -0 for both.

[GreatWyrmGold]

No, my keyboard isn't sticky: it's actually spelled like that.
Yeah, it's a snakey-dragon. It needs a snakey name, which has to involve hisses. It's childishly simple, if a bit childish; there's no reason to throw a hissy-fit about it.



The Ssvaklor is an interesting concept, but mechanically disappointing, even as a monster alone.
"What if we took two of the most iconic, if boring, abilities of yuan-ti and dragons and put them together? Poison breath, boom! Oh, and add a couple random C-tier abilities from each."
I mean, to be fair, that probably wasn't the exact design process; they probably went over a few combinations of dragon and yuan-ti abilities and went with the one that was simplest to use and played best.



True. I guess I just like high saves, skills, and having about twice as many hit points too much. :smalltongue:
Four skill points per level and two more good saves are nice, but I regret to inform you that dragon only have d12 hit dice, not d10. We only get twice as many hit points per level because of our high Constitution scores; if there was a fighter as tough as a dragon, they'd only be one hit point her hit die behind.



2/3 of HD = CR. 2/3 of 15 = 10. 2/3 of 30 = 20.
Makes sense. The fighter's going to get about as much stronger from level 10 to level 20 as the dragon would.
pointedly ignores spellcasters

[ViperMagnum357]

LA -0 on both versions of the snake dragon. Something went wrong between concept and execution, and this thing is too boring to bother examining why. Next.

[No brains]

Why do I feel like I've killed hundreds of these guys grinding in some video RPG?

[Thurbane]

There are far better playable dragons than these guys. They get a bucket-load of RHD, with relatively little to show for it (in dragon terms). You'd probably be better off playing a half-dragon yuan-ti.

LA -0 for both.

Always cracked me up that the illustration has wings, but it doen't get a fly speed. I'd imagine it was one of those deals where either the art department and creature creator didn't communicate; or the stat block was changed AFTER the art was commissioned.

[javcs]

There are far better playable dragons than these guys. They get a bucket-load of RHD, with relatively little to show for it (in dragon terms). You'd probably be better off playing a half-dragon yuan-ti.

LA -0 for both.

Always cracked me up that the illustration has wings, but it doen't get a fly speed. I'd imagine it was one of those deals where either the art department and creature creator didn't communicate; or the stat block was changed AFTER the art was commissioned.

It's got a swim speed, though, so its wings serve the same purpose as those of a penguin, presumably.

[Unavenger]

Four skill points per level and two more good saves are nice, but I regret to inform you that dragon only have d12 hit dice, not d10. We only get twice as many hit points per level because of our high Constitution scores; if there was a fighter as tough as a dragon, they'd only be one hit point her hit die behind.

I mean, yeah, but you get a +7 to constitution modifier, so +8 to hit points per level over the fighter. If the fighter has +2 or +3 constitution modifier, that means about twice as many as the fighter.

[Covenant12]

Yeah, solidly both LA -0. RHD bloat is the real issue here.

I've looked at it from a few angles, can't see any way for this to contribute in a 15th level party other than speed bump. Druid's animal companion will likely be better.

Poison is Con damage and paralysis, and Con based with 24 base Con, so that is something. Fort tends to be the highest save among PC's opponents, and poison immunity is common. Without that it can't compete with an Orc warblade. Note that the tolerable damage is partially due to two feats for Improved Natural Attack, so it will compete badly with a Full BAB beatstick.

[Lapak]

I'm glad we had the Splinterwaif as a palate cleanser, because this is a particularly clear -0.

[Thurbane]

It's got a swim speed, though, so its wings serve the same purpose as those of a penguin, presumably.

Makes me want to stat up the majestic Pengodragon (Pendragon?):



http://i68.tinypic.com/jsf5zt.jpg

[No brains]

Makes me want to stat up the majestic Pengodragon (Pendragon?):



http://i68.tinypic.com/jsf5zt.jpg




It's a draguin!

[javcs]

Makes me want to stat up the majestic Pengodragon (Pendragon?):



http://i68.tinypic.com/jsf5zt.jpg




Pengon? Dracoguin? Dracopen? Penguidrake? Arctic/Antarctic Sea Drake?

Perhaps they're an Arctic/Aquatic variation or cousin to the Pseudodragon.

[Flickerdart]

Greater
\ˈgrā-tər \
comparative adjective
1. Describing basically the exact same monster but with twice the RHD.


After all these years, I never thought I'd be updating my signature.

[TotallyNotEvil]

Yeah, these do remind me of something video-gamey.

[No brains]

Yeah, these do remind me of something video-gamey.

I think reminds me of Great Dragons in FF9.

[Hackulator]

Ssvalkor is really bad, and shockingly greater really bad is still bad, so -0 all around. While I could imagine a game where it could be fun to play, I have to imagine pretty hard.

[jindra34]

Has there ever been a greater [x] that actually got a higher LA than the basic?

[javcs]

Has there ever been a greater [x] that actually got a higher LA than the basic?

Pretty sure that there hasn't been.
There might be a couple that haven't had a lower LA, not counting ones that were both -0.

[danielxcutter]

Pretty sure that there hasn't been.
There might be a couple that haven't had a lower LA, not counting ones that were both -0.

There's been two Greater monsters that didn't get an LA -0; the Greater Barghest and the Greater Shadow.

[Zaq]

There's been two Greater monsters that didn't get an LA -0; the Greater Barghest and the Greater Shadow.

And while it didn’t use the actual word “greater,” the splinterwaif knave walked away with +0, so there’s probably one or two others (at least) that a simple ctrl-F for “greater” would miss.

But yeah, for the purposes of this thread, RHD advancement is bad 99% of the time.

[Flickerdart]

Of the various schools of monster design (who never talk to one another and never admit they exist) there seems to be one that likes to make punching bag monsters. Reasonable-sounding offensive abilities, easy to hit, but a metric ton of beef. Raw hit dice stacking is an easy way to turn any monster into a punching bag monster, and WotC likes them a lot because players get to feel accomplished when they hit the thing, but can't one-shot it to take away that satisfaction from the other players. The same works the other way around: weak attacks threaten a PC without one-shotting them.

For obvious reasons, these monsters make terrible PCs themselves.

[danielxcutter]

Of the various schools of monster design (who never talk to one another and never admit they exist) there seems to be one that likes to make punching bag monsters. Reasonable-sounding offensive abilities, easy to hit, but a metric ton of beef. Raw hit dice stacking is an easy way to turn any monster into a punching bag monster, and WotC likes them a lot because players get to feel accomplished when they hit the thing, but can't one-shot it to take away that satisfaction from the other players. The same works the other way around: weak attacks threaten a PC without one-shotting them.

For obvious reasons, these monsters make terrible PCs themselves.

It's not a terrible idea in terms of monster design, I'd say, especially since most monsters weren't made to be PCs in the first place.

[Thurbane]

As a DM, I like to use "wall of meat" type encounters; but the problem is, unless they have immunities or resistances, as soon as the party gets access to a Will or Reflex based save-or-lose, they become more or less useless...

[danielxcutter]

As a DM, I like to use "wall of meat" type encounters; but the problem is, unless they have immunities or resistances, as soon as the party gets access to a Will or Reflex based save-or-lose, they become more or less useless...

So a monster with good defenses compared to offensive capabilities, presuming it doesn't make the battle a boring grind, makes for a fun monster to fight?

[GreatWyrmGold]

But yeah, for the purposes of this thread, RHD advancement is bad 99% of the time.
It's like a class level, but without any class features.



...Raw hit dice stacking is an easy way to turn any monster into a punching bag monster, and WotC likes them a lot because players get to feel accomplished when they hit the thing, but can't one-shot it to take away that satisfaction from the other players. The same works the other way around: weak attacks threaten a PC without one-shotting them.
Of course, this isn't unique to D&D (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HealthDamageAsymmetry). In fact, D&D is one of the less-extreme versions.



As a DM, I like to use "wall of meat" type encounters; but the problem is, unless they have immunities or resistances, as soon as the party gets access to a Will or Reflex based save-or-lose, they become more or less useless...
Beyond that, it's easy for walls of meat to become repetitive and samey. There's only so much players can do to make trading full attacks interesting.

[Thurbane]

So a monster with good defenses compared to offensive capabilities, presuming it doesn't make the battle a boring grind, makes for a fun monster to fight?

Pretty much, yeah.


Beyond that, it's easy for walls of meat to become repetitive and samey. There's only so much players can do to make trading full attacks interesting.

Also true.



One of the most annoying things I find is that by the time that monsters like most standard Giants come on line (as a CR appropriate fight), the party already has abilities that make the fight a cakewalk. Unless you slap class levels or templates on them (and push their CR up further)...which kind of defeats the point.

I like a mix of encounters for the parties I DM, but I do like the occasional melee grind type encounter.

[javcs]

There's been two Greater monsters that didn't get an LA -0; the Greater Barghest and the Greater Shadow.


And while it didn’t use the actual word “greater,” the splinterwaif knave walked away with +0, so there’s probably one or two others (at least) that a simple ctrl-F for “greater” would miss.

But yeah, for the purposes of this thread, RHD advancement is bad 99% of the time.

Ah, but while both of those have a positive LA, their LA values are lower than the baseline version.

As such, while they have a positive LA, it is not an increased LA over the baseline, which was the original question.

[OgresAreCute]

Ah, but while both of those have a positive LA, their LA values are lower than the baseline version.

As such, while they have a positive LA, it is not an increased LA over the baseline, which was the original question.

Well, "greater" usually means "advanced by 8-12 RHD" which also sometimes brings with it some stat boosts or a size increase. Obviously, no PC is going to spend 8 HD on +8 STR and some natural armor, so they are pretty much invariably lower LA (unless you ask WotC, in which case more stat boosts = more LA regardless of how many RHD you pay for it).

[Inevitability]

Stonesinger

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/sfery/images/d/de/Trallusk.jpeg/revision/latest?cb=20160611162514

If this is a stonesinger, does that mean it likes rock music?

Jokes aside, I actually really like this monster! It's got an uncanny design that in my opinion shows what an aberration should be like, it is truly weird to interact with, and it's got cool special abilities. The only remaining question: does it make a good PC?

Sadly, nine aberration HD make me think the answer to that is going to be 'no'. Large size is decent, the ability scores are decent (20 strength, 18 constitution and charisma, 16 intelligence, 10 wisdom and dexterity), DR 5/magic is kinda meh. The critter has various movement modes, but they're all on the slow side.

In terms of natural attacks, it has six 1d6 claws and a 2d6 bite. The bite also injects a very interesting poison that deals low dexterity damage but completely fossilizes creatures reduced to 0 dex by it. It's not too useful on a PC, but nothing if not flavorful.

Next is Shattering Shriek, which lets the stonesinger deal 12d6 nonlethal damage by making a Perform(Sing) check that exceeds the target's touch AC (apparently, being nimble allows you to dodge sound in D&D). If the target fails a saving throw, it's also stunned for 1d6 rounds, making this a decent save-or-suck. Sadly, its use is limited to once every 5 rounds.

The stonesinger's SLAs are reasonable. 3/day Meld Into Stone and Stone Shape have their uses, and 1/day Wall of Stone is pretty great BFC.

Overall, I'm just not sure this is worth +0 LA. Maybe it if had a few less RHD, or a somewhat better chassis, it'd be worth it, but right now I feel like this monster is just a poor attempt at a BFC caster.

[remetagross]

Yeah, -0 LA. This thing has a particularly horrible design. As for its abilities, they're much better than a bunch of what other 9-HDers have brought to the table, and the diversity of what it can attempt to do is neat. But yeah, maybe at 5 HDs, not so much at 9.

[danielxcutter]

Seven attacks? Probably not going to bring this up to LA +0, but bonus damage(ie. Sneak Attack) could build up a lot, especially with (Improved) Rapidstrike.

[Random Sanity]

Seven natural attacks sounds nice, but at ECL-"you're starting to run into stuff with DR on a semi-regular basis", they kinda lose a lot of their oomph.

Also, this thing has basically nothing on the defensive side; really, how many things in the game have trouble hitting a 21 AC by level 9?

[Hackulator]

Seven natural attacks sounds nice, but at ECL-"you're starting to run into stuff with DR on a semi-regular basis", they kinda lose a lot of their oomph.

Also, this thing has basically nothing on the defensive side; really, how many things in the game have trouble hitting a 21 AC by level 9?

Well, it has DR/Magic, so its attacks defeat DR/Magic.

If it was a PC, you could drop pretty much all those godawful feat selections for stuff that might help you, except probably multiattack. It's stats would of course be even higher because most games start you with better than an array of 10s, so it's DCs should go up. Although it doesn't specify it per se in the descriptive text, I would argue given that it eats rocks it's burrow speed should work through stone, which is actually a pretty powerful ability. Poison whose DC scales with HD as this one clearly should is pretty good. Use some WBL to shore up it's weaknesses and accentuate it's strengths and I'd say a good player could play this at 9th level at most tables and contribute. Hell, there are so many situations I have been in in games where the ability to burrow through stone would have solved things that I think that alone is almost enough to make it playable.

I give it a +0, with the caveat that in most games it would be difficult to play because of RP reasons, as people would run screaming or try to murder you any time you went into town.

[unseenmage]

... Although it doesn't specify it per se in the descriptive text, I would argue given that it eats rocks it's burrow speed should work through stone, which is actually a pretty powerful ability. ...
Just because I eat steak does not mean I can burrow through steak. :smalltongue:

The eating apparatus and the burrowing apparatus are likely to be separate bits.

[Hackulator]

Just because I eat steak does not mean I can burrow through steak. :smalltongue:

The eating apparatus and the burrowing apparatus are likely to be separate bits.

I bet you could in fact burrow through steak, albeit slowly.

[Lapak]

A Burrow speed through flesh of even 10' per round would make a monster nearly unstoppable. Why deal hit point damage when you can just drill a hole through people?

[liquidformat]

Both seem like solid -0 though Stonesinger doesn't seem far off from +0...

[ViperMagnum357]

Stonesinger: Above average natural AC for 9 RHD, and net +32 abilities are just below par-acceptable on about 8 RHD. DR 5/Magic means its natural attacks bypass DR/Magic, so you can scrimp on the necklace for a while. 7 natural attacks with average base damage have potential, while the decent poison and SLAs are solid.

However, this thing loses 3 points of BAB and has 9 levels of 2 poor saves and 2+Int skills, so it compares poorly to most natural attack builds that got their extra attacks through PRCs or quality templates. It is also rather slow, even with the extra movement modes-its base land and climb speed are 10-20 feet per round slower than average for such a multi-ped, but the burrow speed alleviates that somewhat. And the usual disclaimer about no obvious hands and odd body slots.

Overall, I am leaning towards an almost playable LA -0. I think you could shave as little as a single RHD to get something on par, albeit with the usual DM caveat about critters with no obvious manipulator limbs.

[Thurbane]

Less HD, I'd be happy to give this LA +0. 9 Aberration HD? Yeah, LA -0, unfortunately.

[GreatWyrmGold]

(unless you ask WotC, in which case more stat boosts = more LA regardless of how many RHD you pay for it).
Stat boosts make you stronger, above and beyond the benefits of getting the RHD. They're additional features, why should you get features for free when you take levels?
Darn, I never managed to work the word "class" into there...


