Lycanthropy is the best Buff in the game

[Merudo]

Lycanthropy is the best buff a character can have.

Lycanthropy gives a stat boost, as well as access to a new form with usually better movement. Both are nice to have.

But the reason Lycanthropy is the best buff in the game is that it gives the following:

Damage Immunities Bludgeoning, Piercing, And Slashing Damage From Nonmagical Weapons That Aren't Silvered

This gives immunity to nearly all melee attacks in the game - nearly all creatures do not have magical weapons.


Ancient Red Dragon? Its claws, bite & tail aren't magical.
Dragon Turtle? Not magical.
Kraken? Its tentacles aren't magical.
Warlord? All its damage is nonmagical.
Virtually all the wildlife (including in Chult)? Zero magical attacks.


In fact, the Lycanthropes don't have magical weapons themselves. So for them to give the curse to a foe during combat is completely idiotic, as it makes their enemies immune to the Lycanthrope's attacks.

Players who know about the damage immunity will actively seek the lycanthropy "curse". If they ever encounter a Lycanthrope, their best course of action may well be to restrain the creature and cohere it into giving them the curse.

Ergo, any encounter with a lycanthrope has the potential to break the game. I believe that, as written, it is best for the DM to not take any chance and remove every lycanthrope from the game world.

[Unoriginal]

Lycanthropy is not a buff.

It is a curse.

An encounter with an hostile lycanthrope isn't a chance to break the game, it is a fight for one's life, with for potential aftermath one or several adventurers risking to unleash monthly uncontrollable rampages until they're either uncursed or surrender to the beast and become horrible monsters for good.

Even the Werebears don't spread their curse lightly, and they learned how to master it.

D&D is more than numbers on a character sheet, and lycanthropy is a good example of why.

[Lunali]

You're ignoring the part where you lose control of the character for a few days each month. Also, if your character embraces the curse, which seems likely if you're intentionally getting it, your alignment changes and you may lose control of the character permanently.

[Elysiume]

You're ignoring the part where you lose control of the character for a few days each month. Also, if your character embraces the curse, which seems likely if you're intentionally getting it, your alignment changes and you may lose control of the character permanently.Honestly if you're actively seeking out a curse that you know will make you uncontrollably commit evil acts on a regular basis, you're probably not hanging out all that far up along the good axis to begin with.

[Merudo]

with for potential aftermath one or several adventurers risking to unleash monthly uncontrollable rampages

It's rather easy to prepare for the monthly curse, especially at higher levels.

Just Teleport the Lycanthrope in the middle of nowhere, Plane Shift them, or just lock them up. And if it gets really bad, you can just kill the Lycanthrope before Full Moon and Raise Dead them once its over.

Compared to the enjoyment of immunity to nonmagical weapons, paying 500gp to Raise Dead once a month is nothing.

But the best solution is probably to keep an evil Lycanthrope under lock and key. Just cast Remove Curse on the Lycanthrope PC before the full Moon, then once its over go to the locked up Lycanthrope & recontract the curse. Remove Curse is free so the only expense is keeping up the Lycanthrope imprisoned.

[Chronos]

You still have the issue of embracing the curse making you an NPC. There's no spell to fix that.

[Mikal]

You still have the issue of embracing the curse making you an NPC. There's no spell to fix that.

It's called casting "Find a better DM"

[Unoriginal]

It's called casting "Find a better DM"

A good DM is one who makes *curses* be *curses*. Giving your mind and body to a cursed, bloodthirsty killer isn't good for you, who would have thought?

[King of Nowhere]

A good DM is one who makes *curses* be *curses*. Giving your mind and body to a cursed, bloodthirsty killer isn't good for you, who would have thought?

Actually, while I don't much like the intentional rules-lawyering to try and get buffs, I also do not like "stuff X is evil, just because, even if you manage to hurt nobody whatsoever". Nope. An action is evil because it hurts people. Then we created categories, because that's how the human brain works, and some of those categories we labelled evil, because they are the kind of stuff that normally hurts people, or that is normally used to exploit people. But that's just that, a generalization. Just like tools, spells and curses are not evil, everything depends on how they are used.

So I'd say, if you manage to get lichantropy and keep it in check, you deserve some reward.
You may also find out that your smarter enemies figured it out and prepared for it, by exploiting its weaknesses. So maybe when you are locked up during the full moon to keep you from hurting people, someone will free you and unleash you against the rest of the team... because a dangerous tool can backfire.

[Sigreid]

I would let a player keep his character but they would have to roleplay the curse, becoming more beastial in their thought process, etc. And virtually no NPC that learned their secret would ever treat them.

[Unoriginal]

Just like tools, spells and curses are not evil, everything depends on how they are used.

A curse is meant to suck. At the very least, it's something imposed on you and you don't have control over.



So I'd say, if you manage to get lichantropy and keep it in check, you deserve some reward.
You may also find out that your smarter enemies figured it out and prepared for it, by exploiting its weaknesses. So maybe when you are locked up during the full moon to keep you from hurting people, someone will free you and unleash you against the rest of the team... because a dangerous tool can backfire.

There is no "keeping it in check". You can either embrace it, in which case you stop being you, or you can suffer three nights a month and risk to destroy people every single time. "Avoiding damaging others for now" is the best you can do

Also people in-universe aren't clueless. If they know one of their enemies is a lycanthrope, those with enough means will bring silvered weapons, or just ways of restraining people that doesn't rely on doing damage to them, like nets and chains (before killing the lycanthrop via drowning or the like if given the chance). Plus it's not because a NPC statblock doesn't have a magic weapon as a default that the NPC can't have one.

[MaxWilson]

A good DM is one who makes *curses* be *curses*. Giving your mind and body to a cursed, bloodthirsty killer isn't good for you, who would have thought?

In this case, a good DM is one who rewrites Lycanthropy to work completely differently. At minimum I'd say that means "you do not have access to your class abilities while your lycanthropy is active." Also I'd recommend that the PC's conscious mind is completely suspended while your lycanthropy is active--you basically become an NPC a few nights a month, and you wake up with strange memories. I'm going off the classic horror movie werewolf tropes here, not D&D baggage. If your fellow PCs can somehow harness you and point you in right direction while you're "away," good for them, but you're not really you any more while it's happening, and if you embrace lycanthropy you'll never be you again.

Also, good-aligned Lycanthropes don't fit the theme. Wearbears need to be crazy bloodthirty berserkers just like tigers and wolves, so that the strange memories you wake up with are never pleasant even if you got bit by a wearbear.

The good DM's message to players: Lycanthropy is a virus--nature's way of fighting back against civilization. Lycanthropes are nature's way of creating more lycanthropes out of civilized beings, and lycanthropes are never civilized.

[Foxhound438]

It's called casting "Find a better DM"

good, I'll find a better player who's not actively trying to throw off the game that I'm taking time out of my week to prepare and run for them

[Keravath]

Of course that ancient Red Dragon breath doing 26d6 of damage is still going to hurt, as will its frightful presence.

On top of that, I would expect that any decent Red Dragon (or any other ultra-intelligent creature like that) will have long ago acquired an Insignia of Claws. So when the unsuspecting lycanthrope wanders in ... there will be very little left afterward except ground meat.

However, the ultimate resolution in game is by the DM and by roleplaying it.

Lycanthropes (werewolves) are evil. Other types of lycanthropes might be less so. They are dangerous to people around them. When transformed at the full moon they are not intelligent and not in control of themselves.

Lycanthropes are generally feared and hunted by the population. Silvered weapons are not that uncommon though a bit expensive and if people are hunting lycanthropes, everyone will have one.

So, eventually folks will notice that a PC has immunity to damage from normal weapons. They may also notice other signs of lycanthropy. Once it isn't a secret anymore, bounties will be issued, hunting parties sent out, notices posted and the PC will either flee or die. They will also be hunted wherever they go as soon as it is realized that they are a lycanthrope. There may even be organizations that make it their job to root out and eliminate lycanthropes. They may have spells or other ways to track lycanthropes and detect when they are nearby.

In other words, in most game worlds, the life of a character who chooses to embrace lycanthropy has a very real chance of being brutal and short. So, if your PC thinks lycanthropy is cool because you get immunity to damage from normal weapons ... go ahead and see how long you last unless the DM decides to be extremely generous about it. :)

[SkipSandwich]

I could see "controlled lycanthropy" as a barbarian subclass, where you spend a use of rage to transform into your werewolf form.

Alternatively it could be a SORCERER subclass that grants a wild shape-like transformation ability. Charisma is the 'personality' stat and having a high cha would be thematicly linked to being able to overpower the "become a mindless beast" part of the curse.

[MaxWilson]

Once it isn't a secret anymore, bounties will be issued, hunting parties sent out, notices posted and the PC will either flee or die. They will also be hunted wherever they go as soon as it is realized that they are a lycanthrope.

In a game setting like the one you describe, you likely have bigger problems, like the fact that all of these bounty parties have already killed all the monsters and plundered all the dungeons, so the PCs spend their days waiting tables and using their Persuasion Expertise to try charm people into giving them higher tips.

