Is this allowed per rules?

[Shinoskay]

I have a build that needs ranger favored class, im limited to halfling or gnome.

I'm more inclined to gnome though.

if i could go stonehunter air gnome, maybe with an enviromental (arctic and such) template?

What can I do with this?
To start, can I even go stonhunter air?
is there some LA +0 way to make the gnome fey type?

[Saint-Just]

I do not think it is allowed by RAW. Stonehunter gnome, air gnome, and arctic gnome (assuming we are using UA) are separate subraces, not templates.

There is an "Arctic" template in Dragon Magazine 306 ( I do not own it' so I cannot be 100% sure), adding that to stonehunter gnome should be legal, but not all tables allow Dragon Magazine.

[Asmotherion]

I have a build that needs ranger favored class, im limited to halfling or gnome.

I'm more inclined to gnome though.

if i could go stonehunter air gnome, maybe with an enviromental (arctic and such) template?

What can I do with this?
To start, can I even go stonhunter air?
is there some LA +0 way to make the gnome fey type?

Unseelie Fay (https://www.realmshelps.net/monsters/templates/unseeliefey.shtml). You're welcome.

[Saint-Just]

Unseelie Fay (https://www.realmshelps.net/monsters/templates/unseeliefey.shtml). You're welcome.

Excuse me, but that writeup does not state the LA. And it does not seem to be intended for PCs - random elements strongly point in the direction of "monster only" template

[Asmotherion]

Excuse me, but that writeup does not state the LA. And it does not seem to be intended for PCs - random elements strongly point in the direction of "monster only" template

There is no distinction between a monster template or a PC one. By Raw this is correct. If the DM will let you use Dragon Magazine Contnent or be a weird Fay mutant in his game is an other matter.

The lack of an LA is mostly troubling, but to my knowlage this suggests an LA +0.

[Kurald Galain]

The lack of an LA is mostly troubling, but to my knowlage this suggests an LA +0.
No LA means you cannot take the template.

Heavy-duty optimizers are prone to claiming that surely this means that anyone can just take it for free, but good luck getting any decent DM to agree with that. And by RAW, you can't.

[Telonius]

No listed LA means no LA. It absolutely should have one, but as written it doesn't. It's widely regarded as a very powerful template for exactly that reason. The template is from Dragon magazine, which many tables don't allow.

This is also 3.0 content. The magazine was published in February 2003, which was before 3.5 came out (in July of that year). It is pretty fair to say that level adjustment was not at the forefront of the developers' minds back then; the idea of playable monsters hadn't totally taken hold. Even something as relatively tame as a Feytouched from Fiend Folio, published April 2003, didn't have the "Feytouched as Characters" callout that you would expect in later books. (You can still reverse-engineer the stat adjustments pretty easily, but they make you work for it). The assumption (not explicit call-out, but assumption) was that the players would stick to the PHB races and the DM would play the monsters. As 3.5 progressed, that idea went out the window faster than the target of a Defenestrating Sphere, but DMs should take that into account when looking at older material like this.

[Asmotherion]

No LA means you cannot take the template.

Heavy-duty optimizers are prone to claiming that surely this means that anyone can just take it for free, but good luck getting any decent DM to agree with that. And by RAW, you can't.

I know plenty of excelent DM who would allow it under specific circumstances. It takes an average Dm to Ban things, and an excelent Dm to adapt to things ;)

In any case, could you point me to the part of Raw that prevents it? I'm not questioning you, I just want to read it myself. Thank you in advance.

[Saint-Just]

I know plenty of excelent DM who would allow it under specific circumstances. It takes an average Dm to Ban things, and an excelent Dm to adapt to things ;)


One of the most widespread "special circumstances" is giving a numerical LA to the template with LA - . In fact significant fan efforts went into attempts to reach some consensus on LA for unLAyed creatures. People definitely do not assume that LA - means LA 0.

And that template definitely does not look like LA 0. it gives one significant drawback and then gives many powers and advantages, some of them even scaling with HD.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Wild (Wilderness-Dweller) template, +0 LA, Dragon Magazine issue 306 page 65. It gives +2 Str, -2 Int, -2 Cha, +5 base land speed, you lose any spell-like abilities or skill bonuses from your base race and get different skill bonuses instead, and it replaces your existing favored class with Ranger.

[Kurald Galain]

No listed LA means no LA.
...which is not the same as "LA +0", in the same sense that having no constitution score is not the same as having a constitution of zero.

[HouseRules]

No Listed LA means that the LA is so high that the minimum ECL is 20.
This is a general rule that does not have any exception listed.
There is one monster with LA+10 and more than 10 HD, but that is not an exception.

[Rebel7284]

Folks are correct that typically unlisted LA is treated as LA -

I think the usual argument for Unseelie Fey being LA+0 template is actually the example Unseelie Fey Gnome that is listed as being LA+0 despite the template.