Next is Shattering Shriek, which lets the stonesinger deal 12d6 nonlethal damage by making a Perform(Sing) check that exceeds the target's touch AC (apparently, being nimble allows you to dodge sound in D&D).
That makes...only slightly less sense than a Reflex save for half damage.
Anyways, the Shattering Shriek is a good way to open encounters. Skill checks are pretty easy to boost, and most enemies will have mediocre touch ACs (because there aren't a lot of ways to boost those, especially for enemies which tend towards big-tough-and-clumsy), meaning that they immediately lose about 72 hit points. The stunning and not-killing-enemies-you-don't-want-to is just gravy.
...That said, I have no idea where you'd go after that, either in the sense of "What do you do on round 2" or "What do you do at level 10". Maybe you could go rogue, try to get some sneak attacks on the stunned enemies? I'm not sure that one (maybe two) big stunning blasts per combat and potentially some d6 sneak attacks are going to compete with what humanod rogues or even single-classed fighters are going to do with equal consistency, let alone what happens when even low-tier casters break out the big guns. Out of combat, they're not completely devoid of utility, but their special abilities are pretty situational and arguably counterbalanced by the lack of hands.



A Burrow speed through flesh of even 10' per round would make a monster nearly unstoppable. Why deal hit point damage when you can just drill a hole through people?
This discussion got weird fast.

[Zaq]

I’m trying to justify going above -0 on the stonesinger. It has a few interesting standard actions and enough natural attacks to inform a build, but like GWG said, it’s hard to think of what you want your class levels to be. Maybe something with sneak attack? That many Craven-boosted swings per round will be noticeable if you can get HiPS or something, but don’t ask me how to do that. Maybe a Tiger Claw user? The SLAs are actually semi-decent, which helps a lot.

Hmm. May have to give up for now. It’s just outside the range where this is salvageable, I think.

[Unavenger]

A Burrow speed through flesh of even 10' per round would make a monster nearly unstoppable. Why deal hit point damage when you can just drill a hole through people?

Sure, I'll keep that in mind next time I'm fighting an earth elemental if I have a burrow speed. I didn't think, up until now, that it needed saying that being able to burrow through something that isn't trying to fight back is not the same as being able to murder someone.

[javcs]

It's a -0. Not terribly far from being at the bottom end of +0, but there's little in the way of the scaling, and there's not really a clear progression path forwards.

9RHD hurts a lot, and any builds that rely on spamming attacks (you do have 7 natural attacks) usually rely heavily on class levels for bonus damage and/or getting pouncing abilities.

The Shattering Shriek ability might be more useful if it weren't single target.


Plus the lack of hands.


Makes for an interesting encounter, though.

[remetagross]

Anyways, the Shattering Shriek is a good way to open encounters. Skill checks are pretty easy to boost, and most enemies will have mediocre touch ACs (because there aren't a lot of ways to boost those, especially for enemies which tend towards big-tough-and-clumsy), meaning that they immediately lose about 72 hit points. The stunning and not-killing-enemies-you-don't-want-to is just gravy.

Beware, 12d6 on average yields 42, not 72 which is 12d6 at a maximum. Still powerful, mind you, but 72 would have been enough to outright knock down ennemy rogues and casters.

[Lapak]

Sure, I'll keep that in mind next time I'm fighting an earth elemental if I have a burrow speed. I didn't think, up until now, that it needed saying that being able to burrow through something that isn't trying to fight back is not the same as being able to murder someone.
I was definitely being serious and not at all trying to make a joke when I posted right after the person talking about steak. :smallwink:

But with regard to the Stonesinger, yeah, -0. I could see +0 at 6 or 7 HD, maybe, but 9 Abberation HD demands some really good features in return, not just a one-shot single-target blast and an admittedly-good natural attack routine that you could pick up for fewer HD and/or class levels.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

For what class this critter should be taking, probably Totemist. Heart of fire and dread carapace add some nice damage to all of those natural attacks, and other soulmelds provide some utility. Maybe dip barbarian for pounce, and if you need higher level chakras unlocked there're the Unlock Chakra feats.

That said, I'm not savvy enough to say whether the Stonesinger's natural attacks, abilities, and movement make it roughly equivalent to a totemist 9.

[Covenant12]

I like some of the abilities, but I tentatively vote -0.

Decent stats, good NA, 7 attacks, but 9 bad RHD. Wall of stone is never useless, but its 1/day and the spell-likes don't scale well. Note that the 2d6 bite took INA to get there, so you have 7 weak attacks. That as noted pierce DR magic, but watch out for golems and the like. Poison is weak but should have a decent DC, based off HD and respectable Con score.

Int 16 is nice even with 2+ skill points/level. Listen and Spot plus 120' darkvision provide a use besides beatstick. (and tunnel-maker with generous DM).

Still seems limited and underwhelming. Definitely watching for someone to pull something I'm not thinking of, swordsage/sneak attack/craven/fire to attacks? It won't be easy, but could be possible. It has inherent 10' reach, I just don't see it excelling at a melee BFC though.

[Efrate]

I really want to give this +0, but i just cannot. 9 aberration hd need a lot of love to be viable. You could do some sort of swordsage totemist and/or rogue with craven and focus on shadow hand for movement. Get pounce via totemist and blend a stunned target. Its a very binary playstyle but its likely usable.

I think I will go -0.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Maybe something with sneak attack? That many Craven-boosted swings per round will be noticeable if you can get HiPS or something, but don’t ask me how to do that.
Personally, I'd try to find some way to consistently get flanks. If only you could take a dip in splinterwaif for their call bramble ability...


Beware, 12d6 on average yields 42, not 72 which is 12d6 at a maximum. Still powerful, mind you, but 72 would have been enough to outright knock down ennemy rogues and casters.
...Yup. Not sure how I screwed up that formula, but I did.

[Thurbane]

The thing I like 2nd most about these threads are that they often bring my attention to monsters, that I was otherwise "unaware of" as a DM. Sure, I've flipped through the books, but often never bothered reading the full monster write-up.

So, DM question: aside from the obvious choices of class levels and Assassin's Stance, what are some easy ways to get Sneak Attack on a Stonesinger? Are there any templates that grant SA?

[Dimers]

I really want to disagree and give Stonesinger +0 (it seems utile and fun), but the body shape problems push it over the edge for me. I, too, vote -0.

[martixy]

In general these threads have been super useful for me, running an almost exclusively monster-based campaign. However I feel they exhibit one glaring omission: Negative numbers. I.e. negative LA. I.e. how many RHD do I need to chop off, to make this playable...

Granted, not all monsters make sense in this case, but the majority do.

Any thoughts on giving that idea consideration?

[Saintheart]

The thing I like 2nd most about these threads are that they often bring my attention to monsters, that I was otherwise "unaware of" as a DM. Sure, I've flipped through the books, but often never bothered reading the full monster write-up.

So, DM question: aside from the obvious choices of class levels and Assassin's Stance, what are some easy ways to get Sneak Attack on a Stonesinger? Are there any templates that grant SA?

I don't know about class levels or templates, but one way to ape the effect of low-powered SA might be Necklace of Natural Weapons + Assassination Weapon Property, which applies an extra d6 on flank or denied DEX bonus to AC.


Oh, and -0 for Stonesinger for what it's worth.

[DeTess]

In general these threads have been super useful for me, running an almost exclusively monster-based campaign. However I feel they exhibit one glaring omission: Negative numbers. I.e. negative LA. I.e. how many RHD do I need to chop off, to make this playable...

Granted, not all monsters make sense in this case, but the majority do.

Any thoughts on giving that idea consideration?

Negative LA and 'deprogress by X RHD' aren't quite the same thing, with negative LA being a bit of a can of worms, optmization-wise.

That having been said, for close to playable monsters like these, the anmount if HD loss is often discussed somewhat(in this case 2 would do the trick I think, maybe as little as 1), but I'm not sure if its worth the effort for every bad monster. That's just my vague opinion though.

[javcs]

In general these threads have been super useful for me, running an almost exclusively monster-based campaign. However I feel they exhibit one glaring omission: Negative numbers. I.e. negative LA. I.e. how many RHD do I need to chop off, to make this playable...

Granted, not all monsters make sense in this case, but the majority do.

Any thoughts on giving that idea consideration?
Well, the thing with negative LA is that it doesn't actually exist.
Or rather, what negative LA means and does is undefined and so can mean different things to different people.
There are three main versions of what negative LA would/should be. And every option has tradeoffs.
To some, negative LA means an ECL reduction with no effect on HD. This might be the simplest and easiest option, but it opens up early access to things locked behind HD dependent factors (feats, skills, BAB, base saves, etc.).
To some, it means reducing RHD, but then you run into the issue of monster PCs being weaker than the baseline monsters as NPCs.
To others, it would mean giving that many levels as gestalt levels alongside RHD. Then you need to figure out how to distribute these gestalted levels. Plus, not everybody likes gestalt.

And each option affects balance differently, and would likely result in a different value for a given creaure's negative LA based on what application of negative LA you use.


Edit: IIRC, there was an attempt to work out negative LAs in a parallel thread early on, but it died out.

I thought the Assassin weapon quality required having your own Sneak Attack before you got its bonus Sneak Attack.
Unless I'm thinking of something else with that caveat.

[martixy]

Well, the thing with negative LA is that it doesn't actually exist.
Or rather, what negative LA means and does is undefined and so can mean different things to different people.
There are three main versions of what negative LA would/should be. And every option has tradeoffs.
To some, negative LA means an ECL reduction with no effect on HD. This might be the simplest and easiest option, but it opens up early access to things locked behind HD dependent factors (feats, skills, BAB, base saves, etc.).
To some, it means reducing RHD, but then you run into the issue of monster PCs being weaker than the baseline monsters as NPCs.
To others, it would mean giving that many levels as gestalt levels alongside RHD. Then you need to figure out how to distribute these gestalted levels. Plus, not everybody likes gestalt.

And each option affects balance differently, and would likely result in a different value for a given creaure's negative LA based on what application of negative LA you use.


Edit: IIRC, there was an attempt to work out negative LAs in a parallel thread early on, but it died out.

I thought the Assassin weapon quality required having your own Sneak Attack before you got its bonus Sneak Attack.
Unless I'm thinking of something else with that caveat.

Facepalm!

The gestalt solution is brilliant! And right in front of my face the whole time! Why didn't I think of that?

But even just chopping off RHD is generally okay, the transparency between both sides of the screen is usually limited enough for the power difference you mentioned not to matter. That is to say, PCs don't get to read the entire actual stat blocks of things they face, and any apparent differences can be dressed up.

[Saintheart]

I thought the Assassin weapon quality required having your own Sneak Attack before you got its bonus Sneak Attack.

Not according to WOTC (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20070314a).


An assassination weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of damage against a foe who is flat-footed or otherwise denied a Dexterity bonus to AC, or who is flanked. If the wielder deals sneak attack damage from other sources, such as levels in the rogue class, the extra damage stacks.

[danielxcutter]

I dunno about damage, but the Island of Blades stance makes it fantastically easy to set up flanks.

[Inevitability]

In general these threads have been super useful for me, running an almost exclusively monster-based campaign. However I feel they exhibit one glaring omission: Negative numbers. I.e. negative LA. I.e. how many RHD do I need to chop off, to make this playable...

Granted, not all monsters make sense in this case, but the majority do.

Any thoughts on giving that idea consideration?

Negative LA is something that's unlikely to be implemented, mostly because having a creature with more HD than its ECL quickly becomes very tricky to balance and also destroys some of the assumptions inherit in the system. There was a thread dedicated to it but it seems to have stopped.

'Chop off X RHD to make this balanced' is in my opinion the better way of making -0 LA monsters playable, and sometimes I do in fact mention something to that extent when rating a monster. I'll try and do so more consistently.

For what it's worth, the stonesinger would probably be balanced with... about 2 less HD? Maybe 3? I'm honestly just eyeballing this but that sounds about right.

[martixy]

Negative LA is something that's unlikely to be implemented, mostly because having a creature with more HD than its ECL quickly becomes very tricky to balance and also destroys some of the assumptions inherit in the system. There was a thread dedicated to it but it seems to have stopped.

'Chop off X RHD to make this balanced' is in my opinion the better way of making -0 LA monsters playable, and sometimes I do in fact mention something to that extent when rating a monster. I'll try and do so more consistently.

For what it's worth, the stonesinger would probably be balanced with... about 2 less HD? Maybe 3? I'm honestly just eyeballing this but that sounds about right.

This is actually what I meant by "negative LA" - an indicator of how much RHD to remove to make it playable. It was never about actually putting negative LA. That messes with some basic assumptions in the system that I'd never want anyone messing with.

On the other hand, the gestalt approach also has merit, and the idea I had there, was to give additional class levels based on the number of RHD at an exchange rate dictated by this table here: Improving Monsters (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#addingHitDice), but kinda in reverse (e.g. every 4 dragon RHD receive 1 gestalt class level, every 2 abberation HD receive 1 class level).

That being said, can you please actually start including these evaluations in the future entries? That way any effort just has to catch up to here, rather than redo the WHOLE D&D bestiary? And seeing as how only the -0 LA entries merit a revisit, it should not be that much of an effort.

Also, what is this legendary thread everyone keeps mentioning? Point me, cuz I might wanna resurrect it (or make a new one, and continue where it left off, no sense in reinventing the wheel).

[GreatWyrmGold]

In general these threads have been super useful for me, running an almost exclusively monster-based campaign. However I feel they exhibit one glaring omission: Negative numbers. I.e. negative LA. I.e. how many RHD do I need to chop off, to make this playable...

Granted, not all monsters make sense in this case, but the majority do.

Any thoughts on giving that idea consideration?
Regularly. I tried giving it a shot once, and I think one or two others did, too.



That being said, can you please actually start including these evaluations in the future entries? That way any effort just has to catch up to here, rather than redo the WHOLE D&D bestiary? And seeing as how only the -0 LA entries merit a revisit, it should not be that much of an effort.
...You do realize that most monsters end up with -0 LA, right?


Also, what is this legendary thread everyone keeps mentioning? Point me, cuz I might wanna resurrect it (or make a new one, and continue where it left off, no sense in reinventing the wheel).
Here's mine. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?533018-The-LA-Assignment-Thread-1-Or-Inevitably-Rejected) I think someone else posted a link to theirs in there.
Note that I was going on the theory of "Just reduce ECL, hope the excess HD don't cause issues." Looks like I got a dozen monsters into the first Monster Manual before deciding it wasn't worth my time.

[Inevitability]

Summoning Ooze

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/eberron/images/0/0d/83059.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20111016203716

The Blob, except it also vomits up rodents. Let's see how playable it is.

5 ooze RHD are... not good, to say the least, by which I mean 'somewhat worse than aristocrat hit dice'. At least they have a host of useful immunities.

Ability-wise, summoning oozes aren't as bad as some of their mindless cousins. +4/+2/+6/+0/+2/+4 is reasonable for a medium creature, and leaves the ooze without considerable deficiencies. On top of this, they get 60 ft. blindsight, fast healing 5, +7 natural armor, two useful immunities to acid and fire, and a slow climb speed. In terms of natural weapons, summoning oozes have two natural slams that deal unimpressive base damage with some acid tacked on.