In a setting like that, Swashbucklers are OP. :)

[DrKerosene]

I could see "controlled lycanthropy" as a barbarian subclass, (snip)

(snip) Charisma ...(snip)...be thematicly linked to being able to overpower the "become a mindless beast" part of the curse.
3.5 had some Barbarian prestige class(es?) like that, which I would find if I had a Player wanting such a theme. Though Wisdom used to be the stat used for the skill check to control your shape. I do think Charisma is a fair choice.


good, I'll find a better player who's not actively trying to throw off the game that I'm taking time out of my week to prepare and run for them

Cool, maybe I’ll finally have a player that doesn’t nope out right away when I suggest that a Couatl can “bestow” a chosen type of Lycanthropy as a “reward”.

This is a fun game.

[DrLoveMonkey]

I would think acquiring lycanthropy would be really boring. Like from that point on 90% of combat encounters fall back on rolling dice where only your rolls do anything so why even bother?

It’s like activating god mode in a video game, it’s funny for a bit to just stroll through the final level and shrug off all the giant explosions, but it gets dull pretty fast.

[Tanarii]

Actually, while I don't much like the intentional rules-lawyering to try and get buffs, I also do not like "stuff X is evil, just because, even if you manage to hurt nobody whatsoever". Nope. An action is evil because it hurts people. A specific action isn't evil in 5e. The closest 5e has to single given actions being an alignment is creating undead with necromancy is not a good act.

Which is besides the point. Lycanthrope still force changes your alignment if you embrace it. And plenty of DMs have a 'no evil PCs' table rule.

[detro]

I find it funny that in a world where you can be descended from devils, or dragons, and it can have no bearing on a characters individuality.
But god forbid you be a lycanthrope, that is a curse and is agency-removal worthy.
Hell as of GGR you can even be a vampire too...
D&D is a senseless mish-mash of themes from disparate eras of belief and storytelling, and it shows. I'm just wondering why it's taking so long for WotC to make a lycanthrope race. I guess Shifters from eberron almost count.

[OvisCaedo]

Lycanthrope alignment is just mysterious to me to begin with. Why are some types of lycanthropy inherently evil while others are inherently good?? Is this just entirely based on prejudices against the animals themselves, or what?

[masterjoda99]

So for the people dropping the downsides so much, how would you approach having a playable lycanthrope around? The blood hunter? A barbarian? A werebear? (I think sometimes that my spirit animal is a bear, because i'm hairy, sleep heavily, and love salmon)

[qube]

Which is besides the point. Lycanthrope still force changes your alignment if you embrace it. And plenty of DMs have a 'no evil PCs' table rule.even more - the MM of lycantrhopy specifically specifies repeats this


The DM is free to decide that a change in alignment places the character under DM control until the curse of lycanthropy is removed
~~MM,p207 Player characters as lycanthropes sidebar

edit: it's like ... no sane person would agree to a tactic that involves


"you can just kill the Lycanthrope before Full Moon and Raise Dead them once its over."

[GreyBlack]

I could see "controlled lycanthropy" as a barbarian subclass, where you spend a use of rage to transform into your werewolf form.

Alternatively it could be a SORCERER subclass that grants a wild shape-like transformation ability. Charisma is the 'personality' stat and having a high cha would be thematicly linked to being able to overpower the "become a mindless beast" part of the curse.

Isn't "controlled lycanthropy" just the "Wild Shape" class feature?


So for the people dropping the downsides so much, how would you approach having a playable lycanthrope around? The blood hunter? A barbarian? A werebear? (I think sometimes that my spirit animal is a bear, because i'm hairy, sleep heavily, and love salmon)

Easy. Play a druid. Maybe a druid of the _moon_?

[The Jack]

A good DM is one who makes *curses* be *curses*. Giving your mind and body to a cursed, bloodthirsty killer isn't good for you, who would have thought?

A better DM thinks for themselves and considers why a curse could be called a curse.

[Unoriginal]

A better DM thinks for themselves and considers why a curse could be called a curse.

"Because it turns you into an uncontrollable, bloodthirsty monster" isn't enough for you?

[King of Nowhere]

"Because it turns you into an uncontrollable, bloodthirsty monster" isn't enough for you?

not if it turns out that you can, in fact, control it.

Here is a matter of conflict between fluff and number crunch: fluff says the curse turns you into an uncontrollable bloodthirsty monster on a killing spree a few days evry month.
Number crunch says that you can get locked up, magicallly restrained, or healed for a shirt time, and you do not became an uncontrollable bloodthirsty monster.

A clever DM should solve this conflict. whether he chooses to solve it by making the curse unrestrainable, or by making it more controllable, it's up to the specific table

[Dr. Cliché]

Lycanthrope alignment is just mysterious to me to begin with. Why are some types of lycanthropy inherently evil while others are inherently good?? Is this just entirely based on prejudices against the animals themselves, or what?

I've said this many times. It seems like D&D wants to eat its cake and still have it when it comes to Lycanthropes.

It wants to have the Hollywood stuff, where it's a curse and the beast transforms involuntarily every full moon to wreak havoc; but then it also wants to use completely separate lore when it comes to alignment.

So we have this nonsensical mess wherein being bitten by a wolf or rat makes you evil, being bitten by a bear makes you good, and bitten by a tiger makes you . . . apathetic, I guess. It's especially weird because tigers and bears tend to be far more aggressive and dangerous to humans than wolves. But I guess werebears just turn you into Winnie-the-Pooh and weretigers turn you into Garfield. :smallannoyed:

I also really hate the automatic alignment change if you choose to "embrace the curse" (whatever the hell that means). Since your alignment changes, you might as well be an entirely different character at that point - which makes the choice entirely worthless as you're effectively no longer the same person who made the choice.

Long story short, I think D&D lycanthropes are currently a confused, unfocused mess that are trying to draw from far too many mutually-exclusive sources and really need an overhaul.



Alternatively it could be a SORCERER subclass that grants a wild shape-like transformation ability. Charisma is the 'personality' stat and having a high cha would be thematicly linked to being able to overpower the "become a mindless beast" part of the curse.

Much as I despise the lycanthrope rules, I won't deny that a lycanthrope sorcerer subclass sounds awsome. :smallbiggrin:

[Unoriginal]

means). Since your alignment changes, you might as well be an entirely different character at that point - which makes the choice entirely worthless as you're effectively no longer the same person who made the choice.


That's the point. You're giving up who you are and letting the curse-beast win.

[The Jack]

What if you're already said alignment, or really the change in alignment is more like 'alignment hormones' that make you want to do x rather than Y' but your sense of self and logical processing remains the same.


What if 'lycanthropes are bad' is really just a conspiracy to reduce the number of powerful individuals...



If you became a fiend or a celestial to the point where you embodied an alignment... you could consider droping the character if you didn't want to play that. But surely if you're good to play whatever pull you take, it's fine.

I get the balance concern, but the alignment argument's BS. Hell I think the Alignment argument only exists because of the balance concern.

[loki_ragnarock]

Curses should always have a loophole to get out of them. Learning how to selflessly help others. Becoming the sort of person that can be loved despite their outward appearance. Someone casting remove curse serves as the loophole for the curse of lycanthropy. It isn't epic, nor does it impart a moral, but it does suffice as a loophole for changing your fate.

The thing about fate is that trying to avoid is usually the very thing that decides the outcome. Myth is full of that kind of thing, and myth is really what we should be attempting to evoke.

Your fate has changed once you contract lycanthropy.

You have an established out, as part of the conditions of the curse.

Attempting to avoid that fate outside of the established conditions for its removal should result in the same outcomes it did for King Acrisius; despite his well considered attempts at securing himself, Persius still kills him, randomly, in a confluence of events that show the entire universe had been scheming against him.


The OP is basically suggesting something that should be handled the same way; the curse will out. Shackle yourself or your captive during the time to change? The DC to escape becomes trivially easy as chains snap and bars bend. Seal him in a stoneshaped box with no passage out but the pin prick airholes to prevent suffication? An earthquake due to the unpredictable shifting of tectonic plates causes a fissure that sloughs off one wall. Kill yourself to be resurrected after the problem time? Turns out what the party has been carrying is cubic zirconia all along. You're dead, but you're cured, I guess? Destroy the moon? That's some chutzpah. I think you might have earned it at that point.

Curses are about fate. Fate doesn't give a bleep about how clever you are, and only conspires to make your most clever attempts to circumvent it all the more key in your succumbing to it.

Have fun with the immunity to non-silvered weapons. It'll come in handy when you wake up naked and cold amongst the shredded remains of a child, trying to explain to the shocked and angry crowd how cleverly you tried to trick fate as you're spitting out pieces of bone stuck in your teeth.



"Oh, what a meany DM! He's clearly a jerk face for ruining my fun."
When my precedent is every Zeus, Hera, Delphi, and all of Greek Myth, I think I'm standing on pretty firm ground.