The main ability, of course, is Summon Monster. As a standard action, a summoning ooze can conjure an extraplanar critter, further boosted by the ooze's Augment Summoning bonus feat. This ability has an impressive CL of 20, but is limited to summoning twice the ooze's HD in creatures per day. In addition, while it starts off as Summon Monster I, every two HD (that's HD, not RHD) the ooze gets upgrades the spell a little: Summon Monster 2 by 7 HD, SM3 by 9 HD, and so on, until SM6 at 15 HD.

Honestly, this seems like a somewhat difficult monster to rate, mostly because of the scaling abilities. Sacrificing 5 HD to get a few summoned badgers a day isn't too impressive, but getting to summon chaos beasts and bralani for the same cost at ECL 15 is a different matter.

Comparing the summoning ooze to a summon-focused tier 2 or 3 class, however, kind of puts its abilities in perspective, in no small part because of its difficulty finding suitable class levels. A level 15 sorcerer will have a far more considerable summoning capacity than a level 10 sorcerer summoning ooze, even with the latter's free castings of Summon Monster VI (after all, the sorcerer is already up to Summon Monster VII and Planar Binding).

With this in mind, I think the only fitting LA is -0.

DMs willing to experiment a bit could consider removing 2-3 of the RHD (depending on balance point). This way, a caster is still a spell level ahead, but the ooze's abilities are both less costly and more useful at the levels they become available.

[Thurbane]

It's definitely one of the more interesting oozes out there.


5 RHD kind of suck, it can't be denied.
Str +4, Con +6, Wis +2, Cha +4. And most importantly, it has Int!
Fast healing 5, immunity to acid and fire, ooze traits...nice.
+7 natural AC, 10 ft climb speed, 2 slams. Not bad.
Augment Summoning as a bonus feat is cool, considering it's schtick.
Skill list is small, but all decent skills.
The Summoning Monster ability is interesting. It's quite limited, though.

I'm going to fly in the face of conventional wisdom here, and give it an LA +0. Ooze type makes equipment a nightmare, and your class options will be limited, but I still think you gets lots of nice things.

I recently made a thread around the spell casting options for oozes: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?580183-3-5-Spellcasting-Oozes

[Hackulator]

I feel like immunity to poison, fire, paralysis, sleep, stun, polymorph, critical hits, flanking, and acid makes it something you could figure out a legitimate way to play, though ooze HD at frickin terrible.

+0 for me, certainly not optimal but playable.

[ViperMagnum357]

Usual boiler plate about lack of obvious manipulators/hands and body slots, further impacted by permanent blindness past 60 ft, plus the usual complications within that range (Darkstalker, Ethereal, blocked line of effect, vacuum, colors/contrast).

Chassis: net abilities +16 is par for 4 RHD, not 5; while +7 natural AC better than expected. Summoning is a decent trick, but will be worse per level than a full caster around tier 3, who can do that and plenty more besides. Ooze immunities plus 2 energy immunities are nice to package with a climb speed and another +12 bonus to skills; however, that climb speed is too low to be combat effect in most situations, and your ground speed is 10 ft slower than average.

Annnd the elephant in the room-those Ooze RHD cost you 2 points of BAB over 5 levels, and give you whopping base saves of +1 across the board. You have a 10 sided RHD with 2 + Int skills and no racial bonus to Int to pump into all 5 of your class skills; whoopee. Skill monkey is probably out, while investing 5 levels in this package is very unappetizing for martials. Body shape leaving your chakras in doubt means Incarnum is iffy, while straight caster has many better options regardless of class. That leaves direct comparisons to other mix n' match classes with a solid chassis and a few specific tricks they lean heavily on, like Binder or Warlock.

Overall, I am voting for LA -0, borderline. most of the abilities are par, but taking so many small hits across such a broad scatter (speed, saves, skills, below average net abilities) drops this down a peg. Keep it as is with only 4 RHD, and I would easily call it a solid LA +0 in spite of its flaws, but they are too much as printed to keep pace.

[GreatWyrmGold]

There are certainly worse ways to get ooze immunities. You only lose 5 levels, and get a unique scaling ability (plus a couple of miscellaneous defensive abilities).

[Thurbane]

Is there some sort of eye-graft or anything that gets around the visual limitations?

Can oozes even have grafts?

How about some sort of familiar or other companion that allows you to see through its eyes?

[remetagross]

A slotless (say, a Ioun Stone) psionic item of continuous Synesthete (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/synesthete.htm) would cost 6k gp, and permanently resolve the issue of vision/hearing (only one at a time). Buying another one would allow the Ooze to enjoy both sight and sound.

[Hackulator]

A slotless (say, a Ioun Stone) psionic item of continuous Synesthete (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/synesthete.htm) would cost 6k gp, and permanently resolve the issue of vision/hearing (only one at a time). Buying another one would allow the Ooze to enjoy both sight and sound.

I don't think that works because Synesthete requires a face.

[Lapak]

I'm more inclined to explore this as a bruiser which gets the summoning as an add-on rather than comparing it to a casting summoner. 5 HD make it borderline, but you could do worse than take a ToB class - you can get your IL up to 17 by ECL 20 and even have one extra level to play with, either to dip a different initiator or tag on a non-initiating prestige class.

I'm ok calling it a very weak +0 rather than a -0. Unlike most of these which only give you a bunch of questionable defensive abilities, the Summon is pretty broadly useful for offense and utility, and the defensive powers are reasonably high-end.

Edit: ooze hit dice really are terrible, though.

[remetagross]

I don't think that works because Synesthete requires a face.

Luckily enough, cube-shaped Oozes have six of those :smallbiggrin:
More seriously, well, either the DM is nice enough to handwave that, or he's playing it hard by RAW, and he's not letting you play a Summoning Ooze as a PC in the first place. Or, one could argue that there's no clear definition of what a "face" is for an Ooze...going by a topological point of view, I'd be tempted to say the Summoning Ooze has only two faces: the surface it has in contact with the ground, and the rest of its body surface. Answers abound!

[Mike Miller]

I feel like the summon ooze is +0. Although the line between +0 and -0 is sometimes difficult to decide on (and possibly pointless).

[Efrate]

This is rough. It does skirt the line between +/- 0. I will go with +0 just because the difficulties with interacting with the world on top of everything else. It needs a lot of work to make work and it seems just worth it. I could be swayed to minus 0 however but if any ooze is playable its this one.

[Falontani]

This is rough. It does skirt the line between +/- 0. I will go with +0 just because the difficulties with interacting with the world on top of everything else. It needs a lot of work to make work and it seems just worth it. I could be swayed to minus 0 however but if any ooze is playable its this one.

I usually only lurk in these threads, but I'd like to say that there are some interesting classes that the Summoning Ooze can break into that are generally harder to enter on non full spellcasters. Fiendbinder from ToM as an example could be entered using the racial summoning, and with just a little work you could make a fairly interesting Demonologist/Fiendbinder. Or Nar Demonbinder. I personally agree that it should be +0

[martixy]

DMs willing to experiment a bit could consider removing 2-3 of the RHD (depending on balance point). This way, a caster is still a spell level ahead, but the ooze's abilities are both less costly and more useful at the levels they become available.

a) Thanks for this.
b) Seems like the general consensus is teetering on LA ±0. I think I'd probably fall on the -0 side, but it does mean we are at around -1 RHD, -2 at best.
Though I am not sure about the interpretation of scaling with HD, rather than RHD (though I am fine with it, because the "correct" is also the "dysfunctional" one).

Ultimately, I think I'd go LA-0, RHD-1.

Edit: Ultimately I think I'll make my own thread, just so I have control over post 1. Accepting name suggestions:
The LA-Assignment Thread -0: ???

[Celestia]

Definitely -0. Immunities and a single decent trick are not worth the physical deficiencies of being an ooze. I'd rather have hands than immunity to paralysis, and I'd rather have eyes than immunity to fire. And that's not even mentioning the fact that ooze HD suck all the balls and leave this thing with no clear advancement path.

[Dimers]

Or, one could argue that there's no clear definition of what a "face" is for an Ooze...

And one can also argue that the ooze's "face" has "skin". But synesthete still doesn't work for vision -- "If you are feeling light by absorbing ambient light onto your skin, you have your normal visual abilities". Fooey.

I usually rate high, but this thing gets a -0 from me. (I somehow feel like I should apologize for that.) Body slots, manipulators, saves, BAB, skills, communication, ability to interact with normal society ... all bad. It's salvageable by taking the right classes, sure. But anything with just a few HD is salvageable if it has at least one decent mental stat, so that's not saying anything.

[unseenmage]

Definitely a -0. Ooze are the bad. Much as I wish it weren't so.
Those immunities are cute but the higher level the adventures the less they're worth.
I mean I guess they'd free up some WBL but just not nearly enough to be worth it.

[Thurbane]

So, some ways to "see through the eyes of others":


Animal Lord PrC: Animal Perception
Chain of Eyes spell
Dreaming Puppet spell
Forest Eyes spell (may not work ?)
Knight of the Raven PrC: Sight Link (not at all ideal, a lot of drawbacks)
Planar Exchange spell
Psibond Agent PrC: Forced Sense Link
Share Husk spell
Tamer of Beasts PrC: Animal Senses
Wall of Eyes spell (see through an immobile wall)

...there's probably more I've missed.

[Zaq]

So, some ways to "see through the eyes of others":


Animal Lord PrC: Animal Perception
Chain of Eyes spell
Dreaming Puppet spell
Forest Eyes spell (may not work ?)
Knight of the Raven PrC: Sight Link (not at all ideal, a lot of drawbacks)
Planar Exchange spell
Psibond Agent PrC: Forced Sense Link
Share Husk spell
Tamer of Beasts PrC: Animal Senses
Wall of Eyes spell (see through an immobile wall)

...there's probably more I've missed.

If you can find a way to draw a seal without hands, bind Malphas and get The Bird. Three levels, a feat and a level, or three feats.

Anyway, the summoning ooze. I love the concept. Does "a maximum of twice its Hit Dice in creatures per day" measure number of creatures or number of HD those creatures can have, like animate dead?

I'm honestly pretty tempted to give this one +0. You have few if any body slots, but you can also summon things that have appendages to open doors for you. Summoning is about the most versatile trick in the game, and this automatically scales with whatever HD you tack on. Five RHD is a lot when the RHD suck so badly, but still, this is an actually interesting trick. Notice also that it's a standard action, which is neat. Semi-decent numbers help a bit as well. Oh, and a bonus to Hide and Move Silently for some reason?

I think I can be willing to go with +0 here. I'd consider playing one in a game that would accept the flavor, and I never go for LA/RHD critters at all. The fact that this one has such an interesting spin built-in is enough to sway me that it's worth trying. Maybe go for an ardent with Practiced Manifester for minimal advancement loss, still getting actual summoning on top?

[martixy]

Here's mine. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?533018-The-LA-Assignment-Thread-1-Or-Inevitably-Rejected) I think someone else posted a link to theirs in there.
Note that I was going on the theory of "Just reduce ECL, hope the excess HD don't cause issues." Looks like I got a dozen monsters into the first Monster Manual before deciding it wasn't worth my time.

Oh! Now I get your name. Good one. Wonder if I should steal that.

For me, I have a somewhat similar methodology, except I'm going on the basis of reducing ECL by lowering RHD, so as not to mess with the fundamental premises of the system.

In fact, here's the thread I started:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?581676-The-LA-assignment-thread-0-Inevitably-rejected-Redux

It explains the methodology, and starts things off.
Waiting for any input on the first entry.
Then again, there's a chance it won't take off(probably a good), in which case I'll stop waiting for input on the entries, and just start assigning values myself, to the best of my ability.

[OgresAreCute]

I think people are overstating the value of this summoning ability. Summon Monster I isn't very good and get it at ECL 5 at the earliest, which is pretty cruddy. At ECL 15 you only have Summon Monster VI, which is 4 levels behind curve already and doesn't progress beyond that. You'll be summoning CR 5-6 critters to fight at level 15. Doesn't sound that great to me. Add to that the fact that you're seriously deficient in basic orifices and manipulators, and I'll say this is a -0.

[Random Sanity]

I think people are overstating the value of this summoning ability. Summon Monster I isn't very good and get it at ECL 5 at the earliest, which is pretty cruddy. At ECL 15 you only have Summon Monster VI, which is 4 levels behind curve already and doesn't progress beyond that. You'll be summoning CR 5-6 critters to fight at level 15. Doesn't sound that great to me. Add to that the fact that you're seriously deficient in basic orifices and manipulators, and I'll say this is a -0.

What she said. A summon ability that's already behind the level curve and only falls further behind as you go is good for an OOTS-style trap-eating parade and that's about it.

Ooze immunities would be nice on RHD that weren't complete garbage in every other respect. You have no social interaction abilities, no skills to speak of, no equipment slots, and your saves are going to be horrible no matter what class you pick to try and salvage this as a PC*.

-0. End of discussion.


* - It's possible for paladin class features to partially offset the save issue, but a martial with no weapon or armor slots is dead the first time a beatstick monster targets them, so that's a wash.

[Celestia]

I think people are overstating the value of this summoning ability. Summon Monster I isn't very good and get it at ECL 5 at the earliest, which is pretty cruddy. At ECL 15 you only have Summon Monster VI, which is 4 levels behind curve already and doesn't progress beyond that. You'll be summoning CR 5-6 critters to fight at level 15. Doesn't sound that great to me. Add to that the fact that you're seriously deficient in basic orifices and manipulators, and I'll say this is a -0.
Exactly. If this thing started with SM III at level 5 and then kept up, that would be one thing. I might even consider giving it +0 if it summoned at will instead of having this weird HD limit, but as is, its summoning is a neat trick and nothing more.

[ExLibrisMortis]

LA -0 for the summoning ooze. The summoning ability starts off low and scales badly. It's not going to compete with a t3 or t2 summoner.

[GreatWyrmGold]

If you can find a way to draw a seal without hands, bind Malphas and get The Bird.
If there wasn't such a harsh limit on the summons you could do per day, I'd suggest summoning a monkey to do it for you.


Anyway, the summoning ooze. I love the concept. Does "a maximum of twice its Hit Dice in creatures per day" measure number of creatures or number of HD those creatures can have, like animate dead?
Which might still be a viable option if the DM rules it's "number of creatures".



I think people are overstating the value of this summoning ability. Summon Monster I isn't very good and get it at ECL 5 at the earliest, which is pretty cruddy. At ECL 15 you only have Summon Monster VI, which is 4 levels behind curve already and doesn't progress beyond that. You'll be summoning CR 5-6 critters to fight at level 15. Doesn't sound that great to me.
That's true. There might still be value if you could just keep summoning monsters (a fiendish rhino per round or a mob of hound archons seems just dangerous enough to serve as a full-combat distraction, or at least a way to keep area effects off of the party), but...you can't.

[liquidformat]

Not enough bang for your buck, while it is cool you could get into fiendbinder without a caster class it would take you about 7 hd and by then you could get in by having 7 wizard levels so that isn't anything impressive. What we have is a monster with a bucket full of immunities which doesn't completely compensate for the missing pretty much every item slot, especially when you still have to compensate for all the other things it is missing (hands, eyes, ears, mouth) Heck even the standard pearl for granting talking is worthless in this case since it has no mouth to begin with. When you add in the horrible rhd and the fact that there isn't any good place for this lump to go I can't see a valid +0 argument, even at 1 rhd I don't think this thing is playable until you hit at least level 10 when you have enough wealth to attempt offsetting its metric ton of issues that must be resolved to be playable.

-0 with you

[danielxcutter]

Just to be clear, the summoning is based on the RHD, right?

[jindra34]

Just to be clear, the summoning is based on the RHD, right?

The monster specifies HD not RHD so the default assumption is NO.

[Thurbane]

As far as I'm concerned, the Summoning is icing on the cake.

The appeal, to me, is that this is one of the most "playable out of the box" oozes. I mean, that's not saying much, but at least you don't have to go dumpster diving through splat books and negotiating with the DM to get an Int score.

[GreatWyrmGold]

The monster specifies HD not RHD so the default assumption is NO.
I thought he was talking about the number of monsters you can summon. IE, can you summon two monsters per character's HD or two HD of monster per HD?

[danielxcutter]

I thought he was talking about the number of monsters you can summon. IE, can you summon two monsters per character's HD or two HD of monster per HD?

Well, I was asking about the summoning scaling too, but also about that I guess.

Interestingly, a fully advanced Summoning Ooze has 15 RHD at CR 10, equal to that of a Fire Giant or Sand Giant, so if you're a DM, in theory you would be able to add caster classes as non-associated class levels and still get 9ths at CR 20... of course the body shape problem is a thing, but still food for thought!

Edit: While unlikely to change the LA evaluation, the Ssvaklor has a psionic version in the sidebar too. This among other things is why I think we should do the XPH after finishing the MMIII.

[javcs]

I think the Summoning Ooze is the closest to playable oozes get.

However ... it's still a -0.

It might be able to slide into the bottom of +0 if the summoning ability didn't have the HD cap on it, or even if the cap was a limit on how many HD worth of summons you could have out at a time, sort of like the HD caps on controlling undead. Still wouldn't be very good, and there are better options for most of what you get.

[Inevitability]

I think the Summoning Ooze is the closest to playable oozes get.

I mean, some of the living spells were pretty playable at least. :smalltongue:

[GreatWyrmGold]

I mean, some of the living spells were pretty playable at least. :smalltongue:
I'm pretty sure this was supposed to be that, for summoning spells.

[Prime32]

One interesting thing to note about the Summoning Ooze is that it has a caster level of 20.

This lets you take item creation feats for rods and staves sooner than normal. It lets you take Obtain Familiar + Improved Familiar to gain companions like winter wolves or beguilers or wyrmling dragons (or if you're using Dragon magazine, stuff like high-HD incorporeal swarms). It qualifies you for Acolyte of the Skin, which gives you... skin, if you ever need that for pedantic reasons.

[Celestia]

One interesting thing to note about the Summoning Ooze is that it has a caster level of 20.

This lets you take item creation feats for rods and staves sooner than normal. It lets you take Obtain Familiar + Improved Familiar to gain companions like winter wolves or beguilers or wyrmling dragons (or if you're using Dragon magazine, stuff like high-HD incorporeal swarms). It qualifies you for Acolyte of the Skin, which gives you... skin, if you ever need that for pedantic reasons.
Oozes lack the manipulating limbs to craft items, and if one of the best tricks available to it is acquiring a pet that's better than it, then it's clearly not very impressive on its own.

[liquidformat]

One interesting thing to note about the Summoning Ooze is that it has a caster level of 20.

This lets you take item creation feats for rods and staves sooner than normal. It lets you take Obtain Familiar + Improved Familiar to gain companions like winter wolves or beguilers or wyrmling dragons (or if you're using Dragon magazine, stuff like high-HD incorporeal swarms). It qualifies you for Acolyte of the Skin, which gives you... skin, if you ever need that for pedantic reasons.

I think you are missing the important part of wear fiend, and that is, it gives you eyes! Also you can technically enter straight into it from your first class level since peaceful contact and Ritual of Bonding are both fluff, though it would be smart to have at least one caster class level first...

[Inevitability]

Votes for the summoning sludge:

-0 LA: 10 votes
+0 LA: 7 votes

Rating will remain unchanged.

Next monster, the susurrus, shall be up soon.

[Inevitability]

Susurrus

http://bogleech.com/dnd/sussurus3.jpg

Susurrus
\su̇-ˈsər-əs\
Noun
1. a whispering or rustling sound

With etymologies out of the way, let's have a look at these guys. These creatures are aberrations (somewhat unsurprisingly) with 8 RHD. Ability scores are nothing out of the ordinary, with high strength, good constitution and charisma, and average-to-low stats everywhere else.

Two natural claw attacks are kind of meh, +9 natural armor has its uses, 40 ft. land and 20 ft. climb is decent speed-wise. 60 ft. blindsight isn't bad to have (but being sightless beyond that radius is less great).

The susurrus has a number of undead-focused abilities: always-on Detect Undead, a weird rebuke-based Hold Undead, and free Ghost Touch. Furthermore, it gets Improved Grab and Barbed Defense (which deals piercing damage to melee attackers and grapplers).

Ultimately, I'm just unimpressed by the susurrus. When not facing undead foes, it has a chassis comparable to the ogre's but with twice the RHD and little extra to show for it. Against undead, it has a notable niche with Dronesong, but that's too situational to greatly impact the rating. I'm simply not convinced this stacks up to ECL 8 martials, so -0 LA it is. If you want to balance this for player use, remove three HD and it should be fine.

[ViperMagnum357]

Susurrus: Net +20 abilities is par for 5 RHD not 8. The +9 natural AC is a little over average, and 40 ft speed is bang on average for a Large biped. Weaksauce Blindsight out to 60 ft-usual problems I mentioned in the last entry, plus much weaker because it is sound-based and can be foiled by specific magical effects. So Really, REALLY bad: in addition to the usual blocks for Blindsight, any fog based magical effect-and there are quite a few-will blind you, alongside the plentiful, low level and easily accessible Silence effects.

In return, you get two claw attacks, a mediocre climb speed, Improved Grab and some Barbs for grappling damage, treat all your physical attacks as Ghost Touch, turn your natural AC into Deflection versus Incorporeal (overlaying rather than stacking with the Deflection bonus you will eventually get for general use), an at-will 1st level spell, and the ability to make a Rebuke check to inflict the effects of a 3rd level spell usable against Undead. Altogether, that seems like a lot, but in practice you are looking at maybe 5 or 6 class levels worth of features on 8 Aberration RHD, and about 6 levels worth of net abilities/natural AC also coming up short. Those 8 RHD cost you 2 points of BAB and lock you into 8 levels of 1 good save and 2 + Int skills to go with -4 racial Int and 3 class skills. Yuck.

Definitely LA -0 up in here. I think you would have to shave 2 RHD to approach LA +0. Even then, the Int hit on so many RHD probably skewers any caster, party face or skill monkey, and Blind past 60 ft with many complications within probably leaves out scout. So the usual fall back of martial looks best-even Initiator looks iffy. Anything Large or bigger with Improved Grab has potential, but there is little here to work with.

[Zaq]

As is somewhat disappointingly common, the susurrus is a cool picture, a somewhat interestingly oddball encounter, and a poor PC. -0.

Before reading it for the context of this thread, I has always thought that the dronesong ability was always on, rather than activated, which made it somewhat more interesting against undead. Unfortunately, that seems to not be the case. Doesn't affect its rating as a PC, but still, slightly disappointing.

It's still a cool picture.

[Thurbane]

Another monster designed purely for use as a monster. If you were an undead hunter, might be fun to have one as a cohort or something.

They were a plant creature when they were introduced in 1E Fiend Folio, from memory.

At half the HD, maybe LA +0, but 8 Aberration HD mean LA -0.

[unseenmage]

...

... These creatures are aberrations (somewhat unsurprisingly) ...

...
Weird question, would a medium Suusur-whatever become a humanoid if built as an effigy then incarnate construct-ed?

Is that body humanoid enough?

I ask because until you pointed it out I was unsure of type. It's not quite as.. squamous as I'd expect of the run of the mill abberation.

[Thurbane]

Weird question, would a medium Suusur-whatever become a humanoid if built as an effigy then incarnate construct-ed?

Is that body humanoid enough?

I ask because until you pointed it out I was unsure of type. It's not quite as.. squamous as I'd expect of the run of the mill abberation.

It effectively lacks a head, so I'm not sure it would be humanoid enough for Incarnate Construct. If it was allowed, it would be a Giant, since it's large.

I kind of preferred the earlier edition versions where it was a plant monster that hated/preyed on undead...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a5/Sussurus.JPG

http://bogleech.com/dnd/sussurus2.jpg

[Zaq]

It effectively lacks a head, so I'm not sure it would be humanoid enough for Incarnate Construct. If it was allowed, it would be a Giant, since it's large.

I kind of preferred the earlier edition versions where it was a plant monster that hated/preyed on undead...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a5/Sussurus.JPG

http://bogleech.com/dnd/sussurus2.jpg

The fluff text does explicitly describe it as "humanoid."

"This headless humanoid shape appears to be covered in glass shards..."

How humanoid something explicitly headless can be is, of course, a different question. Incarnate construct is a bizarre game element at the best of times.

Edit: I just noticed something dumb. Dronesong functions as a hold undead spell, right? There is no such spell, at least not in the 3.5 PHB. There's halt undead and hold monster, but no hold undead.

They almost certainly meant halt undead, but who can say?

[Thurbane]

Edit: I just noticed something dumb. Dronesong functions as a hold undead spell, right? There is no such spell, at least not in the 3.5 PHB. There's halt undead and hold monster, but no hold undead.

They almost certainly meant halt undead, but who can say?

Good call. Not picked up in the errata, either...

[Zaq]

Good call. Not picked up in the errata, either...

This might be one time where WotC's sometimes troubling habit of over-explaining what certain abilities do (which often leads to dysfunctions when the "convenient" explanation doesn't match the referenced ability) did its job. We know from the text that an undead affected by Dronesong "cannot move and doesn't want to." That's actually pretty useful for figuring out how to rule the ability, and it's not exactly the same as halt undead. Very similar, but not quite exactly the same.

I do love how obnoxious the ability is when you try to parse out exactly how it works. It's like a rebuke attempt (but not really), but then it works like "hold" undead (but not really), but then it works kind of as its own thing. Kind of sends the reader on a bit of a wild goose chase.

Hmm. Also interesting is this complete sentence in Dronesong's description: "This ability functions as a rebuke undead attempt from an evil cleric of a level equal to the susurrus's Hit Dice." Full stop. It then specifies that undead who would be rebuked or commanded by this rebuke attempt follow new rules, but it doesn't say anything to the effect of "this ability is like a rebuke undead attempt" or "this ability functions similarly to a rebuke undead attempt." It straight up is a rebuke undead attempt that just doesn't actually rebuke undead.

I'm sure you can all see where this is going by now. That means that a susurrus could potentially use other abilities that key off of rebuke undead. 8 RHD is still too many for that to be the peg on which we hang our rating hats, but still, that makes it slightly closer to being usable, don't you think?

[No brains]

There are some humanoids that have no heads, like hitmonlee and those old-timey drawings of guys without a neck.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

That does sound way cooler as a bamboo plant monster, especially if the sound effect is caused by wind blowing through the bamboo.

Speaking of the song ability, does it have unlimited uses? If so, I could see some (cheesy) uses with Divine Metamagic or more likely Ruby Knight Vindicator (unlimited swift actions and maneuvers!), or somesuch. Even so, without some cheese it's still -0.

[Thurbane]

There are some humanoids that have no heads, like hitmonlee and those old-timey drawings of guys without a neck.

Never fear a vorpal weapon again! :smallbiggrin:



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Brevis_descrip_Guianae-Raleigh&Hulsius010d-headless.jpg

[No brains]

Never fear a vorpal weapon again! :smallbiggrin:



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Brevis_descrip_Guianae-Raleigh&Hulsius010d-headless.jpg



Yup! Those are the ones! If Jorge Luis Borges can give us Perytons, we can get these dudes, but they whistle. :smalltongue:

[Hackulator]

In a fantasy zombie apocalypse game, possibly even better them +0.

Anywhere else, -0.

[Efrate]

The rebuke undead is very interesting. I think its effectively unlimited rebuke attempts? Which makes it very interesting. In light of that I think -0 if it works RAI, cause its bad, or its +0* if its unlimited rebuking. Infinite persist/rkv swifts/undead minions warrents a * imo.

[JMS]

The rebuke undead is very interesting. I think its effectively unlimited rebuke attempts? Which makes it very interesting. In light of that I think -0 if it works RAI, cause its bad, or its +0* if its unlimited rebuking. Infinite persist/rkv swifts/undead minions warrents a * imo.

No, you don't get DMM: persist, get DMM: Quicken, and go rvk. :smallbiggrin:

[GreatWyrmGold]

Hmm. Also interesting is this complete sentence in Dronesong's description: "This ability functions as a rebuke undead attempt from an evil cleric of a level equal to the susurrus's Hit Dice." Full stop. It then specifies that undead who would be rebuked or commanded by this rebuke attempt follow new rules, but it doesn't say anything to the effect of "this ability is like a rebuke undead attempt" or "this ability functions similarly to a rebuke undead attempt." It straight up is a rebuke undead attempt that just doesn't actually rebuke undead.

I'm sure you can all see where this is going by now. That means that a susurrus could potentially use other abilities that key off of rebuke undead. 8 RHD is still too many for that to be the peg on which we hang our rating hats, but still, that makes it slightly closer to being usable, don't you think?
Can it use Divine Metamagic and similar things at-will? That sounds incredibly potent. I'm not sure if it's "four spell levels behind" potent, but being able to apply every metamagic feat you know to every spell you cast* is sure something.
I've never played top-level casters for any meaningful length of time, but my intuition tells me that a well-played susurrus with heavily-metamagicked fifth-level divine spells could find ways to contribute to a 20th-level party; if nothing else, it could be one heck of a buffbot.

*Except Quicken Spell, since you only get one quickened spell per round. And would probably run out of spell slots pretty quickly if you cast one quickened spell and one non-quickened spell every round.



There are some humanoids that have no heads, like hitmonlee and those old-timey drawings of guys without a neck.
I was about to point out that hitmonlee isn't Humanoid-type, it's Fighting-type, but then I realized that most humanoid-shaped Pokemon are Fighting-type. So I guess the two are probably equivalent.



1E Bamboo Susurrus
Alright, maybe it's dual Fighting/Plant. But its signature moves need to be super-effective against Dark, so...
Googles a type chart
Oh, Fighting is strong against Dark. There you go.

[Dimers]

Susurrus: easy -0. I really just came here to present my group noun, in case you ever get more in one place than "Solitary or pair": a murmuration of susurrusses. :smallcool:

[Inevitability]

To quote the ability in question:


Dronesong (Su): A susurrus’s dronesong has no effect on
living creatures, but it soothes undead into a state of torpor.
This ability functions as a rebuke undead attempt from an
evil cleric of a level equal to the susurrus’s Hit Dice. An
undead so rebuked or commanded is instead put into a state
similar to the effect of a hold undead spell—it cannot move
and doesn’t want to. This effect lasts for 10 rounds.