[Tanarii]

So we have this nonsensical mess wherein being bitten by a wolf or rat makes you evil, being bitten by a bear makes you good, and bitten by a tiger makes you . . . apathetic, I guess. It's especially weird because tigers and bears tend to be far more aggressive and dangerous to humans than wolves. But I guess werebears just turn you into Winnie-the-Pooh and weretigers turn you into Garfield. :smallannoyed: Weren't they were-bears based on something from Tolkien?


I also really hate the automatic alignment change if you choose to "embrace the curse" (whatever the hell that means). Since your alignment changes, you might as well be an entirely different character at that point - which makes the choice entirely worthless as you're effectively no longer the same person who made the choice.


That's the point. You're giving up who you are and letting the curse-beast win.Right? That's a complaint that seems to completely miss the point.

[Catullus64]

The thing about fate is that trying to avoid is usually the very thing that decides the outcome. Myth is full of that kind of thing, and myth is really what we should be attempting to evoke.



I dissent. Numerous statements in rulebooks make it clear that D&D derives just as much if not more of its sensibilities from 20th century popular culture as from the folklore and mythology that inspired it. It would be fallacious to say that because the game borrows theming and aesthetics from folklore and mythology, players and DMs ought to hold to the philosophical underpinnings of that mythology. A philosophical underpinning that I would say is core to D&D is that the choices and actions of heroes (as represented by players) have significant impact on the world, cosmic scheming be damned.

In that framework, a curse is an obstacle to be overcome, not something that fate has decreed you to suffer, hence why a person can choose not to embrace the curse (trying to take advantage of the curse with elaborate damage-control schemes still seems to fall under that purview, though.)

Besides, classical mythology isn't so uniformly wedded to curses as the inevitable force of fate; Lycaon, from the Metamorphoses, is transformed into a monstrous wolf specifically to reflect his already savage, violent nature. The curse is the result of the choices he made. I don't think, as many have suggested, that D&D werewolf mechanics are thematically inconsistent; it's a heightened and fantastic version of the real human internal struggle with violence and cruelty.

[Tanarii]

A philosophical underpinning that I would say is core to D&D is that the choices and actions of heroes (as represented by players) have significant impact on the world, cosmic scheming be damned.
Meh. That's sometimes D&D, YMMV depending on play style.

Meanwhile philosophical underpinning to all Roleplaying is that choices and actions have consequences. Some DMs like to remove meaningful consequences in the name of either plot or so-called agency (even though it's the exact opposite of agency) or PCs are heroes, but that's just robbing players of Roleplaying.

[Merudo]

You have an established out, as part of the conditions of the curse.

Attempting to avoid that fate outside of the established conditions for its removal should result in the same outcomes it did for King Acrisius; despite his well considered attempts at securing himself, Persius still kills him, randomly, in a confluence of events that show the entire universe had been scheming against him.


Do you rule the same for all curses, such as the curse from Bestow Curse or equipping a cursed item? If not, why single Lycanthropy out?

Personally, I'd reserve the kind of tragic curse you describe to curses inflicted by Gods (such a Strahd's curse).

[Dr. Cliché]

Weren't they were-bears based on something from Tolkien?

Yeah, but that was my whole point. There's this weird mix of Tolkien mythology with Hollywood werewolves and it really doesn't gel at all.



Right? That's a complaint that seems to completely miss the point.

"Anyone who disagrees with me has missed the point."

Gee, what a compelling argument. :smallconfused:

[Torpin]

lycanthropy is still not as good of a buff as foresight

[loki_ragnarock]

I dissent. Numerous statements in rulebooks make it clear that D&D derives just as much if not more of its sensibilities from 20th century popular culture as from the folklore and mythology that inspired it.

I wouldn't suggest otherwise. Nor would I suggest that these other sources are anything other than modern myth.

But if we look to the sword and sorcery roots of inspiration, when did you ever see Conan go, "Zounds! A curse that makes me immune to normal weapons! I will surely embrace this with all my being and my iron thews will continue to operate with the same fierce grace without additional consequence!" I suppose it's possible, as I didn't read any of the stuff past Howard, but I'll happily wait for it to be presented to me. I'll also wonder, if it is presented to me, whether that would have been in keeping with the original vision of the character, but I'll take it as a given.


Or if you look to LotR for a secondary inspiration from LotR, Gollumm sure never said, "That ring is definitely a badass magic item with no consequences beyond making fishes easier to eat. Good thing my friend still has it and never gave it to me as a birthday present." Nor did Boromir say, "Whelp, I claimed the ring and solved all of our problems by throatpunching Sauron and poking him in his eye of doom. What was Aragorn's problem, anyway. Worrywart ranger."

Elric of Melnibone kind of pulls this out more directly, but I don't recall it being a slam dunk for him, either.


So in addition to Zeus and Hera, I've got Tolkien, Moorcock, and Howard as a point of reference for precedent. I feel like I'm still on pretty firm ground.


It would be fallacious to say that because the game borrows theming and aesthetics from folklore and mythology, players and DMs ought to hold to the philosophical underpinnings of that mythology. A philosophical underpinning that I would say is core to D&D is that the choices and actions of heroes (as represented by players) have significant impact on the world, cosmic scheming be damned.
If that's the type of game you want to run, sure.

But it's one of many. Personally, I think it would be awesome if someone's solution was to point at the moon and say, "You and me, punk. One of us makes it out alive." And then hatches a scheme to blow that sucker out of existence. That would be a badass game. I want to play that character, because she's the best kind of hardass. Defiantly spitting in the eye of the cosmos is epic. A hairbrained scheme that solves the problem of lycanthropy, full stop, and changes that cosmos; that is a legend.

From another angle, heroes having significant impact on the world is sort of the thing that heroes are destined for; lycanthropy is a curse, a deviation from destiny. The thing that makes them unheroic.

Lastly, I wouldn't say what you've put forward is a fundamental building block of the game; I've been through some real meatgrinders where most of the heroes fell like wheat to the scythe. Excellent for beefloaf, not much significant impact on the world. Well, they fertilized it, I suppose.



In that framework, a curse is an obstacle to be overcome, not something that fate has decreed you to suffer, hence why a person can choose not to embrace the curse (trying to take advantage of the curse with elaborate damage-control schemes still seems to fall under that purview, though.)

In that framework the curse is an obstacle to be overcome... which is provided by remove curse. Overcome. It's even easy to overcome it, so easy that it can't be described as heroic.
Knowing a fifth level cleric isn't heroism. Neither is trying to game the curse.

[The Jack]

lycanthropy is still not as good of a buff as foresight

Foresight as in a game ability or foresight as in a real life thing?


'Cause lycanthropy+foresight... Yeah that's a great deal. You've also got to consider that sometimes, the enemy will try to get the drop on you and there's little to no way to forsee it as an active, mobile individual.

[LudicSavant]

I get the balance concern, but the alignment argument's BS. Hell I think the Alignment argument only exists because of the balance concern.

That is the impression I got as well. Many players would be perfectly happy to roleplay their alignment changing, as well as issues like tying yourself up on the night of the full moon being extra fun (and thematically consistent with many fantasy stories on the subject). I mean we totally have entire RPGs dedicated to roleplaying that.

[Tanarii]

"Anyone who disagrees with me has missed the point."

Gee, what a compelling argument. :smallconfused:Don't get me wrong, it's okay not to like the end result of the point for some reason. But the way you phrased it made it seem like you think the point shouldn't be the point.

(For example: "some reason" might be "I don't like forced alignment change taking away my sole control of determining my character's personality.)

[Dr. Cliché]

Don't get me wrong, it's okay not to like the end result of the point for some reason. But the way you phrased it made it seem like you think the point shouldn't be the point.

(For example: "some reason" might be "I don't like forced alignment change taking away my sole control of determining my character's personality.)

Maybe I expressed myself badly then because your 'some reason' is more or less what I was trying to say. :smalltongue:

[LudicSavant]

not if it turns out that you can, in fact, control it.

Here is a matter of conflict between fluff and number crunch: fluff says the curse turns you into an uncontrollable bloodthirsty monster on a killing spree a few days evry month.
Number crunch says that you can get locked up, magicallly restrained, or healed for a shirt time, and you do not became an uncontrollable bloodthirsty monster.

A clever DM should solve this conflict. whether he chooses to solve it by making the curse unrestrainable, or by making it more controllable, it's up to the specific table

Indeed.

As for how I have solved it in one of my campaign settings, I have gone for the route of homebrewing an entirely new, more terrifying strain of lycanthropy more akin to the sort presented in Bloodborne. Like so:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPP1e7hOyik

[DarkKnightJin]

Pretty sure that in the side bar that discusses lycanthropy for PCs.. the damage immunity is never brought up.
You get Str or Dex set to a value, and access to an animal and hybrid form.

And honestly.. if I get lycanthropy and suddenly I'm immune to nonmagical attacks.. I'd probably retire the character willingly, because.. where's the challenge at that point?

Being able to turn into an animal or hybrid is cool enough for me. *Maybe* resistance during the 3 nights around the full moon, but that's as far as I'd be willing to take it. And it's going to be rough controlling yourself.

[Beechgnome]

Pretty sure that in the side bar that discusses lycanthropy for PCs.. the damage immunity is never brought up.
You get Str or Dex set to a value, and access to an animal and hybrid form.