Personally, I'd argue that this doesn't give the kind of 'rebuke attempts' mentioned in Divine Metamagic and Divine Impetus.

[danielxcutter]

Hmm... just to make sure, Dronesong doesn't stack with other turning pools, right?

[Thurbane]

There's already a way to get unlimited turn/rebuke attempts, but admittedly it's once/5 rounds. A rebuke every round would be significantly better for fueling feats etc.

[martixy]

Hey guys. So after a hiccup or two, I believe the LA -0 thread is taking off.

What I wonder now is if we can arrange it so we don't do the same work twice over. Best case scenario would be merging the discussions and presentation.

Basically I'm wondering if I can get you to discuss things past pegging it as -0. And write down the results of those discussions. That way, the -0 thread only has to catch up to HERE. Instead of coming here, and having to redo every future monster too!

For example for the Susurrus. @Inevitability, thanks for remembering, but I'm not sure I agree with the assessment.

Guy is large, and has some neat abilities, mostly centered around undead.
Blindsight, neat as it is, might pose problems for a playable character, and he also strikes me as somewhat dissonant - undead-centered, but no bonus to Wis, so won't work well with cleric for example (who'd want something good to replace the lost cleric levels).
Also, I'd like argue against the interpretation that it adds to turn/rebuke pools.
That said, I'd peg him squarely as 4 RHD. IMO 5 RHD, as you suggested goes just a little bit over the top, especially considering they're the bad HD - aberration. I just don't see anything that would justify 5 entire levels.

That said, I'm open to (and aiming for) discussion.

[Hackulator]

I would definitely say that an attempt to claim Dronesong gives you infinite rebuke attempts for things like Divine Metamagic is the kind of thing that would get you laughed off the table with most of the groups I play with.

[GreatWyrmGold]

@Inevitability, thanks for remembering, but I'm not sure I agree with the assessment.
Yeah, people ain't gonna agree on this kinda thing. Sucks. All we can do is listen to each argument and make comments like the peanut gallery we are.

[ShurikVch]

While it may be not exactly fit to the thread's theme, but what's may be LA for Io-Rach Goblin and Ogre-blooded Human?
Io-Rach Goblin (Book of Vile Darkness): Medium size, +4 Str and Con, -4 to all mental abilities
Ogre-blooded Human (example - Quah-Nomag the Skull-King in the Book of Vile Darkness): not enough "Ogre" to count as even a Half-Ogre, but still got Large size

[Inevitability]

Susurrus, unexpectedly, stays at -0 LA.


Hey guys. So after a hiccup or two, I believe the LA -0 thread is taking off.

What I wonder now is if we can arrange it so we don't do the same work twice over. Best case scenario would be merging the discussions and presentation.

Basically I'm wondering if I can get you to discuss things past pegging it as -0. And write down the results of those discussions. That way, the -0 thread only has to catch up to HERE. Instead of coming here, and having to redo every future monster too!

For example for the Susurrus. @Inevitability, thanks for remembering, but I'm not sure I agree with the assessment.

Guy is large, and has some neat abilities, mostly centered around undead.
Blindsight, neat as it is, might pose problems for a playable character, and he also strikes me as somewhat dissonant - undead-centered, but no bonus to Wis, so won't work well with cleric for example (who'd want something good to replace the lost cleric levels).
Also, I'd like argue against the interpretation that it adds to turn/rebuke pools.
That said, I'd peg him squarely as 4 RHD. IMO 5 RHD, as you suggested goes just a little bit over the top, especially considering they're the bad HD - aberration. I just don't see anything that would justify 5 entire levels.

That said, I'm open to (and aiming for) discussion.

I'll try to give some kind of indication what amount of RHD would be balanced for -0 LA monsters, but this thread is primarily about assigning LA's.

The susurrus isn't balanced at 4 RHD because at that point, it's basically a better ogre. Improved Grab, Barbed Defense, and the anti-undead abilities may not be much, but getting them tacked on to an ogre chassis makes me very hesitant to consider a 4 RHD susurrus balanced.


While it may be not exactly fit to the thread's theme, but what's may be LA for Io-Rach Goblin and Ogre-blooded Human?
Io-Rach Goblin (Book of Vile Darkness): Medium size, +4 Str and Con, -4 to all mental abilities
Ogre-blooded Human (example - Quah-Nomag the Skull-King in the Book of Vile Darkness): not enough "Ogre" to count as even a Half-Ogre, but still got Large size

The goblin seems like an even more minmaxed water orc, which is an even more minmaxed orc. Then again, it also loses out on Headlong Rush and presumably darkvision, so let's go with +0 LA in the same sense that lesser aasimar is +0 LA.

If ogre-blooded human is basically a Large human, then +1 LA it is. If it's a completely bland race whose only trait is 'Large humanoid', then +0 LA should be fine.

[martixy]

Susurrus, unexpectedly, stays at -0 LA.

I'll try to give some kind of indication what amount of RHD would be balanced for -0 LA monsters, but this thread is primarily about assigning LA's.

The susurrus isn't balanced at 4 RHD because at that point, it's basically a better ogre. Improved Grab, Barbed Defense, and the anti-undead abilities may not be much, but getting them tacked on to an ogre chassis makes me very hesitant to consider a 4 RHD susurrus balanced.

Point being, LA is only half the story. And given how many monsters end up LA -0, that just means you're skipping half the monsters. At least for purposes of making them playable, which I'd like to think is the ultimate goal of these threads. IMO you shouldn't get overtly stuck on the thread title.

On the susurrus:
Under those conditions, yes, I'd agree with you. Except I'd peg the ogre as LA -0 though, and -1 RHD (ECL3). I'm just kind of unimpressed by the value of beatsticks in 3.5 and the massive penalties to mental stats, I can't reasonably see them as anything else.

But if we're being consistent, yes, 5 RHD is good.

[Celestia]

On the susurrus:
Under those conditions, yes, I'd agree with you. Except I'd peg the ogre as LA -0 though, and -1 RHD (ECL3). I'm just kind of unimpressed by the value of beatsticks in 3.5 and the massive penalties to mental stats, I can't reasonably see them as anything else.

But if we're being consistent, yes, 5 RHD is good.
I do always find it amusing how often the ogre is used as a benchmark for rating other monsters even though, as I recall, there was quite a lot of debate about that one, and not all of us are satisfied with the result. One would think a more logical measuring stick would be one that everyone agrees with.

[Inevitability]

Swamp Strider Swarm

http://archive.wizards.com/dnd/images/mmiii_gallery/83061.jpg

9 RHD of vermin, only notable for being immune to weapon damage and capable of walking on water. The -0 LA is strong with this one.

If, for some reason, you're dead set on playing this, I honestly wouldn't go above 3 RHD, with a good argument to be made for 2.

[ViperMagnum357]

Usual spiel about giving base Intelligence 10 to things without one; Vermin RHD are very bad-only 3/4 BAB with one good save, d8 and 2 + Int skills. Like all potentially Intelligent Vermin, the DM needs to make a ruling on Mind Influencing effects.

As for the critter itself: net -2 abilities after the free Intelligence, so....yuck. No Natural AC, no alternative movement modes, 2 class skills, and the usual package for Swarms-Diminutive, Distraction, immune to weapon damage. Add to this water walking and wave sense, a bonus feat, the milquetoast Wounding effect, 50 ft ground speed and minor skill bonuses...for 9 RHD. And being a swarm, no body slots, manipulators, chakras(?), and communication ability is, shall we say, impaired.

Very easy LA -0. I would consider shaving this down to about 3 RHD in terms of combat capabilties, but I would not even know where to begin for a build. Auras, perhaps?

[Thurbane]

Have we has any playable swarms and/or vermin yet?

Definitely LA -0 from me.

[Inevitability]

Have we has any playable swarms and/or vermin yet?

Bat and spider swarm got +0, because they had just enough goodies (weapon immunity, flight/climb, blindsense/poison) crammed into a low number of RHD that they were playable. Ish. Kind of. Aside from those, none that I can see.

[Lapak]

-0, and I am hesitant to dive into doing HD adjustments on -0 monsters. This is already a large project with plenty of debate with what we're already doing, that is another category of debate entirely - removing HD affects so much. I think that except when it's a case where 1-2 HD balances it we're looking at some serious rebuilding at that point, not just judging.

[OgresAreCute]

For corner cases I don't mind saying like "yeah it'd be +0 with one or two less RHD" but a full-blown analysis of that kinda stuff is way out of bounds for this thread and would be a major direction change this late in the project's life.

[ViperMagnum357]

Fair enough-perhaps ballpark estimates that seem to be within 3 RHD of RAW or less? Maybe 2? More than that and you are changing enough of the critter it might as well be something else entirely, since most of WOTC's creature building seems ad hoc after they pull an RHD number out of a hat. In this case, this thing's chassis is so bad you would have to eject most of its RHD before even considering working around the inherent flaws-I agree that saying 'just chop off two-thirds of the RHD while leaving intact all the stats and abilities that WOTC nominally balanced against, and you might have something to work with' is not all that useful.

[Efrate]

-0. Moving on.

[Zaq]

This is not the ideal way to get a swarm of bugs as a character.

-0

[Inevitability]

Thorn

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/6/61/Thorn.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110623015335

Fey RHD, with their low HP, poor BAB, and general unimpressiveness, aren't very useful on a martial character. The MM3's developers solved this issue like they solved most: with hit dice bloat.

That said, the thorn's six RHD do hide a number of interesting features. +2d6 sneak attack, +4/+6 to all martial stats, and Small size actually make for a rather decent rogue-type, and having a pixie's Sleep Arrows doesn't hurt either (why yes I like having on-demand save-or-loses). DR 5/cold iron isn't half bad either.

Compared to a level 7 rogue, a level 1 thorn rogue has 1d6 less sneak attack, 2 less BAB, less class features (Evasion being the big one), and none of whatever racial features the rogue might have. However, they have DR, superior physical stats (as well as charisma), and the aforementioned sleep arrows. Then again, the rogue could by now easily be two levels into a prestige class.

Given the excellent arguments both for +0 and -0, and the equal results in a subsequent vote, I think that either rating could fit them, to be honest. Look at the optimization level of your game when deciding whether it's worth playing, otherwise just subtract a hit die.

[Dimers]

A thorn rogue 1 also has better Will than rogue 7, 3 natural armor, and proficiency with longsword/longbow/shield. It's nothing great but then neither is a half-elf or halfling rogue 7. I'd play this without any coercion, so I'm satisfied with +0.

[Covenant12]

I'm voting -0 for now, but only just. And I'll listen to arguments for +0.

I think they are lacking for +0. Losing skills, sneak attack dice, class/race features, and BAB. I think halfling rogue 7 is better than thorn/rogue 1 by a fair bit. They are much tankier, NA and DR 5/almost never, plus nice Con. If you compare to good rogue-friendly prestige classes and whisper gnome or the like, it gets even worse.

I think it makes +0 with as many as 4 RHD, assuming it keeps +2d6 sneak attack. Lost 1 BAB to rogue, but with physical stats still hit more often. Bit less skill point loss, equal sneak attack, and could likely enter prestige classes the same time as pure rogue. Also sleep arrows and a lot of tankiness. This would be fun with pluses and minuses vs. rogue at 4 RHD.

[GreatWyrmGold]

The thorn is definitely close to being +0, but I'm not sure it quite makes it. It has enough interesting abilities that I'd be willing to play it, but I'd be willing to play a Truenamer if the DM papered over the most game-breaking bugs.

[Celestia]

Do those sleep arrows function as the spell, i.e. HD limit? If so, they can be completely ignored. Either way, though, I'm voting for -0.

[liquidformat]

I am going -0, the 2 bab loss hurts a mundane too much to overcome the racial features it is provided.

[lord_khaine]

A thorn rogue 1 also has better Will than rogue 7, 3 natural armor, and proficiency with longsword/longbow/shield. It's nothing great but then neither is a half-elf or halfling rogue 7. I'd play this without any coercion, so I'm satisfied with +0.

As well as before mentioned stat boosts, DR, and Save-or-lose arrows.
Thats quite a trade for just a dice of sneak attack and a point of BAB.

They should be compared with a hafling rogue. And so i think they fit with +0

[OgresAreCute]

I think this is totally workable, even if it isn't mind-blowing. +0.

[DeTess]

Stat adjustments are based on an all 10s base array, right? Based on that, I'd say they make the cut as +0 compared to a rogue. They get some pretty good physical adjustments that offset the loss of BaB somewhat, they get natural armor and those sleep arrows can be useful in a variety of situations. They're 2 levels behind a straight rogue in sneak attack progression, and get 2 less skillpoints per level for the first few levels, but it's generous stat adjustments make room for a higher intelligence score without sacrificing combat ability to offset the slightly fewer skillpoints, and 6+int per level is still decent.

However, the lower BaB does hurt it when making more highly optimized builds. When I've build high-OP rogue-likes for competitions and the like I always try to maximize the amount of sneak attacking full attacks, using tricks like shadow-pouncing and the like. The lower BaB is going to hurt this tactic. I expect this will be less of a problem in low and even mid-OP games, but it bears mentioning.

[javcs]

Lower end of +0, I think.
It is inferior as a specialized build in the specialty, but comparable to a more generalist build.

I wouldn't go out of my way to play one, but I don't think I'd go out of my way to avoid playing one either.
In other words, I see no particular reason to play a Thorn, but I see no particular reason not to play a Thorn.

[Mike Miller]

I vote +0 for Thorn

[Thurbane]

6 not-so-great RHD: meh
20 ft move: meh
+3 natural AC: OK-ish
Sleep arrows: not bad; immunity to sleep effects isn't all that uncommon though
Sneak attack +2d6: not bad, but quite lacking at ECL 6
DR 5/cold iron: OK-ish, but becomes quickly irrelevant due to damage enemies are dealing
Str +6, Dex +4, Con +4, Cha +2: net +16. Pretty good, especially the Str on a small character, but again, at ECL 6? Hmmm...
Fairly small skill list. Has some decent skills there, but compared to a true skill monkey, not good.

Verdict: LA -0. It just doesn't have enough to make up for 6 class levels. At around 3 RHD, I might go with LA +0.

The arrows are a bit more powerful than I had first read, but I'm sticking with LA -0. Just too many RHD.

[ViperMagnum357]

Thorn: Fey RHD, and the net abilities are par for 4 RHD; with only half the expected natural AC. The 20 ft ground speed is not great, and the skill list is pretty bad for something with Fey RHD, which are atrocious. Losing 3 BAB is....retch.

For the obvious Rogue comparisons: not much to add, though losing at least 12 skill points is nothing to sneeze at. The DR is decent but is still only one feature to tack onto the underwhelming stats. The only reason this is not a clear LA -0 by at least 2 RHD is the Sleep Arrows: they are explicitly NOT capped by HD, and the DC scales. Now Sleep is somewhat limited, with Constructs, Undead, Elementals, Oozes, and Plants possessing blanket immunties, along with Elves and the odd critter; and yet it remains an at-will save or lose without additional qualifiers, which is rather potent. Keep in mind this attack also works on Dragons, since it is (Ex) rather than magical.

All that said, I think this is 1 RHD shy of par, so I am going with LA -0.

[No brains]

It's funny to see the divide on thorns here.

Alice: "I think it's a little viable."

Bob: "I think it sucks a little."

Carol: "Do either of you think it deserves and LA?"

Everyone: "Nah."

It's good we're careful on this, but the divide between +0 and -0 amounts to an endorsement.

What if we gave it LA 0 and let future readers decide whether they want +/-?

[Caelestion]

I think that Thorns are probably +0 in a fairly casual game. After all, the sorts of people who play monks and fighters would probably happily play a Thorn.

[Covenant12]

Do those sleep arrows function as the spell, i.e. HD limit? If so, they can be completely ignored. Either way, though, I'm voting for -0."Any opponent struck by one of these arrows, regardless of Hit Dice, must make a DC..." Pretty confident specific trumps general and it affects anybody. Who isn't immune mind-affecting, enchantment, or compulsion effects, and all that.

It is on the border, still voting -0. It is strong enough for a party that thinks a half-elf pure fighter or pure rogue with PHB-only feats is good. But if we're trying to optimize near the T3/T4 border I think it's a bit weak. Again, 4 RHD and it is a respectable +0.

[liquidformat]

6 not-so-great RHD: meh
20 ft move: meh
+3 natural AC: OK-ish
Sleep arrows: not bad; immunity to sleep effects isn't all that uncommon though
Sneak attack +2d6: not bad, but quite lacking at ECL 6
DR 5/cold iron: OK-ish, but becomes quickly irrelevant due to damage enemies are dealing
Str +6, Dex +4, Con +4, Cha +2: net +16. Pretty good, especially the Str on a small character, but again, at ECL 6? Hmmm...
Fairly small skill list. Has some decent skills there, but compared to a true skill monkey, not good.

Verdict: LA -0. It just doesn't have enough to make up for 6 class levels. At around 3 RHD, I might go with LA +0.

The arrows are a bit more powerful than I had first read, but I'm sticking with LA -0. Just too many RHD.

When Thurbane is saying something is -0 LA you guys should pay attention as he tends towards the high side on LA. I don't think this thing is even on the border between -0 and +0, skill list sucks, you are loosing 2 skill points each level. You are forced going mundane ranged which isn't good to begin but is compounded by the loss of bab which puts you behind in number of attacks and sneak attack as well. sleep arrows do not make up enough to compensate you for the loss of skill points, bab, and sneak attack. This thing is just bad. it is firmly -0 LA.

[Thurbane]

I just can't see what you'd do with this as a base.

You'd be a one-trick-pony, hoping for a failed save on your sleep arrows. As soon as you find something resistant or immune, your ability to contribute is limited.

As other have mentioned, the Fey RHD adversely affect your BAB; and the small skill list hurts your ability to be a good skill monkey.

When a regular level 6 Rogue hits a monster immune or resistance to sneak attack, he can fall back on UMD or other tactics.

Don;t get me wring, scaling save or die on arrows is pretty impressive, but not at the opportunity cost that comes with 6 RHD of the Fey type.

[Lans]

I just can't see what you'd do with this as a base.

You'd be a one-trick-pony, hoping for a failed save on your sleep arrows. As soon as you find something resistant or immune, your ability to contribute is limited.

As other have mentioned, the Fey RHD adversely affect your BAB; and the small skill list hurts your ability to be a good skill monkey.

When a regular level 6 Rogue hits a monster immune or resistance to sneak attack, he can fall back on UMD or other tactics.

Don;t get me wring, scaling save or die on arrows is pretty impressive, but not at the opportunity cost that comes with 6 RHD of the Fey type.

I find comparisons with no class levels to be lacking, if it's compared to a halfling rogue 7 it will do more damage in melee- 4d6 SA vs 3d6+8 pts of strength. Its behind 2 BA, but only 1 behind on total attack bonus assuming weapon finesse. Its going to have 2 fewer rogue abilities.

It has 18 less skill points and the halfing gets +2 racial bonus on Climb, Jump, Listen, and Move Silently checks, but it get's+4/1/2/1 on strength/Dexterity/Con/charisma skills from ability scores.

On saves the thorn has 4/9/5 vs the halflings 3/7/3

Thorn has 14 more hp, 5 dr, and 3 NA, 1 Ac from Dex.

[Inevitability]

Do those sleep arrows function as the spell, i.e. HD limit? If so, they can be completely ignored. Either way, though, I'm voting for -0.


It's funny to see the divide on thorns here.

Alice: "I think it's a little viable."

Bob: "I think it sucks a little."

Carol: "Do either of you think it deserves and LA?"

Everyone: "Nah."

It's good we're careful on this, but the divide between +0 and -0 amounts to an endorsement.

What if we gave it LA 0 and let future readers decide whether they want +/-?

-0 and +0 LA are there to not raise the impression that something like a dire shark is on the same level of power as a human. Yeah, in situations where it's way less obvious than that it gets a bit silly, but I'm not sure about giving an entirely new +/- assignment.


I think that Thorns are probably +0 in a fairly casual game. After all, the sorts of people who play monks and fighters would probably happily play a Thorn.

Be that as it may, monks and most fighters are tier 5. "A person who thinks tier 5 classes are fine would think this is fine." is sadly not an argument either for or against +0 LA.

[Thurbane]

It has 18 less skill points and the halfing gets +2 racial bonus on Climb, Jump, Listen, and Move Silently checks, but it get's+4/1/2/1 on strength/Dexterity/Con/charisma skills from ability scores.

When compared to a Rogue, though, I find the main failing to be skill selection, not just skill points/modifiers.

Rogue: Appraise, Balance, Bluff, Climb, Craft, Decipher Script, Diplomacy, Disable Device, Disguise, Escape Artist, Forgery, Gather Information, Hide, Intimidate, Jump, Knowledge (local), Listen, Move Silently, Open Lock, Perform, Profession, Search, Sense Motive, Sleight of Hand, Spot, Swim, Tumble, Use Magic Device and Use Rope.

Thorn: Diplomacy, Hide, Listen, Move Silently, Search, Sense Motive, Spot and Survival.

[Lans]

When compared to a Rogue, though, I find the main failing to be skill selection, not just skill points/modifiers.

Rogue: Appraise, Balance, Bluff, Climb, Craft, Decipher Script, Diplomacy, Disable Device, Disguise, Escape Artist, Forgery, Gather Information, Hide, Intimidate, Jump, Knowledge (local), Listen, Move Silently, Open Lock, Perform, Profession, Search, Sense Motive, Sleight of Hand, Spot, Swim, Tumble, Use Magic Device and Use Rope.

Thorn: Diplomacy, Hide, Listen, Move Silently, Search, Sense Motive, Spot and Survival.

That is an issue, but it is something that will be dulled as they go up in levels. I think there's some character options that can add skills

[Dimers]

That is an issue, but it is something that will be dulled as they go up in levels. I think there's some character options that can add skills

And if we're optimizing the compared halfling rogue, then we can assume a similar level of optimization for the thorn, which will include skill-promoting options if the character is supposed to be a skillmonkey. (Though it can't compete with an actual rogue for dealing with traps regardless, due to lack of the Trapfinding feature. That's not easy to come by.)

[Lans]

And if we're optimizing the compared halfling rogue, then we can assume a similar level of optimization for the thorn, which will include skill-promoting options if the character is supposed to be a skillmonkey. (Though it can't compete with an actual rogue for dealing with traps regardless, due to lack of the Trapfinding feature. That's not easy to come by.)

That is gained by 1 level of rogue

[Thurbane]

That is an issue, but it is something that will be dulled as they go up in levels. I think there's some character options that can add skills

True. I mean, stuff like City Slicker etc. can add skills to the RHD levels, but obviously that costs precious feats.

Alternative ways to get new Class skills (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?491181)

All things considered, I think you're going to have to work pretty hard to make a Thorn Rogue 1 stack up to a Halfling Rogue 7 for general skillmonkeying and utility; especially when you look at the other things that the Rogue 7 gets and the Thorn doesn't: Evasion, Trap Sense and Uncanny Dodge - all of which can be traded away for ACFs, and/or used to qualify for PrCs.

[Lans]

True. I mean, stuff like City Slicker etc. can add skills to the RHD levels, but obviously that costs precious feats.

Alternative ways to get new Class skills (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?491181)

All things considered, I think you're going to have to work pretty hard to make a Thorn Rogue 1 stack up to a Halfling Rogue 7 for general skillmonkeying and utility; especially when you look at the other things that the Rogue 7 gets and the Thorn doesn't: Evasion, Trap Sense and Uncanny Dodge - all of which can be traded away for ACFs, and/or used to qualify for PrCs.

Trap sense is garbage, and I mentioned that it will be behind 2 relevent abilities. I think the Thorn is good enough to be barely +0 vs a halfling rogue, but I value its increased defenses ore than others seem to

[DeTess]

I've seen the lack of skill points brought up as a point a couple of times, but I'm not certain that that'll be a real issue. Because of its high stat bonuses, the thorn could easily have more intelligence than a halfling rogue while still maintaining better combat stats as well. The lack of skills could be a bigger issue, but the basic skill list is not bad (diplomacy, stealth skills, perception skills), just short and focused. If you want to build a rogueish character focused on social infiltration, thorn is probably sub-optimal, but for sneaking around all you're missing is disable device and open lock, and getting a level in rogue will allow you to catch up to those in short order.

[martixy]

I'd definitely go with -0.

If we remove the HD bloat so rightly pointed out, it might even make a usable roguish character.
I'd shave like 2 RHD. Sleep arrows and 2d6 SA are definitely not enough to justify more ECL (I have a pixie character in my game, they're not as useful as it might seem.)

[Aniikinis]

I'm throwing my vote in for +0. I'd play it as it is right now, but then again I'm also the high op player in the games that takes the low-tiers to edge up into the same tier as the rest of the party.

[liquidformat]

That is an issue, but it is something that will be dulled as they go up in levels. I think there's some character options that can add skills

So we shouldn't be using a pure rogue 7 as our comparison point, we should be using rogue 5/assassin 2, Rogue3/Swashbuckler3/nightsong enforcer 1 (with daring outlaw feat and penetrating strike acf) or even rogue 5/Shadow Thief of Amn 2. All of which handily out perform thorn in their own way and the gap only gets bigger as they go up in levels. For your standard melee/ranged rogue bab is important like I have repeated, and this is due to iterative attacks and for the most part you are looking at full bab prcs like invisible blade, master thrower, whisper knife, bloodstorm blade, and nightsong enforcer. The second adds in a bit of magic whether through assassin or wizard and diving into unseen seer and master spell thief either way you can't even dip your toes into the magical water until level 7 putting you way behind as a thorn. And lastly are the hardcore skill monkies, with your lack luster skill list and loss in skill points you are behind and will always be behind end of story.

So we have three cases mundane melee/ranged rogue, magic rogue, and skill monkey, thorn is worse than all of them with only sleep arrows to show for it, that sounds like -0 LA to me. It falls quite short of the benchmark of tier 3 and the argument of adding more levels helps to dampen this glaring issue only helps to emphasize that it is in fact -0 LA.

[GreatWyrmGold]

It's good we're careful on this, but the divide between +0 and -0 amounts to an endorsement.
What if we gave it LA 0 and let future readers decide whether they want +/-?
The distinction between -0 and +0 is pretty directly comparable to the distinction between +0 and +1. At +0, it would be weak in a party one level above its HD; at -0, it would be weak in a party with a level equal to its HD.


The thorn isn't going to be as good at rogue-ing as a rogue of equal HD, but it has some other tricks that rogues can't match (most importantly, sleep arrows). I'm not sure if that brings them up to +0 or just softens the -0 blow, but they're certainly comparable.

[Remuko]

When Thurbane is saying something is -0 LA you guys should pay attention as he tends towards the high side on LA. I don't think this thing is even on the border between -0 and +0, skill list sucks, you are loosing 2 skill points each level. You are forced going mundane ranged which isn't good to begin but is compounded by the loss of bab which puts you behind in number of attacks and sneak attack as well. sleep arrows do not make up enough to compensate you for the loss of skill points, bab, and sneak attack. This thing is just bad. it is firmly -0 LA.

This is basically what I was going to say. -0 for me too

[unseenmage]

Evasion vs Sleep Arrows is the real fight here right?

Which one scales better?

[ExLibrisMortis]

I think the bad class skills and low base attack push it into -0 territory for me. As has been argued quite thoroughly, you lose too much both roles a rogue can hope to do (skillmonkey and damage). I also feel that there are lots of good skillmonkeys besides the rogue that are much higher in tier (bard and beguiler, of course, but cloistered clerics can be surprisingly solid with the right ACFs, and Unseen Seer builds are great), and a straight comparison to rogue is far too one-sided to get a good rating. If we're comparing the thorn to a t4 straight rogue to come up with +0, we're grasping at straws to pull out a positive LA.

[liquidformat]

I think the bad class skills and low base attack push it into -0 territory for me. As has been argued quite thoroughly, you lose too much both roles a rogue can hope to do (skillmonkey and damage). I also feel that there are lots of good skillmonkeys besides the rogue that are much higher in tier (bard and beguiler, of course, but cloistered clerics can be surprisingly solid with the right ACFs, and Unseen Seer builds are great), and a straight comparison to rogue is far too one-sided to get a good rating. If we're comparing the thorn to a t4 straight rogue to come up with +0, we're grasping at straws to pull out a positive LA.

Even if we are comparing to straight rogue 7 it comes out behind, -1 bab, worse skill set, less skill points, no trap finding, less sneak attack, no evasion, less versatility/variety in build. The extra ability scores, better will save, and sleep arrow soften the blow but they don't do enough to make it comparable to even a straight rogue 7 which is a bad baseline to begin with.

[Thurbane]

Trap sense is garbage

That's why I mentioned ACFs: Penetrating Strike, for instance.

[Zaq]

Ugh, I want the thorn to be +0, but I don't know if I can actually justify it.

It's probably the most playable -0 we've had in ages. Thumbs, a normal size (being really big or really little can be fun, but it also causes problems navigating your environment sometimes), no massive stat penalties, a measurable amount of offense that meshes with class levels, an action-free save-or-lose rider automatically tacked onto regular attacks... but it's damned hard to honestly say that it's on par with 6 class levels.

[Thurbane]

It's probably the most playable -0 we've had in ages. Thumbs, a normal size (being really big or really little can be fun, but it also causes problems navigating your environment sometimes), no massive stat penalties, a measurable amount of offense that meshes with class levels, an action-free save-or-lose rider automatically tacked onto regular attacks... but it's damned hard to honestly say that it's on par with 6 class levels.

The problem with the save-or-lose rider effect is that it relies on archery, which is arguably the worst attack mode in the game.

Does Hank's Energy Bow come in small size, or are you going to need Strongarm Bracers?

[Lans]

The problem with the save-or-lose rider effect is that it relies on archery, which is arguably the worst attack mode in the game.

Does Hank's Energy Bow come in small size, or are you going to need Strongarm Bracers?\

Archery is probably in the middle of attack modes. Better than one-handed and thrown, worse than TWF and 2H.