And honestly.. if I get lycanthropy and suddenly I'm immune to nonmagical attacks.. I'd probably retire the character willingly, because.. where's the challenge at that point?

Being able to turn into an animal or hybrid is cool enough for me. *Maybe* resistance during the 3 nights around the full moon, but that's as far as I'd be willing to take it. And it's going to be rough controlling yourself.

Yeah I think if a player in my campaign got lycanthropy, I'd just skip the immunity altogether, and make the alignment a gradual shift, dependent on how they handled their transformations, how much responsibility they took etc. In other words, turn it into a challenge or task for the party to resolve, but with an obvious reward if they succeed.

I mean, the point isn't to break the game and be overpowered relative to your teammates, is it? Is that really 'winning' for some people? Sounds boring for everybody.

[Sigreid]

The default D&D Lore is that most forms of lycanthropy turn you into a murderous, bestial killing machine. A psychopath that enjoys the slaughter, the bloodier the better.

That said, the werewolf hero has become quite popular in the culture. If your table wants to go that route, cool. No one whose not at your table has any say over that. Not even the developers. But, it doesn't make a DM a bad DM if they prefer them to be psychopaths.

[LaserFace]

If Lycanthropy isn't a curse, why isn't everyone already a lycanthrope eons before the PCs even arrive on the game stage? If you can believably turn it into just another buff, that should already be part of the world lore. Every enemy intelligent enough to become a lycanthrope should become one. Every Noble should seek ways to attain greater power and defense properties by seeking out the services of lycanthropes.

Personally, I think that world seems kinda dumb, so I'm gonna try to treat legendary monsters in a way that reflects the real world mythology, which treats lycanthropy as a horrible thing that transforms not only your body, but also your mind, and threatens to consume your humanity.

[Rukelnikov]

What if a Neutral Good character contracts Werebear Lycanthropy? Embracing it would not change its alignment

[Finback]

when my vengeance paladin was bitten, he managed to make all his rolls to prevent wolfing out, so I played it as he didn't even know he'd been bitten. But when my DM explained he hadbeen able to control the change, we worked up a rule set together that would apply until he got the curse lifted. Whenever he took or dealt damage that drew blood, there was a cumulative chance to trigger the change - however, it depended on who was doing the bloodletting. If it was the DM who triggered it, he got to control my PC and have him lose control. If I did it, I got several bonuses, and could maintain control - his inner determination would quell the beast. At the end of each turn, he had to make a Wisdom save with disadvantage to regain composure (and return to human). He didn't get the full werewolf buffs - eg he took damage from normal weapons, lost his use of melee weapons (but gained two claw and one bite attacks (d6/d6/d4 versus his usual d8/d8 longsword), couldn't use his shield, but he kept his shieldless AC to represent he hadn't fully burst out of his armour. If the DM ran the PC, he could attack friend or foe, and at the end, if he wasn't unconscious, he would lose control and be lost forever.

We discussed it back and forth, tweaked it until it felt fair for both sides, and it made for some great combat moments. Consdering he had anger issues (vengadin), but was walking around in wolf-themed armour, it felt like a really interesting character development; also, my PC was the sort of person who was putting others ahead of himself, and we only had enough diamond dust to cure one person, and he'd already sworn to help someone else with a curse.

[JackPhoenix]

What if a Neutral Good character contracts Werebear Lycanthropy? Embracing it would not change its alignment

It would still change their behavior. NG character is propably altruistic and wants to help others. Webears are loners who want to be left alone, protect their home turf, and actively try to avoid spreading the curse or endangering innocents by their presence. If everyone got turned into werebears and embraced the curse, the civilization would cease to exist, as everyone would run into forests to stake their territories. That may not sound like much of a downside if you're a reclusive hermit or an extremist druid, but most people would disagree.

That's the whole point of the curse: it changes how you behave, it's not just rewritting two letters on your character sheet.

[Angelalex242]

Eh. There's other genres too.

Not the same as lycanthropy, exactly, but if I want to play a vampire and say, "Oh, but he's like Angel (or Spike)" from Buffy...well, that's basically a vampire wearing a helm of opposite alignment. Particularly in Angel's case, where Angelus was over the top sadistic evil.

Vampirism has its own downsides, after all.

I would imagine, then, that if you want to play 'Oz' (I'm a bard, but I'm also a werewolf), something could be worked out to control the beast, even if it's, say, an attuned magic item that controls it so you can use it with your normal mind and powers. Losing a magic item slot to control your lycanthropy sounds more like what the OP actually wants.

[Sigreid]

If Lycanthropy isn't a curse, why isn't everyone already a lycanthrope eons before the PCs even arrive on the game stage? If you can believably turn it into just another buff, that should already be part of the world lore. Every enemy intelligent enough to become a lycanthrope should become one. Every Noble should seek ways to attain greater power and defense properties by seeking out the services of lycanthropes.

Personally, I think that world seems kinda dumb, so I'm gonna try to treat legendary monsters in a way that reflects the real world mythology, which treats lycanthropy as a horrible thing that transforms not only your body, but also your mind, and threatens to consume your humanity.

I'd think that in the situation where it didn't have significant down sides lycanthropy would largely be controlled by secret societies and families. So you'd have to either be born in or invited in to the pack. After all, you're cool powers aren't that cool if everyone has them.

[Malifice]

Players who know about the damage immunity will actively seek the lycanthropy "curse". If they ever encounter a Lycanthrope, their best course of action may well be to restrain the creature and cohere it into giving them the curse.

... If the character embraces the curse, his or her alignment becomes the one defined by the lycanthrope. The DM is free to decide that [this] places the character under DM control until the curse of lycanthropy is removed.

'Hand me your character sheet thanks.... anyone else want to subject themselves to the curse?'

[Rukelnikov]

It would still change their behavior. NG character is propably altruistic and wants to help others. Webears are loners who want to be left alone, protect their home turf, and actively try to avoid spreading the curse or endangering innocents by their presence. If everyone got turned into werebears and embraced the curse, the civilization would cease to exist, as everyone would run into forests to stake their territories. That may not sound like much of a downside if you're a reclusive hermit or an extremist druid, but most people would disagree.

That's the whole point of the curse: it changes how you behave, it's not just rewritting two letters on your character sheet.

I understand its a curse and should be detrimental, at least in part.

However I find it very arbitrary why THIS behaviour change in particular means becoming an NPC and others don't.

Your alignment can change by travelling the outer planes (happened to me twice on different characters), this will change your behaviour, and in more ways than one, who you are, but you retain control of your PC.

Heck, you can be polymorphed into a dog, have an animal mind, and still control your PC.

That's why it feels completely arbitrary.

[Malifice]

I understand its a curse and should be detrimental, at least in part.

However I find it very arbitrary why THIS behaviour change in particular means becoming an NPC and others don't.

Your alignment can change by travelling the outer planes (happened to me twice on different characters), this will change your behaviour, and in more ways than one, who you are, but you retain control of your PC.

Heck, you can be polymorphed into a dog, have an animal mind, and still control your PC.

That's why it feels completely arbitrary.

Traditionally Lycanthropes have never been in control of their minds when infected, nor often can they even remember what they do while under the influence of the curse.

A Werewolf would kill and devour his own children under the curse, and fail to remember doing it the following day.

They cant control their actions. It's no different to being mentally dominated.

[Angelalex242]

I take it nobody's interested in the magic item that controls lycanthropy?

Cause that, again, sounds more like what the OP is looking for.

Not 'F*** you, you suck, take your badwrongfun and get out.'

Perhaps a better question is 'how many magic item slots is a lycanthropy controlling magic item worth?'

Lycanthropy is functionally slightly better than the armor of invulnerability, on table I.

[Rukelnikov]

Traditionally Lycanthropes have never been in control of their minds when infected, nor often can they even remember what they do while under the influence of the curse.

A Werewolf would kill and devour his own children under the curse, and fail to remember doing it the following day.

They cant control their actions. It's no different to being mentally dominated.

Well yeah, but those are the 3 or 4 days a month of full moon, and only during the night. the other 20 something days, he is in control of his actions (likely having to deal with what he did during full moon).

[Malifice]

Well yeah, but those are the 3 or 4 days a month of full moon, and only during the night. the other 20 something days, he is in control of his actions (likely having to deal with what he did during full moon).

In the case of Evil (and even Neutral) Lycanthropes, what he does during those 3-4 days is usually 'kill and devour people'.

Good aligned Lycanthropes would be less likely to kill and devour people, but it's still a decent chance of happening. They're literally animals, driven by beastial urges (hunt, reproduce, eat, survive).

A Good aligned Werebear that 'turns' in the middle of a town, creates a situation of a bear wandering around the town in the night of the full moon, eating horses and so forth and making a nuisance of itself at a minimum. Generally speaking the townsfolk would try and kill the bear (or chase it off) which would lead to people likely getting killed when the bear fights back in self defence.