You can stab people with arrows as improvised weapons.


That's why I mentioned ACFs: Penetrating Strike, for instance.

I thought the trade for that was Evasion. That is really good, if a little campaign dependent. The thorns strength boost compensates for that nicely.


Even if we are comparing to straight rogue 7 it comes out behind, -1 bab, worse skill set, less skill points, no trap finding, less sneak attack, no evasion, less versatility/variety in build. The extra ability scores, better will save, and sleep arrow soften the blow but they don't do enough to make it comparable to even a straight rogue 7 which is a bad baseline to begin with.

If we are comparing it to a R7 then its going to have trap finding.

It does the same damage, can do 3 SoLs in 1 round with the right build. They are a mind affecting fortitude save, so that's a thing

I think straight halfling rogue is a good floor for comparison. Currently my thought is better than it La+0, worse La -0. The same ??

With that said I think a strongheart halfling using boomerang daze is going to be just as good at most levels, but is going to be clearly better
at levels where it gets more attacks, so I'll go with an LA of -0

[Thurbane]

To be honest, as with the Pixie version, the Sleep Arrow ability is a bit poorly defined. How many arrows do you get? Do they spawn from thin air? Does any mundane arrow you pick up automatically gain the sleep ability? Can you hand them off to party members to use?

If you can hand them off to others to use, then the Thorn deserves LA +/-0* IMHO.

Not sure if it changed in 3.5, but in Savage Species, under the Pixie racial class, it says you need to craft the arrows:

Upon reaching 4th level, a pixie can craft pixie sleep arrows and pixie memory loss arrows as though meeting all of the requisites.

...unless I'm missing something, no further info is given about exactly how to craft these arrows or costs involved.

Was any of this touched on during the Pixie discussion?
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?532012-The-LA-assignment-thread-III-Now-in-HD!&p=22346543&viewfull=1#post22346543

[Efrate]

Comparing to t4 rogue I think it is +0. That the closest comparison point. Fey type has advantages (not being humanoid type is an advantage almost always ) as well. The stats make the damage pretty equal and lets you play around with all your scores a bit more so you can easily come out ahead in total skill points. You list is good if not awesome and those arrows can be great. If you compare it to t3 with like swordsage I think its a -0, but I think its fine at tier 4.

[Lans]

Comparing to t4 rogue I think it is +0. That the closest comparison point. Fey type has advantages (not being humanoid type is an advantage almost always ) as well. The stats make the damage pretty equal and lets you play around with all your scores a bit more so you can easily come out ahead in total skill points. You list is good if not awesome and those arrows can be great. If you compare it to t3 with like swordsage I think its a -0, but I think its fine at tier 4.

My issue is that it falls behind too much when it's behind an attack.

[Efrate]

Over 20 levels vs. straight rogue it ends up with the same amount of attacks and its unlikely to matter in combat most of the time. You lose some damage but you can just use arrows to take someone out then coup de grace them.

Plus if you have to mix it up in melee and not one turn kill the enemy, with more ac, hp, and the dr will help you more than the extra attack damage. If a round of sneak attack kills the enemy with that one extra attack, it is rarely enough of a threat to have that one more round matter.

[Inevitability]

Thorn LA!

-0 LA: 9 votes
+0 LA: 9 votes

...not entirely surprisingly, it appears to be a tie. For now I'll declare this one a special case, and go with +0/-0.

That said, I am not planning to make this a regular voting option, nor will I be assigning it in initial assessments. Only because the community is perfectly divided on an admittedly troublesome creature will +0/-0 be used here.

[Inevitability]

Topiary Guardian

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/9/9e/Topiary_Guardian.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110907232159

when you have to defend your mansion at 7 but enter a landscaping competition at 8

Anyway: topiary guardians are, as the descriptive text explains, not animate plants, but rather golem-like beings that just happen to use plants as a solid form. The statblock then proceeds to ignore all that and makes them plant-type anyway.

The guardians are surprisingly detached from the animal they mimic: hit dice, ability scores and natural armor bonus are all size-dependent, while movement modes other than land speed are lost.

The guardians also all have fire vulnerability, DR 10/slashing, tremorsense, and the ability to deal nonlethal damage without penalty. Furthermore, they can hold themselves motionless and appear to be a shrub to anyone who doesn't succeed on a DC 30 Spot check.

However, the issue is that Topiary Guardian is typically going to be increasing something's HD to the point where it loses net viability. I guess there's a few niche cases where the template gives a boost, like by applying it to a legendary wolf or something, but those cases are rare and more based on lost RHD than any real benefit from the template itself. In any case, I doubt the resulting creature would qualify for more than -0 LA.

+0 LA for the guardians in rare optimal cases, but if something it's only +0 LA on a handful of creatures it's hardly worthy of being called +0 at all. -0 LA, secure your garden in some other way.

[OgresAreCute]

My first thought when I saw that it had a set amount of HD was to take something super huge (number-wise), yet only medium size-wise and that way it might be useable. Sadly, your ability scores are also a set amount depending on size, so this is just crap.

-0.

[Inevitability]

My first thought when I saw that it had a set amount of HD was to take something super huge (number-wise), yet only medium size-wise and that way it might be useable. Sadly, your ability scores are also a set amount depending on size, so this is just crap.

-0.

I actually looked around, and the best I could find were the Legendary Animals that are also medium-sized (ape and wolf). Both would end up with somewhat underwhelming ability scores and 5 bad RHD, though.

The ape would have a 2d6/1d8/1d8 attack routine, which when combined with a 2d8 Rend and DR 10/slashing is kind of respectable, but the two lost BAB suck and the ability scores aren't too impressive by then either.

[ViperMagnum357]

LA -0. I am going to save my energy for analyzing worthwhile entries. If you could apply the template to something besides an Animal, maybe, but as is there is really nothing of that type that gains much from this application.

[Efrate]

-0. Neat window dressing but more or less bad otherwise.

[liquidformat]

pretty easy -0...

[No brains]

I wonder if the designers settled on plant type because the golems are still dependent upon the topiary being healthy and looking good. They probably reasoned that blight or some dehydrating attack would probably hurt these and decided against the construct type.

As for making these a PC, what would the story of a Legendary Ape Topiary Guardian be? Did Francine Patterson and Cleve Backster join forces to see if the combined communication power of gorillas and plants could make a creature that could talk to everything? Then did they get mad scientist bored and weaponize it because why not?

[liquidformat]

I wonder if the designers settled on plant type because the golems are still dependent upon the topiary being healthy and looking good. They probably reasoned that blight or some dehydrating attack would probably hurt these and decided against the construct type.

As for making these a PC, what would the story of a Legendary Ape Topiary Guardian be? Did Francine Patterson and Cleve Backster join forces to see if the combined communication power of gorillas and plants could make a creature that could talk to everything? Then did they get mad scientist bored and weaponize it because why not?

My vote is House Vadalis was trying to compete with Cannith's warforged by creating sentient plant soldiers that could be commanded and mass scale weaponized!

[Covenant12]

If int 0/-10 I'm definitely going -0. If the DM is very generous at giving out a real Int score for free (and maybe Cha), a legendary ape or something might eke out +0. Medium size is the only real hope, and even then I think I'd significantly prefer orc warblade.

So yeah, -0.

[Flickerdart]

Secure your garden in some other way.

The kids will stay off my lawn if it's on fire.

[Random Sanity]

Fun option to generate NPC stat blocks for a combat encounter, hot garbage for PCs. -0 flat out.

If you have to optimize heavily to get it to +0, it's not +0.

[Chainguy]

Topiary Guardian: For me the set ability scores (and them being mediocre without awakening shenanigans) plus the absence of any special ability of note throws it instantly in the -0 bin.

Thorn: Looks fun and about on par, 5/7 would play, +0.

[Thurbane]

-0 for the topiary guardians. Even if you dumpster dive splat books for a base creature to exploit, as shown above, the results are still fairly underwhelming.

[Dimers]

Fun option to generate NPC stat blocks for a combat encounter ...

Truth. Had a couple of these fellahs running Trample attacks all over an unoptimized level 10 to 15 party I was in. It was amusing and a good fight.

IIRC two different party members passed the Spot checks. :smalltongue:

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Topiary Guardian is easy enough that even I feel comfortable weighing in. -0.

[Luccan]

When a creature exists purely for the word play. This is definitely something fun to surprise players with, but hardly a match for any equally leveled half-elf. -0

[Lans]

So the only base creature stats that really matter are attacks and land speed?

[GreatWyrmGold]

Anyway: topiary guardians are, as the descriptive text explains, not animate plants, but rather golem-like beings that just happen to use plants as a solid form. The statblock then proceeds to ignore all that and makes them plant-type anyway.
I'm not sure what the difference is. Maybe it's a matter of power source, e.g. fey spirits vs. elemental spirits?

But yeah, they're not that great as PCs. They're also not that great as lawn-guards; deterrence is usually more effective than trampling, and you're not going to deter any intruders with some neat topiary. To quote a certain book reviewer, HEDGES ARE NOT SCARY!

[unseenmage]

For what it's worth, plants count as objects for spells so one could just Animate Objects some hedges and get better guarduan shrubberies than these.

[Scrollreader]

New here, but absolutely -0. There are FIVE manuals of monsters. Something in one of them is a better fit for your concept for a PC, without being this terrible.

(That being said, they amuse me as a DM, and I may we'll use them)

[Inevitability]

So the only base creature stats that really matter are attacks and land speed?

Well, special attacks and qualities too. Not too relevant but stuff like the legendary ape at least gets to keep Rend.

[Inevitability]

Trilloch

http://www.gemmaline.com/bestiaire/trilloch.png

Trillochs: because your campaign really needed an incorporeal invisible chaos-aligned rage-controlling necromantic firefly.

Chassis-wise, they could be a lot worse. 8 outsider RHD are acceptable, the incorporeal subtype is nice, stats are okay (+6 con, +8 dex/wis/cha), DR 15/lawful is top-notch, 60 ft. blindsight is never bad, and 40 ft. fly is hardly terrible. Trillochs also possess innate invisibility, making them even harder to kill.

For all this defensive prowess, trillochs are very lacking offense-wise. In fact, they're basically useless there: they possess no natural attacks, spell-likes, or offensive abilities. Their closest thing to an in-combat option is inducing Rage (as the spell) on allied martials and enemy casters, or killing off dying foes with Death Knell (though note that it's non-friendly so y'know, maybe don't use it when allies are down). Class levels (warlock, binder, some caster maybe?) will somehow alleviate this passiveness, but even then it'll be struggling to participate meaningfully in-combat for the first few levels.

Honestly, I feel that while this concept is neat, it could've been handled a lot better by making the trilloch into an enchantment effect, or a natural hazard. As-written, trillochs are meant to be some kind of force-amplifying, nearly undestroyable support, but fact is that a creature that essentially can't be destroyed and can't directly affect PCs is more likely to cause frustration than enjoyment.

As a PC, the trilloch is... tough to rate. However, it's lack of easy communication, tool use, weapon use, interaction with the physical environment, ability to contribute meaningfully to combat, and advancement options mean I'm forced to assign a -0 here. You could play as a trilloch, and maybe have fun doing it too, but there's simply better options out there.

[Thurbane]

From memory, they came in as a "trick monster" in the 1E Fiend Folio. They were supposed to tag long with an adventurer or party invisibly, causing "bad luck" and feeding off the resulting chaos. Or something like that - been a while since I cracked open my 1E books.

One appears on the 3.5 version of Expedition to Castle Ravenloft. I rmemeber it being a minor annoyance for the party when I ran the game.
Use as a PC? Limited. I mean, it's a nice chassis, but you only have 12 levels to be able to find some way to meaningfully contribute to a party.

You'd be a great scout or spy, I guess.

I'll hold off my LA vote until I've done a bit more research on this one.

On a side note: wonder if it's a natural enemy of the Glimmerskin from MM2. Both are incorporeal parasites/symbiotes, one from the Negative Energy plane, the other from the Positive.

[Amidus Drexel]

Warlock is probably viable here, especially with the boosted Dex and Cha. It won't do very much on its own until higher levels, but UMD and the ability to pick up more utility invocations is possibly worth it. Starting with flight, incorporeality, and invisibility is big, and it frees up invocation slots to take some of the more powerful ones (like the animate dead one).

Rogue -> Assassin is another reasonable build route, if you can get a force weapon.

[ViperMagnum357]

Trilloch; weird critter, even ignoring the portrait. Outsider RHD are solid; net abilities are about par after accounting for no Strength. Incorporeal, Invisible, immune to negative levels, medium grade DR, and immunity to anything that allows SR besides Holy Word, Banishment, and a few specific spells that reveal its location or counter its Rage ability make for a frightful array of defensive capabilities. 40 ft perfect (Ex) fly speed + unqualified Blindsight out to 60 feet are plenty useful as well.

Death Knell is solid, with one caveat. The ability to create a huge radius burst effect every round to finish off dying or at least negative HP opponents is highly specific, though it belongs in the DM caution category; along with everything else that warps the action economy. The caveat comes in with the fact that many, perhaps most, DMs treat anything that hits zero or less HP as functionally dead already, unless they are a PC or particularly important NPC. Being able to freely finish off each opponent you drop in a round, every round, is of no use if the DM already marked as dead everyone you would want to kill with this.

Rage is a silver bullet ability: it will be useless is many encounters, and trivialize others-like any opposing spellcaster that is vulnerable being unable to access spells or similar abilities until they make a save. In most encounters, the Trilloch can open with this once, and expect to effects to last the duration of the combat or until the opponents make their save. Unfortunately, the Trilloch has nothing else to work with besides its ability bonuses and a suite of defensive features. Permanently incorporeal critter with no manipulators or natural attacks, and questionable chakras means any type of physical combatant is straight out. That leaves spellcasting, SLAs, or (Su), and being fully eight levels behind for features you will rely on in most combat situations is a vast gulf; one I am not certain the Trilloch can effectively bridge.

I am going for LA -0. The defensive abilities are top notch, and it has an ability that can end certain encounters with contemptuous ease; but as a PC you have to create a combat proficient build from the ground up, 8 levels behind. that is too much to be compensated by the defense boosts, any way you slice it.

[unseenmage]

Is it blind beyond its Blindsight range?

[ViperMagnum357]

Is it blind beyond its Blindsight range?

No-a creature is not blind unless it specifically says so, either in the description or the typing-like Ooze. Anything can get Blindsense/Blindsight and use it in conjuction with the rest of its senses.

[Zaq]

It's very nice, but what does it do?

I don't think I can get beyond -0. It's incorporeal, but it's mostly inconsequential. Outsider HD are mostly nice because they get saves, BAB, and skills all in one package; the BAB is damned hard to use, and the skills (no manipulators, no ability to speak) are damned hard to use as well, meaning that those HD aren't nearly as nice as they otherwise might have been. And, as has been stated, you're basically starting from zero when it comes to gaining general relevance via class levels. Being incorporeal and naturally invisible is nice, but this is too much of a cost for me to feel like the trilloch is playable. Control Rage and Death Knell just don't cut it as far as active abilities go if that's all you've got.