Rare indeed would be the good aligned hero that would willingly place other innocent people in such danger. Most apocryphia of good aligned Lycanthropes has them leaving society and living in the wilderness far away from people in order to avoid accidentally killing other people while 'turned' (or worse) passing the curse on.

I'd certainly question the alignment of a Character that willingly exposed themselves to the Curse, and then proceeded to expose others to the likely negative consequences of it.

[Yunru]

"Because it turns you into an uncontrollable, bloodthirsty monster" isn't enough for you?

Periods are curses now?

[Catullus64]

I wouldn't suggest otherwise. Nor would I suggest that these other sources are anything other than modern myth.

So in addition to Zeus and Hera, I've got Tolkien, Moorcock, and Howard as a point of reference for precedent. I feel like I'm still on pretty firm ground. Lastly, I wouldn't say what you've put forward is a fundamental building block of the game; I've been through some real meatgrinders where most of the heroes fell like wheat to the scythe. Excellent for beefloaf, not much significant impact on the world. Well, they fertilized it, I suppose.

In that framework the curse is an obstacle to be overcome... which is provided by remove curse. Overcome. It's even easy to overcome it, so easy that it can't be described as heroic.
Knowing a fifth level cleric isn't heroism. Neither is trying to game the curse.

The 'modern' part of myth makes a huge difference. I was making the point about pop culture to object to your initial claim that curses in this game ought to be treated like fate, simply because classical myth believed curses to be determined by fate - Howard had no such beliefs, Tolkien had a subtly but significantly different belief in providence. I have never read Moorcock. My point is that ancient myth is not a sufficiently influential part of the game such that it should be used as evidence as to how a mechanical game feature should be handled.

Isn't it pretty widely accepted that modern D&D, in contrast to its older iterations, isn't oriented towards hacky-slashy-meatgrinding? Certainly feels like it. I stand by my assertion that D&D is designed around significant actions of extraordinary heroes. I don't deny that people can have fun playing the game in different ways, but I think that the system is built to support some of those different ways more than others. Lycanthropy can be a significant challenge, but the rules say you can choose to resist the curse.

I was more referring to the fact that you can choose not to embrace the curse, suffering no ill effects outside of the full moon. I'll agree that the fact that lycanthropy can be removed with a simple spell (not even a spell restricted to clerics) is anticlimactic and lame. As for the 'game the curse' angle, I don't think I expressed myself clearly; I meant to say that trying to game the curse falls under the purview of embracing the curse.

[JoeJ]

However I find it very arbitrary why THIS behaviour change in particular means becoming an NPC and others don't.

Because unless you want to turn the game into Werewolf: the Dungeoncalypse, there needs to be something about the curse that convinces that players (not just their characters) that it's a very bad thing.

[Rukelnikov]

In the case of Evil (and even Neutral) Lycanthropes, what he does during those 3-4 days is usually 'kill and devour people'.

Good aligned Lycanthropes would be less likely to kill and devour people, but it's still a decent chance of happening. They're literally animals, driven by beastial urges (hunt, reproduce, eat, survive).

A Good aligned Werebear that 'turns' in the middle of a town, creates a situation of a bear wandering around the town in the night of the full moon, eating horses and so forth and making a nuisance of itself at a minimum. Generally speaking the townsfolk would try and kill the bear (or chase it off) which would lead to people likely getting killed when the bear fights back in self defence.

Rare indeed would be the good aligned hero that would willingly place other innocent people in such danger. Most apocryphia of good aligned Lycanthropes has them leaving society and living in the wilderness far away from people in order to avoid accidentally killing other people while 'turned' (or worse) passing the curse on.

I'd certainly question the alignment of a Character that willingly exposed themselves to the Curse, and then proceeded to expose others to the likely negative consequences of it.

I wasn't speaking about those that want to kidnap a werewolf and keep in the basement to make a cult of Lycanthropy (those are more evil than a random werewolf)

But in the Werebears description it makes it sound like a blessing not a curse:

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

Sound like the kind of reward a PC might get for helping a Werebear and her cubs or something.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I wasn't speaking about those that want to kidnap a werewolf and keep in the basement to make a cult of Lycanthropy (those are more evil than a random werewolf)

But in the Werebears description it makes it sound like a blessing not a curse:

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

Sound like the kind of reward a PC might get for helping a Werebear and her cubs or something.

And then, reasonably, when the player has his character acting in a way that treats this level of trust as a novelty, the werebear and her cubs will come back through the woodwork to correct the mistake they made in trusting such a person to begin with.

To me, it doesn't sound like a reward either. It sounds like your character is being retired (not in a negative way like most forms of Lycanthropy would lead to) to spend several months in strict training to control their lycanthropy. They'll probably be a pretty useful NPC ally in the future but they're definitely not leaving the company of that Werebear family any time soon. With the level of self control that comes with treating this curse with the level of caution and respect that the Werebears do, your former characters personality is probably going to be drastically different, shaped by the reality that if they lose control for a single moment they could create an epidemic of creatures that don't share the same respect for this curse.

[Rukelnikov]

And then, reasonably, when the player has his character acting in a way that treats this level of trust as a novelty, the werebear and her cubs will come back through the woodwork to correct the mistake they made in trusting such a person to begin with.

To me, it doesn't sound like a reward either. It sounds like your character is being retired (not in a negative way like most forms of Lycanthropy would lead to) to spend several months in strict training to control their lycanthropy. They'll probably be a pretty useful NPC ally in the future but they're definitely not leaving the company of that Werebear family any time soon. With the level of self control that comes with treating this curse with the level of caution and respect that the Werebears do, your former characters personality is probably going to be drastically different, shaped by the reality that if they lose control for a single moment they could create an epidemic of creatures that don't share the same respect for this curse.

This sounds to me like people interpreting:

"The DM is free to decide that a change in alignment places the character under DM control until the curse of lycanthropy is removed"

as

"The character is under DM control until the curse of lycanthropy is removed"

Kind of like "Wish can have unexpected consequences" is frequently "Wish WILL have unexpected consequences"

EDIT: Personally I'd make it a Feat to be able to control your Lycanthropy

[Malifice]

I wasn't speaking about those that want to kidnap a werewolf and keep in the basement to make a cult of Lycanthropy (those are more evil than a random werewolf)

But in the Werebears description it makes it sound like a blessing not a curse:

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

Sound like the kind of reward a PC might get for helping a Werebear and her cubs or something.

The fact Wearbears are highly selective in whom they choose to pass it on to indicates they're acutely aware of the dangers it poses to people.

They're not about to spread the curse to some random murder hobo who sees it as a 'buff'.

[ProsecutorGodot]

This sounds to me like people interpreting:

"The DM is free to decide that a change in alignment places the character under DM control until the curse of lycanthropy is removed"

as

"The character is under DM control until the curse of lycanthropy is removed"
No? The first paragraph was pretty clearly an example of the player remaining in control of their actions.

It's not a buff, it's a curse, even if you're becoming a Werebear. If you treat it like a buff and acknowledge none of the downsides, I'm not going to be surprised if the DM starts having consequences show up.

After enough consequences show up, you're either dead or beginning to understand the gravity of the situation your character is in.


EDIT: Personally I'd make it a Feat to be able to control your Lycanthropy
There's a subclass of the Bloodhunter that gives you a heavily nerfed version of Lycanthropy that you have limited control over. It's arguably the most powerful subclass of Blood Hunter, despite this.

It's also pretty clear in the fluff that your character is practically indoctrinated with the idea that spreading their curse is the most vile thing they could do through their Order's teachings.

[Rukelnikov]

There's a subclass of the Bloodhunter that gives you a heavily nerfed version of Lycanthropy that you have limited control over. It's arguably the most powerful subclass of Blood Hunter, despite this.

It's also pretty clear in the fluff that your character is practically indoctrinated with the idea that spreading their curse is the most vile thing they could do through their Order's teachings.

Yeah, but thats a whole class, and its not something happening mid adventure, its something already decided beforehand, maybe even before starting to roll for attributes.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Yeah, but thats a whole class, and its not something happening mid adventure, its something already decided beforehand, maybe even before starting to roll for attributes.

You don't have your order features prior to level 3, your Bloodhunter could decide against following the teachings of his Order, believing that his temperament isn't suited for the diligence it would take to undergo "The Taming". Your Bloodhunter could become a disgrace to his order, going rogue and converting as many unwilling people as possible to fall under the curse. You could have chosen only to take 2 level in Bloodhunter and you're never actually going to have a subclass.

Your DM could also veto the idea if your character is going to go around spreading lycanthropy to the party and then rolling a new character for them to get the same, not nerfed, version of lycanthropy.

But in the event that you don't do that, doesn't that mean you're just respecting the wishes of your Order and showing great diligence in not spreading a despicable curse onto the population? That seems like the roleplay incentive that I'd prefer is associated with Lycanthropy rather than just treating is like a quick power grab.

EDIT: It's also important to stress that the hybrid form of Lycanthropy that a Blood Hunter acquires is somewhat unique, the level of control they have is because of their blood magic and not because the strain is special. Without their blood magic to influence it, it would be the standard form of Lycanthropy and even they don't want that.

If you acquire Lycanthropy (whether through this subclass or a curse) it's going to affect how your character is played. If it doesn't, maybe you shouldn't have it*. This is a roleplaying game.
*unless everyone at your table is totally okay with it, in which case, go to town with it. Recognize that this treatment of it may be entirely seperate from the general treatment though.

[Merudo]

It's not a buff, it's a curse, even if you're becoming a Werebear. If you treat it like a buff and acknowledge none of the downsides, I'm not going to be surprised if the DM starts having consequences show up.


See, I have a problem with that.

Suppose a player takes every precaution with his curse and makes no mistake. He does his research and makes sure there is no way he gets loose during the full moon.

I think it would be pretty awful for the DM to "starts having consequences show up" even though the player planned everything perfectly. Such DM would essentially have a pre-determined outcome in mind (the curse working against the PC) and would railroad the game to lead to such outcome, no matter how plausible.

Frankly, as a DM I'd rather not sabotage my player's efforts unless there is a good reason in the game world why it shouldn't work.

Allowing Lycanthrope PCs pose a problem to game balance though, as I've described in my original post. But instead of forcing "consequences", my preferred solutions are to either 1) reduce the buff, or 2) remove Lycanthropes outright for the setting.

[Merudo]

If you acquire Lycanthropy (whether through this subclass or a curse) it's going to affect how your character is played. If it doesn't, maybe you shouldn't have it*. This is a roleplaying game.[/SIZE]

Are you aware of the "Combat as War" play style?

Many player groups enjoy using strategy, logistics, cunning and creativity to ensure that any fight is heavily unbalanced in their favor.

Coming up with a way to abuse the Lycanthropy curse is absolutely the sort of thing "Combat as War" folks enjoy doing.

[ProsecutorGodot]

See, I have a problem with that.

Suppose a player takes every precaution with his curse and makes no mistake. He does his research and makes sure there is no way he gets loose during the full moon.

I think it would be pretty awful for the DM to "starts having consequences show up" even though the player planned everything perfectly. Such DM would essentially have a pre-determined outcome in mind (the curse working against the PC) and would railroad the game to lead to such outcome, no matter how plausible.

Frankly, as a DM I'd rather not sabotage my player's efforts unless there is a good reason in the game world why it shouldn't work.

Allowing Lycanthrope PCs pose a problem to game balance though, as I've described in my original post. But instead of forcing "consequences", my preferred solutions are to either 1) reduce the buff, or 2) remove Lycanthropes outright for the setting.

That would imply that the player is spending resources, making the effort to not spread the curse.

This means that they have accepted the curse. In the event that their strain of Lycanthropy comes with the "Evil" tag attached, they might no longer feel the need to make such restrictions anymore. What good does it do for them to lock themselves up each month in the interest of others safety? That doesn't seem very in character for an Evil alignment.

Even with every precaution taken, I believe there should be consequences. Even if those consequences don't end up being large (in the event that you've been a diligent Werebear convertee who has taken every foreseeable precaution) you're still under the effects of a curse that society views as demonstrably evil, even if your strain happens not to be.

On the final bolded not, I absolutely agree. The only form of Lycanthropy that I'd be willing to allow my players to use is the Blood Hunter Order version. It's not the overpowered mess that the MM variant shows and shapes the character and players thought process to already be in a suitable mindset ahead of time. If a character is cursed with Lycanthropy and isn't actively seeking a cure (or in the case of a reasonably manageable strain, such as Werebears, an ironclad management system), they're probably going to disappear on a subsequent night under a full moon, the remaining party hearing howling in the distance and realizing that their once friend has become something else. They'll at least appreciate that his final act of humanity was to spare them... for now.

Coming up with a way to abuse the Lycanthropy curse is absolutely the sort of thing "Combat as War" folks enjoy doing.
That's what the asterisk note was for, I'm aware that not everyone has heavy investment into the roleplaying aspect of the game. If that's the case, and you're not interfering with your table dynamic, go to town with it.

[JoeJ]

Coming up with a way to abuse the Lycanthropy curse is absolutely the sort of thing "Combat as War" folks enjoy doing.

Which is why you risk having your character turn into an NPC; to keep players from doing exactly that. As far back as the original DMG in 1979, DMs were given tools to discourage players from playing lycanthropes. One of the suggestions was that a PC in were-beast form does not gain experience points for anything they do.

[DrKerosene]

If Lycanthropy isn't a curse, why isn't everyone already a lycanthrope eons before the PCs even arrive on the game stage? If you can believably turn it into just another buff, that should already be part of the world lore.

Isn’t that basically exactly the story for how Shifters became a race? Lycanthropes kept breeding for long enough they got diluted down? Like how modern Dragonborn aren’t normally fully metallic or chromatic looking anymore.


Which is why you risk having your character turn into an NPC; to keep players from doing exactly that. As far back as the original DMG in 1979, DMs were given tools to discourage players from playing lycanthropes. One of the suggestions was that a PC in were-beast form does not gain experience points for anything they do.

Older editions seem to have a history of gimping “evil” player races, goblins, orcs, etc... I am not surprised that evil lycanthropes PCs were also treated with a “only stick, no carrots” response.

Also, it’s not like there is an entire TVTropes page for “Cursed With Awesome”.

[The Jack]

Even though he's nearly all powerful, Superman is a popular and compelling character. The question is rarely 'can superman win in a fight' but more often 'who can superman save', and his strong characterization is the greatest draw for anyone familiar with the character.

Plus he has that weakness to magic.
The solution is more enemy mages, more elemental monsters, all the big bads are carrying at least one magic or silver weapon, and the mooks if unprepared will scater and cone up with new strategies when they realise things arent working as they're supposed to. a clever gm can overcome without it feeling contrived.

Personally, I'd switch out immunity with resistance when you're in human form.

[Greywander]

As someone who likes to create optimized builds, I love when looking for a new way to optimize leads to some really interesting RP potential.

Yeah, PCs with lycanthropy isn't for every table. But imagine actually RPing being a wereX. Struggling to control yourself and prevent yourself from going on a murder spree every month. Maybe you're looking for a cure, or maybe you're fine with being a lycanthrope and just trying to deal with the "inconveniences". And every time that part of the month comes around, you black out for a moment, afraid of what you'll find when you wake up.

It seems all people are seeing is the "immunity to normal damage". And yeah, it's going to trivialize some encounters. Like I said, it's not for every table. But the DM can embrace that those particular encounters are trivialized, and start looking for more interesting encounters. And honestly, the DM has so many RP things they can do to the lycanthrope, it's basically a neverending sidequest just to keep yourself under control.

Instead of focusing on the things you can't do now that the PC is a lycanthrope, think about all the things you can do now that the PC is a lycanthrope. Witch hunts. Moonstones that trigger a loss of control. That one time you escape from your prison during the full moon, and the rest of the party has to stop you. Or that time when you travel to/get teleported to the middle of nowhere with no prison to lock yourself up in when the full moon rolls around. The ceremonial weapons that just happen to be made of silver. That crazy mage who wants to capture you for experiments. That villain who wants to be infected for more power, whether by fighting you or capturing you. That paladin whose family was murdered by lycanthropes and won't rest til you're dead. The nice old lady who asks you to take care of her cat while shes out of town for a few days, only the cat hates you and keeps running off and getting into trouble and gods help you if something happens to it.

Yeah, it's not for everyone, but it sure as heck is for someone. A clever DM can make it work and find a way to keep things interesting. In fact, it might even make it easier to make it interesting, since the DM has more material to work with. Some DMs won't want to be bothered with trying to deal with it. And that's fine, too. I'm just saying, the naysayers are painting far too bleak of a picture here. There's actually a lot of potential for fun here, but it's a bit outside of the norm and will require a bit of extra thinking to adapt to.


and weretigers turn you into Garfield. :smallannoyed:
I now want to play an overweight weretiger who just sleeps all day and eats lasagna. Even on full moons, he just raids peoples pantries, eats their yarn, and kicks their dogs. Bonus points if I can find a way to make him telepathic so he never actually speaks, he just thinks all his dialogue.

Alternatively, a werebear (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-CS8L_8LBk&list=PLEF6_06sQxj2Kb7bi5r-1c_kgHe3wTc22) who just gets plastered on honey mead during a full moon would also be entertaining. You wake up in jail with a bill for several hundred gold, for drinks and for property damage, and some stuffy nobleman with brand new claw marks now has it out for your head. So not really different from a normal night after adventuring.

On a final note, I'd wonder if destroying the moon wouldn't also just end the curse on every lycanthrope everywhere. After all, it seems that the moon is the source of the curse, or where it draws power from, at least, which is why it gets stronger on a full moon.

[JackPhoenix]

Isn’t that basically exactly the story for how Shifters became a race? Lycanthropes kept breeding for long enough they got diluted down? Like how modern Dragonborn aren’t normally fully metallic or chromatic looking anymore.

No. Well, maybe. It's unclear if the shifters originated from lycanthropes interbreeding with humans, lycanthropes originated from shifters, or if they are actually unrelated. And dragonborn never were actual dragons.