Are there other examples of outsiders that have an alignment subtype despite only being native to one of the Inner Planes? A quick ctrl-F doesn't find anything else in this book, at least. That's actually pretty weird from a fluff perspective. The Inner Planes are pretty firmly not the aligned ones. Outsiders that have typical alignments and that are native to the Inner Planes? Yeah, that's a thing. But outsiders with alignment subtypes and that are native to the Inner Planes? Very unusual, to say the least.

[No brains]

-0 is probably a good call because a Ghost can mimic all of the trollop's assets and still have 4/5 class levels on the triops.

[Thurbane]

OK, so time for my breadown/vote:


8 RHD hurts, but admittedly, they are of the (equally) best type in the game.
Being incorporeal is a great defense, but comes with its own set of problems and difficulties.
No natural attacks. Does this thing have hands or manipulative digits of any kind?
Fly 40 ft (perfect) is pretty sweet.
Cha to AC as deflection is also pretty nice (par for the course with incorporeals).
Blindsight 60 ft is good, especially as raised above - it's not stated to be blind in general.
DR 15/lawful is always going to be relevant.
At will Rage spell-like is OK, but nothing to write home about.
At will quickened Death Knell spell-like is OK, if situational.
Immunity to magic = unbeatable SR, with only a few exceptions. This is very good.
Natural Su invisibility is also pretty good
Dex +8, Con +6, Wis +8, Cha +8 = very good. Str --, not so much.
Your racial skill list is OK, but not amazing.
Inability to speak is also going to be a problem - you may have to jump through hoops to be a caster of any kind.

So on the positive side, you have pretty amazing defenses, some decent ability mods, great maneuverability, and a pair of at will SLAs.

On the down side: being incorporeal creates a lot of gear and other issues, no Str score (is there a rule somewhere about using Cha in place of Str for incorporeal beings, or was that a house-rule?), you have a very weird non-humanoid form with no apparent means to manipulate objects, you can't speak, and, most importantly, your 8 HD eat up 8 class levels and give you virtually zero offensive aiblities in return.

I'm going with LA -0. Your class options are too limited, and you have little to offer a party other than self-preservation.

I'm not overly familiar with psionics: are there any psionic equivalents of Ur-Priest, Sublime Chord or other fast progression PrCs? If so, that may the best PC option.

[Scrollreader]

-0. It's weird, but not in a good way. I'm not in any way sure what you can do, besides incorporeal warlocking, and that can be done better elsewhere.

[Caelestion]

If it's unplayable or there's nothing that you can really do well with the creature, it's less -0 and more 0*, because sucking at offence is bad at any number of RHD.

[Covenant12]

A nice contrast to the tanky, but mediocre beat-stick and nothing else, we have this. A tanky, very good scout that can't contribute in a lot of fights. I don't think ToB will help, it not only doesn't have bite/claw/weapon attacks but it has wording that it can't attack at all. Some sort of early-entry caster shenanigans, but I haven't found a +0 path yet. Even if the equivalent of Ur-priest were available (upon moderate review it isn't), 8 levels back is a lot. Gestalt psion would be crazy, but 100's of gestalted monster races are.

I'm sorry, if someone has the char op-fu to make this work I'll be impressed, but a tanky, undetectable scout is a cohort or familiar or something, not a PC. It is an amazing scout though, no joke. Immune to a ton, perfect flight, decent saves and HP, solid DR, walk through walls, make no sound, natural SU invisibility, blindsight, and max Spot/Listen/Hide/Search/Survival. (incorporeal means no need or use for move silently)

Answer: -0, barring some tricks I wasn't able to find.

[Flickerdart]

If it's unplayable or there's nothing that you can really do well with the creature, it's less -0 and more 0*, because sucking at offence is bad at any number of RHD.

* means that there's an ability which requires DM adjudication to evaluate its potential accurately. Usually this means minion powers or similar wacky abilities that this thing doesn't have. -0 is sufficient. In a game that boils down to rocket tag, this thing is solely a counter-missile battery.

[Celestia]

This thing is like a super monk: even harder to kill and even more irrelevant. The monk is bad enough; there's no reason to play a monster that is more monk than the monk. -0.

[javcs]

Only thing I can think of would involve breaking out Ghostwalk.
But ... it's still useless as a PC without a whole lot of class levels on top of it.
I'd say it should go for Fiend of Possession ... except it can't.
You'd need to go for a possession/mind control build.

It also explicitly cannot speak.

LA -0. Without question.

It's not even good as an interesting encounter. It's a non encounter, because it can't do much.

It's not even very good as a minion.

[Thurbane]

Are there any fast-progression psionic PrCs?

If it can somehow get the Evil subtype (Ritual of Alignment, maybe?), you could go Fiend of Possession. but part of the appeal of FoP is being able to become intangible - which in this case, you already had. Still, ethereal is a slightly different state of affairs than incorporeal.

[Lans]

Are there any fast-progression psionic PrCs?

If it can somehow get the Evil subtype (Ritual of Alignment, maybe?), you could go Fiend of Possession. but part of the appeal of FoP is being able to become intangible - which in this case, you already had. Still, ethereal is a slightly different state of affairs than incorporeal.

Ardent+practiced manifester+other ML boosts

[GreatWyrmGold]

Warlock is probably viable here, especially with the boosted Dex and Cha. It won't do very much on its own until higher levels, but UMD and the ability to pick up more utility invocations is possibly worth it. Starting with flight, incorporeality, and invisibility is big, and it frees up invocation slots to take some of the more powerful ones (like the animate dead one).
That sounds reasonable to me. Being behind four eldritch blast dice and an invocation level means that the trillock would have only weak options. Still, starting with such a solid utility-chassis means the trillock could potentially be a decent scout/utility party member.
...But would a trilloch 8/warlock 1 be comparable in such a role to, say, a factorum 9 or warlock 9? The factorum has more powerful tricks, though usable fewer times per day, and also has decent combat ability. As for the warlock, they could have flight and (normal) invisibility by 8th level, plus a few least invocations, plus better UMD with deceive item... The trilloch has superior defensive abilities, incorporeality, and a couple of situational SLAs, but that's about it.
If the trillock is a build deserving of +0, it's a limited +0, and probably not a strong one. That's not really convincing me that the trilloch as a race is worth more than an "upper -0" designation.


Rogue -> Assassin is another reasonable build route, if you can get a force weapon.
...and hands.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

A Trilloch warlock could go almost immediately into Hellfire Warlock, making up the reduced eldritch blast damage and still having comparable (probably better, honestly) utility abilities to a base warlock. Of course, that still leaves the problem of recovering the Con Damage, but it has enough feats to grab the Strongheart Vest soulmeld.

[liquidformat]

So invisible, incorporeal, no str, no manipulators of any kind, no way to communicate; that sounds like a solid -0 LA to me and I actually think this warrants a * too as without dramatic DM involvement this is literally unplayable. When you have a PC that could go an entire campaign without anyone in the campaign actually knowing you are there much less an ally I would say that is grounds for a *.

So -0* LA for completely unplayable.

[Celestia]

So invisible, incorporeal, no str, no manipulators of any kind, no way to communicate; that sounds like a solid -0 LA to me and I actually think this warrants a * too as without dramatic DM involvement this is literally unplayable. When you have a PC that could go an entire campaign without anyone in the campaign actually knowing you are there much less an ally I would say that is grounds for a *.

So -0* LA for completely unplayable.
If you find some way to get telepathy, then you can communicate. One level in a spellcasting class with the practiced spellcaster feat, and you can hop right into mindbender next level.

Edit: Psion can also work and is probably a better choice for this thing.

[liquidformat]

If you find some way to get telepathy, then you can communicate. One level in a spellcasting class with the practiced spellcaster feat, and you can hop right into mindbender next level.

Edit: Psion can also work and is probably a better choice for this thing.

Without innate casting I don't think Trilloch is capable of casting spells without still spell and silent spell so casters seem straight out, and invocations might be out too since they are subject to arcane spell failure which suggests they require gesticulation to perform.

Psionics actually seems to me to be the only classes they are capable of utilizing the full abilities of out of the box.

[GreatWyrmGold]

When you have a PC that could go an entire campaign without anyone in the campaign actually knowing you are there much less an ally I would say that is grounds for a *.
Part of me thinks that that would be interesting; the rest points out that it would get annoying once the novelty wore off.

[Caelestion]

Thinking about it, LA - would normally be the symbol for being unplayable, which is actually quite a novelty.

[liquidformat]

Part of me thinks that that would be interesting; the rest points out that it would get annoying once the novelty wore off.

I think it would be great for the first 20 minutes of the first session then it would be horrible.

[martixy]

Def LA -0. And I'd shave like 2 RHD off the top.
You are practically useless. Your defenses may be amazing, but you will need a great deal of class levels to gain a measure off impact upon the world.
In that sense it's well worth an asterisk.

Telepath Psions have a Telepathy ACF, but these creatures have no Int bonus and massive Wis/Cha which is a bummer. Best option is probably Mindbender PrC.



On the down side: being incorporeal creates a lot of gear and other issues, no Str score (is there a rule somewhere about using Cha in place of Str for incorporeal beings, or was that a house-rule?), you have a very weird non-humanoid form with no apparent means to manipulate objects, you can't speak, and, most importantly, your 8 HD eat up 8 class levels and give you virtually zero offensive aiblities in return.


An incorporeal creature that attempts to grapple or move another incorporeal creature or object uses its Charisma modifier for rolls on which a Strength modifier normally
applies.

[Thurbane]

WBL for an ECL 8 PC is 27,000gp. The ritual you need to get the evil subtype for FoP costs 56,000gp, so unless you have a generous DM, or the rest of the party chips in, you can't afford that until ECL 11 or so.

So yeah, your class options are pretty limited.

DFA 6 can get you the Humanoid Shape invocation, but waiting until you're at ECL 14 before you can even function like a normal humanoid is pretty ridiculous. I'm not even sure it works: Change Shape says you keep your type and subtype, so you'd still be incorporeal?

[Inevitability]

-0 LA it is! The description shall be edited to reflect this.

[Inevitability]

Troll, Cave

http://www.cracksmacker.com/rpg/savagetide/files/creature-cave_troll.jpg

MM3 gave us a few variations on the plain old troll which, incidentally, got +1 LA for a total ECL of 7 in a much earlier thread. Looking back, I wonder if by modern standards it'd have been given +0 instead, and I guess there's no way to know for sure.

Anyway, the cave variant has a total of 9 RHD, and comes with Large size, two 2d6 claws, and a 1d8 bite. Their stats are par for the course: high strength and constitution, abysmal (as in, barely-sentient) intelligence, and mid-low stats elsewhere.

Notably enough, cave trolls get Pounce. They also enjoy Rake, Rend, Improved Grab that works off bite, and the ability to daze a foe it hits with both claws. It's a strong status to hit foes with, but having to use either a mouthpick weapon or no weapon at all worsens it considerably. Cave trolls do not have regeneration, and get Fast Healing 8 instead.

Cave trolls have enough muscle to make completely reasonable characters, even if they are lacking in terms of versatility. +0 it is.

[Thurbane]

Let's see...


Large size: nice for any melee type.
9 Giant HD: let's face it, not great. At least you get MWP for free.
40 ft move: not bad, but nothing special for a large creature.
+11 natural armor: pretty decent.
3 natural attacks: good in the right build.
Dazing blow is pretty darn good, if you ask me: again, it depends on the right build, but it does suck that you're losing your iteratives or being relegated to a mouthpick weapon.
Rend gives you bonus damage when you hit with both claws, so combos with dazing blow.
Pounce is gold for any melee build.
Improved grab works with bite only...meh.
Rake would be pretty handy in a grappling build.
Scent, 90 ft darkvision and low-light vision are decent senses.
Fast healing 8 is nothing to be sneezed at, IMHO. It's no regeneration, but makes after combat healing a breeze. May also save your bacon in a fight, on occasion.
Str +18, Dex +2, Con +16, Int -8, Wis +2, Cha -4: net +26. The Int hit really hurts, though.
Very small racial skill list, but some handy skills there. Lets face it: with the hit to Int, you probably don't need to worry much about putting ranks in much beyond Listen and/or Spot.

I'm pretty comfortable giving these guys LA +0, in the context of this thread. You could make an absolute beast of a natural attack build with this, balanced by the fact you've only got 11 class levels to play with, and an IQ marginally better than a dog.

[Celestia]

-0, too many subpar HD.

[Efrate]

What is the wording on claw daze? Is it just hit with 2 claw attacks? Totemist for a daze focus king of smack type might be interesting, or psywar for their claw attacks.

I think it is good enough as a melee beatstick to get +0, but just.

[DeTess]

What is the wording on claw daze? Is it just hit with 2 claw attacks? Totemist for a daze focus king of smack type might be interesting, or psywar for their claw attacks.


the Relevant bit would be: "If a cave troll hits with both claw attacks," This is somewhat ambiguous if you're looking at adding more than 2 claw attacks to try and get more than one dazing blow off.

[Unavenger]

They have a cave troll!

Upon looking at it, I have to say +0. Unless you're seriously optimising, you're going to have trouble keeping up with one using a standard race, though at higher levels you'll get better.

[liquidformat]

I can't with good conscious vote for +0 LA on these guys even though I love them for the simple fact that you are 3 bab behind which is horrible for a beatstick. This is -0 LA for me needing one or two hd removed to be +0 LA.

[Zaq]

That’s a lot of RHD for what amounts to just numbers. Dazing Blow is almost interesting (dazed is a deadly debuff), but as stated, the fact that it only works when you hit with your claws (which, while technically possible to boost, are still not exactly friendly to scaling) really cuts into the long-term utility.

A normal troll has fewer bad RHD and true regen. I don’t think Dazing Blow is worth what you give up relative to being a normal troll, and I don’t think the whole package is worth what you give up relative to being a human or an orc. Even on a bruiser, you could be at least knee-deep in a PrC before the cave troll gets a single class level.

Gotta be -0. Not sure how many RHD to shave off, but probably at least 3 to bring it down to regular troll levels (remembering that fast healing is inferior to regen).

[unseenmage]

It'd make a decent Effigy. That said it would not make a decent PC.

In a levels system superpowers gotta scale and these just dont do that well enough.

-0

[liquidformat]

That’s a lot of RHD for what amounts to just numbers. Dazing Blow is almost interesting (dazed is a deadly debuff), but as stated, the fact that it only works when you hit with your claws (which, while technically possible to boost, are still not exactly friendly to scaling) really cuts into the long-term utility.

A normal troll has fewer bad RHD and true regen. I don’t think Dazing Blow is worth what you give up relative to being a normal troll, and I don’t think the whole package is worth what you give up relative to being a human or an orc. Even on a bruiser, you could be at least knee-deep in a PrC before the cave troll gets a single class level.

Gotta be -0. Not sure how many RHD to shave off, but probably at least 3 to bring it down to regular troll levels (remembering that fast healing is inferior to regen).

I could get behind 6 rhd +1 LA for this guy, it seems pretty similar to the standard troll. Personally, I would probably go barbarian 1/fist of the forest3/frost rager 5 and maybe a couple levels in totemist or psychic warrior on this thing. Not everything needs a two handed weapon to play well, I mean at least it can open doors and talk, that is a lot better than a lot of the beat sticks we review...