[Greywander]

I'm just popping back into this thread to say a did an image search for "weresloth" and came away disappointed. Although I did find this (https://imgur.com/gallery/ebHgt), which is relevant to the thread.

[Merudo]

If Lycanthropy isn't a curse, why isn't everyone already a lycanthrope eons before the PCs even arrive on the game stage? If you can believably turn it into just another buff, that should already be part of the world lore.

Yep, that's the logical conclusion of the 5e lycantropy mechanics.

I mean, according to the MM the Wereboars "infect other creatures indiscriminately". Given how near invincible Wereboars are mechanically, and how often they infect others, the logical conclusion is that Wereboars will quickly become the dominant specie of the land.

I would imagine the Wereboar Lycanthropy to spread not unlike a zombie epidemic - except at least zombies don't have a 40' speed and immunity to all common weapons...

[Bjarkmundur]

If my player did this, and didn't heed my warnings, I'd give him the curse, have him bloodlust, it turns into a combat, the player gets to control the sidekick, the new lycanthrope reverts to human form for his final words before dying.

LOL.

[Greywander]

If my player did this, and didn't heed my warnings, I'd give him the curse, have him bloodlust, it turns into a combat, the player gets to control the sidekick, the new lycanthrope reverts to human form for his final words before dying.

LOL.
I find this sort of response to be disheartening. Okay, I understand some people can be unbelievable idiots, but I'd like to pretend at least for a moment that everyone at the table is a mature adult. In this make-believe fantasy world where we can be calm and rational, here's what I'd prefer to see from the DM. Either:

(a) Sit down and talk to your players and explain that you're not prepared to run a game with PC lycanthropes. It would trivialize many of the encounters, making them not fun, and throw in a slew of complications (full moons, werewolf slayers, angry mobs, etc.) that would also make things not fun. If they really want to play as lycanthropes, then it might be better if one of them took over as DM (probably with a new campaign and new characters), or ran a lycanthrope campaign side-by-side with the current one. You're just not prepared to handle all the changes it would introduce to the game, and so if they want to continue with the current campaign they won't be able to become lycanthropes. (This isn't the same as just saying, "No." It is respecting your players enough to tell them why, and that the reason is that you don't feel like you could make it fun for them. You're not on a power trip, you're just looking out for their fun.)

or

(b) Allow them to become lycanthropes. Sit down and talk to them to find out why they want to become lycanthropes, and begin brainstorming new RP and encounter ideas you could do that wouldn't have been possible (or at least viable) before. Accept the new direction of the campaign and look for new and interesting things you can do with it.

or

(c) A mix of the above. Explain that you're not prepared to handle a lycanthropy campaign, and that it will have a big effect on the campaign if they choose to go that route. You'll need some extra time to prepare, and probably help coming up with ideas of things you can do. Offer to let one of them DM a session (possibly while their lycanthrope PC is out of control). It's their choice, though, so long as they understand that they'll essentially be playing a different game from then on if they go for it, and it might be a while before you get the hang of running such a game.

I don't think we should be punishing players just for trying to become more powerful in a heroic power fantasy game. Becoming more powerful is literally the primary mechanical motivations to continue playing, and the majority of the rules are dedicated to describing all the different ways in which a character can become more powerful. Everything in the rules encourages them to go down the route of seeking more power.

[Unoriginal]

There is a difference between "I want to be more powerful" and "an horrible curse that will alter my personality and make me risk to kill innocent people or worse? **** fluff, I want the perks".

Same way that it's possible to get more power via being a Devil's cultist or having a Demon's Boon, but all the lore makes clear how terrible an idea it is.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I don't think we should be punishing players just for trying to become more powerful in a heroic power fantasy game. Becoming more powerful is literally the primary mechanical motivations to continue playing, and the majority of the rules are dedicated to describing all the different ways in which a character can become more powerful. Everything in the rules encourages them to go down the route of seeking more power.
While I agree that the comment you were responding to isn't exactly a good solution, I don't think it's correct to paint Lycanthropy as an intended method for PC's to become more powerful.

It's labeled a Curse (bad) and accepting the most common forms makes your character Evil (bad) and can risk having your DM rule that your character becomes an NPC (bad).

Just because there is a form of Lycanthropy that is "good" (in a way that even the bearers of this good version understand that their affliction is a curse and wish not to spread it to those that they don't trust) doesn't mean it's a viable form of power grabbing. Not even all the typically good aligned Lycanthrope remain as such. The vast majority of Lycanthropes are evil.

By that same logic, Vampirism is a pretty good buff as well. It's a small price to pay that you become a Lawful Evil undead (and you run the risk of being deemed an NPC through this route as well, but who cares I guess) when you get such neato stat boosts and the innate ability to charm people. Just stay out of the sun and you're golden.

You could even play the long game and go the "become a Devil route". Devils are usually quite a bit more powerful than a standard PC race, just make your way up the infernal hierarchy until you become a Barbed Devil, or maybe even a Pit Fiend if you're an overachiever.

Intense sarcasm aside, yes, characters often want to become more powerful to achieve their end goals.

No, Lycanthropy is not something a player is encouraged to acquire. In fact, just about everything we know about the default form of Lycanthropy in 5E is that those who become afflicted and fight it become miserable, often giving up the fight seeing it as futile. Even those unaware that they are cursed will be haunted by "dreams" of when they've turned and what they've done in that time. Those who actively seek out and accept it become (or already were) murderous beasts with no qualms about bringing carnage wherever they go.

[Angelalex242]

I'm still hearing a lot of 'take your badwrong fun and go home' and no 'well, fine, you want to be Scott McCall, how can we make this work?'

[ProsecutorGodot]

I'm still hearing a lot of 'take your badwrong fun and go home' and no 'well, fine, you want to be Scott McCall, how can we make this work?'

What you probably should be hearing is "Don't start telling other people that your fun has to be their fun"

If you want to make a lycanthrope PC work and call it good, just make sure everyone at your table is fine with and none of our opinions matter in the slightest. Don't tell me that I'm wrong for disagreeing with it. Roleplay is a huge part of what I enjoy about DND and if you're trying to minimize the curse aspect of one of the most prolific curses in media period just for the mechanical benefits it happens to also give, don't be surprised if I'm a bit put off by it.

My being put off by it shouldn't be taken as a sign that I'm telling you not to do it, just why I think you shouldn't.

That's ignoring that I think that there are ways to make it work and I've even shared some personally.

[Greywander]

There is a difference between "I want to be more powerful" and "an horrible curse that will alter my personality and make me risk to kill innocent people or worse? **** fluff, I want the perks".

Same way that it's possible to get more power via being a Devil's cultist or having a Demon's Boon, but all the lore makes clear how terrible an idea it is.

While I agree that the comment you were responding to isn't exactly a good solution, I don't think it's correct to paint Lycanthropy as an intended method for PC's to become more powerful.
Intended? No. It's found in the Monster Manual, of all places. Of course it's an atypical method of "progression" (if you want to call a curse "progression"). Which is probably why most DMs don't think about running a lycanthrope PC. But... what do you do when your player suddenly wants to play a werebeast? I mean, there is even a rule for it. Do you allow it? Do you not? How do you run it? Heck, maybe it was even an accident and not intentional on the part of either you or the player (though you should have considered the possibility it might happen before throwing a werebeast at them).

This isn't even really a discussion about lycanthropy, but really any sort of non-standard character that, on paper, is "stronger" than a regular character. So, for example, what do you do when the player comes to you with a really awesome character concept, where their character is a dragon? Or a vampire? Or a lich? Or a devil? All of the above? Not all DMs can handle this, and that's fine. But a really good DM would be able to take such a character, even if it was just a munchkin powergrab, and find a way to spin it into something compelling that draws the player in and gets them invested in the more esoteric aspects of their character, all while also pleasing the rest of the party. Most DMs aren't capable of such feats. And again, that's fine, know your limits and work within them. But I do think that this is an ideal that we should all be striving towards.

All I'm saying is not to be too quick to shut down the fun, and to instead take a moment to consider what could be if you went along with it. You might just have more fun that way.

That, and sometimes players will willingly take on a negative because they think it makes their character more interesting and fun to play. In one game, I lost an arm (my fault, homebrew wild magic is fun), and after the initial shock wore off I was actually looking forward to being a lefty for a while until I could complete some sort of arduous quest to earn a Regenerate from a cleric. I was actually disappointed when I got that Regenerate as soon as we got back to town. A "curse" can be a good way to make a stale character fresh again.

And finally, if it's a curse, then make it a curse. Don't treat it as a buff. Don't think of it as a buff (as many here seem to be). Make it clear what the downsides are. Make the players fear it, and not in a "rocks fall" sort of way. You should be giddy with glee over all the new ways you can torture that PC, since it is, after all, a curse. But also give them the opportunity to fight it, to master it. It's like someone else said, if they actually manage to destroy the moon, then they've earned it.


I'm still hearing a lot of 'take your badwrong fun and go home' and no 'well, fine, you want to be Scott McCall, how can we make this work?'
Exactly. I can definitely respect a DM not wanting to go for it, but it should be because they can't make it work, and know it (or because it's too much of a hassle and their time is precious, which is also understandable, if not what I'd want to hear). But I'd like to see more DMs willing to at least try.

"How can we make this work?" is an excellent perspective from which to approach DMing, in my opinion at least.


If you want to make a lycanthrope PC work and call it good, just make sure everyone at your table is fine with
[...]
My being put off by it shouldn't be taken as a sign that I'm telling you not to do it, just why I think you shouldn't.
Guys, stop posting for a second. I can't type, reread, edit, type more, edit more, reread again, edit some more, etc. my post fast enough to keep up. I mean, I guess if you're reading this then you can start posting again since I've already finished this post, so I don't even know why I'm putting this here.

Okay, so really finally, some good points here as well. It's always important to communicate with both your DM and your fellow players to make sure that everyone is having fun, yourself included. If something you want to do would take away from the fun of others, then you might want to look for another table where it would be more appropriate (which doesn't necessarily mean leaving your current table). Sometimes, the answer to, "How can we make this work?" is that you can't, at least not in a way that will make everyone happy. And it's give and take, too. Sometimes you'll need to let another player do something you don't really like, so that you can do something they don't really like, and you'll both end up having more fun than if you had both done neither of those things. It can be hard to find the right balance.

[Dr. Cliché]

I now want to play an overweight weretiger who just sleeps all day and eats lasagna. Even on full moons, he just raids peoples pantries, eats their yarn, and kicks their dogs. Bonus points if I can find a way to make him telepathic so he never actually speaks, he just thinks all his dialogue.

Alternatively, a werebear (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-CS8L_8LBk&list=PLEF6_06sQxj2Kb7bi5r-1c_kgHe3wTc22) who just gets plastered on honey mead during a full moon would also be entertaining. You wake up in jail with a bill for several hundred gold, for drinks and for property damage, and some stuffy nobleman with brand new claw marks now has it out for your head. So not really different from a normal night after adventuring.

Damn you!

Now you've made me want to do it, too!

[The Jack]

Remind me, what are the alignments of the different weres and if you neccessarily gravitate towards all of them?



I feel like I could work with were-creatures.
Reduced immunity in normal form
The CR of monsters gets higher and more mages show up.

Other boons which are exclusive come up. The opertunity to become a half dragon, certain blessings or other curses which might mechanically be blessings...


If you power boost everything, nobody's OP.

But also, the damage immunity's not really that big a deal because I think basicaly every guard and soldier is going to have a silver weapon. It might just be a hammer, but it should be relatively cheap to silver the head of a hammer or pick that guards get. If you don't arm your guards appropriately, a single specter can wipe out a city on it's own, so it's definitely worth prepping for. Not everyone's going to have a silver sword, but anyone worth paying is going to have some kind of silver weapon on them. It likely isn't their primary, but it's going to be there.

[Segev]

So I'd say, if you manage to get lichantropy and keep it in check, you deserve some reward.

This typo gives me the vastly amusing mental image of a guy who turns into a spellcasting skeleton a few nights every month.


As to lycanthropy being a buff or a curse, consider that you can be "cursed with awesome" in various fiction. How you want to play it is your business, and that of your table. If you're getting "buffed" by a "curse," then presumably the DM will ramp up encounters appropriately, and possibly permit the other players to achieve similar out-of-scale buffs at similar "costs."

[AvatarVecna]

LyCaNtHrOpY Is ThE BeSt BuFf In ThE GaMe

[The Jack]

Looking at forgoten realms stuff
Tigers are nuetral (with evil examples)
Bears are good
Werewolves are CE, but good ones that worship the moon god apparently exist.

Boars are evil, but from what I've read of everything else it seems more an inclination than a solid 'you go here' on an alignment chart.


would totally want to be a were.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Looking at forgoten realms stuff
Tigers are nuetral (with evil examples)
Bears are good
Werewolves are CE, but good ones that worship the moon god apparently exist.

Boars are evil, but from what I've read of everything else it seems more an inclination than a solid 'you go here' on an alignment chart.


would totally want to be a were.

Just to clarify, there are Evil Werebears as well. You also forgot to list Wererats, which are also evil. The list roughly equates to.
0 universally good
1 mostly good, rarely evil
1 "neutral" but rarely evil
1 mostly evil, rarely good
2 incredibly evil, very rarely good

Calling the alignment shift an inclination could be true from a roleplaying standpoint when you're fighting the curse, however mechanically it's definitely a "you go here" thing as soon as you accept the curse. The strains of Lycanthropy seems to have a different impact on your psyche depending on which were-animal you're cursed by. This makes some amount of sense, and the lore behind the "Good and Neutral" ones is pretty clear that they don't like to make more of their kind, either because of altruism and distrust (werebears) or because of competition (weretigers).

You'd be pretty hard pressed to gain any form of Lycanthropy that isn't Wolf, Boar or Rat without spending a significant amount of time earning the trust of the Bear or Tiger. Becoming a Wererat specifically poses a pretty unique challenge as they're strangely (or zealously) loyal to their group and would seek to kill a player who was infected and didn't seek to join their group.

[witchslave]

I could see "controlled lycanthropy" as a barbarian subclass, where you spend a use of rage to transform into your werewolf form.

Alternatively it could be a SORCERER subclass that grants a wild shape-like transformation ability. Charisma is the 'personality' stat and having a high cha would be thematicly linked to being able to overpower the "become a mindless beast" part of the curse.


Back in Baldurs Gate, the computer game, there was a druid kit that gave up other wildshape abilities to focus on being a werewolf. They even gained an improved werewolf form and had complete control. The game was based on 2nd ed. Dnd and kits were the subclasses of the day. I think both a druid and barbarian subclass focused on lycanthropy would very cool

[SociopathFriend]

I've actually caught lycanthropy twice, once by accident and once on purpose. Boar first and then later Wolf.

The first time the DM didn't realize it gave immunity to non-magical weapons and so he ramped up how hard it was to control it when he realized it. The first night he had me tear through a temple full of men, women, and children and of course nobody survived because we were low-level and nobody had silver weapons. Because my character was "good" he obviously didn't accept the curse and so couldn't control it. Because my party was also good they didn't immediately try to kill me but instead attempted to restrain me and cure me. Because that's how a good party acts.

If they were evil they'd either try to kill me as I'm just as liable to kill them as anyone else or they'd imprison me and sick me on their enemies when I couldn't control myself but I was also difficult to control.

The second time it was more deliberate and he instead told me I'd take half-damage from non-magical weapons since the character was already something of a, "Fight, kill, eat enemies, not necessarily in that order" kind of guy even before the Curse. It was a Strahd campaign. I ended up having fine control over that curse and didn't turn on my allies because I didn't want to.

Lycanthropy is controversial because it deals with alignment, nobody ever argues about alignment, right?

[furby076]

There are many factors in the game that are balanced with roleplaying elements. Get X boost, but you need to behave in Y way. When people dump the behavior aspect, but want to keep the X boost then they are rewriting the game to suit their own needs. It's also a custom build.

If I were to let the party play a group of were-creatures, who were not evil or out of control I would implement some RP stuff
1) Full moon, you lose control. So you better be locked away and hope you are not in the middle of a time sensitive mission...cause the calendar will be watched
2) Even if you manage to be a LG critter, the average person is incredibly fearfull of were-creatures. Most were-creatures are evil and rumors and myth say they are all bloodthirsty muder-hobos (much like the PCs). As such, the moment a town finds out you are a were-creature, expect their attitude towards you to start anywhere from fearfull to hostile. Goodluck staying at the inn or getting other services. Those that might be willing to deal with you will most likely upcharge you as they know you can either buy from them, or not buy at all.
3) Just like there are vampire hunters, there are were-hunters. They will hunt you, they will be trained to kill you, and they will not reason with you (much like the Terminator).

No, being a were-creature PC in my campaign will not be easy and a player miht turn-around and say the X benefits are not worth the Y costs. They would be right.

[furby076]

not if it turns out that you can, in fact, control it.

Here is a matter of conflict between fluff and number crunch: fluff says the curse turns you into an uncontrollable bloodthirsty monster on a killing spree a few days evry month.
Number crunch says that you can get locked up, magicallly restrained, or healed for a shirt time, and you do not became an uncontrollable bloodthirsty monster.

A clever DM should solve this conflict. whether he chooses to solve it by making the curse unrestrainable, or by making it more controllable, it's up to the specific table

Actually, the DM does't have to be clever and doesn't need to solve this issue. The player who becomes a lycanthrope needs to solve how to deal with it. The DM just needs to adjudicate if he players plan will work. The rules are pretty clear as to what happens when a PC gets lycanthropy. The PC will have to learn, unless they have pre-existing knowledge of lycanthropy, what is happening to them and how to deal. Heck, this might take several monthly cycles and during that time, they are murdering indiscriminately

Also, based on your comment of fluff vs crunch...tying up a were-creature doesn't make the were-creature cease to be bloodthirsty..it just makes it so they can't run around and kill things. No conflict in that scenario. It's up to the PC to figure it out