However, with stat blocks being so error prone, and the stat block being a secondary source anyway to the template description, this is for sure shaky.

There is an argument that only that gnome is specifically LA+0 and you can't generalize it to the template in general. With that said, you were thinking about playing a gnome anyway, right? Dragon Compendium Vol 1 p. 222. Be that specific gnome?

[daremetoidareyo]

Folks are correct that typically unlisted LA is treated as LA -

I think the usual argument for Unseelie Fey being LA+0 template is actually the example Unseelie Fey Gnome that is listed as being LA+0 despite the template.

However, with stat blocks being so error prone, and the stat block being a secondary source anyway to the template description, this is for sure shaky.

There is an argument that only that gnome is specifically LA+0 and you can't generalize it to the template in general. With that said, you were thinking about playing a gnome anyway, right? Dragon Compendium Vol 1 p. 222. Be that specific gnome?

I love it. You hacked it!

[Gruftzwerg]

No LA means you cannot take the template.

Heavy-duty optimizers are prone to claiming that surely this means that anyone can just take it for free, but good luck getting any decent DM to agree with that. And by RAW, you can't.

The template is "balanced" since it doesn't just provide only bonuses but also gives you handicaps that compensate the gain, making it no +LA/CR, that simple.

All templates with no +LA/CR are either balanced (includes handicaps) or are obtained with other resources (e.g. gold and thus count as equipment/gear bonuses from your character wealth and not from your character experience).

Unseelie Fee is an example of a balanced tempalte, while Half-Golem is an example for an acquired template from resources. Both come with no LA/CR increase but for different reasons.

[Kurald Galain]

The template is "balanced" since it doesn't just provide only bonuses but also gives you handicaps that compensate the gain, making it no +LA/CR, that simple.
Well, that's precisely what a DM should be doing: analyze the template, see if it works for his campaign, and hand it out as appropriate.

It doesn't mean that, just because you're eyeballing one such template as balanced, therefore all of them can always freely be taken by any player :smallamused:

[Necroticplague]

No LA means you cannot take the template.

Heavy-duty optimizers are prone to claiming that surely this means that anyone can just take it for free, but good luck getting any decent DM to agree with that. And by RAW, you can't.

Incorrect. The rules for templates and races are not the same in this regard.


A template’s description provides a set of instructions for altering an existing creature, known as the base creature. The changes that a template might cause to each line of a creature ’s statistics block are discussed below. Generally, if a template does not cause a change to a certain statistic, that entry is missing from the template description. For clarity, the entry for a statistic or attribute that is not changed is sometimes given as “Same as the base creature.”

So, if it doesn't explicitly say that it makes a change, a template doesn't change something about a race. So a Human has LA +0, and an unseelie fey human is also la+0.

Meanwhile, just to contrast, the section on races says:

Starting Level of a Monster PC

Monsters suitable for play have a level adjustment given in their statistics.
Meaning that races without level adjustments aren't playable.

[Kurald Galain]

So, if it doesn't explicitly say that it makes a change, a template doesn't change something about a race. So a Human has LA +0, and an unseelie fey human is also la+0.
Nice try, but that text doesn't say what you think it does. Nothing about that text says that "unlisted LA" (meaning you cannot take the template) is the same as "LA zero" (meaning you can take the template). 0 IS NOT NULL.

[Necroticplague]

Nice try, but that text doesn't say what you think it does. Nothing about that text says that "unlisted LA" (meaning you cannot take the template) is the same as "LA zero" (meaning you can take the template). 0 IS NOT NULL.

Any source for the bolded? That appears to be the point being argued here, so you're just asserting without evidence.

If a template doesn't mention something, it doesn't change what's already there. This is unlike races, where if something isn't mentioned, there's nothing to modify.

[Gruftzwerg]

Well, that's precisely what a DM should be doing: analyze the template, see if it works for his campaign, and hand it out as appropriate.

It doesn't mean that, just because you're eyeballing one such template as balanced, therefore all of them can always freely be taken by any player :smallamused:

Isn't that always the chase? That things need to be approved by the DM in the first place. Like which setting(s), books, Magazines, 3rd party, epic rules, classes.. everything needs to be approved by the DM. I personally haven't played a single game with PC using templates so far, just for the record..^^ It just haven't come up to debate since nobody was interested. That doesn't say anything if any of the DMs in the group would allow or disallow such content. I would assume that it would be chase by chase decision on our table and not even a set rule.

[Troacctid]

Incorrect. The rules for templates and races are not the same in this regard.



So, if it doesn't explicitly say that it makes a change, a template doesn't change something about a race. So a Human has LA +0, and an unseelie fey human is also la+0.

Meanwhile, just to contrast, the section on races says:

Meaning that races without level adjustments aren't playable.
You're missing that in 3.0, templates did not have listed level adjustments at all. Take a look at a 3.0 version of the Monster Manual, if you can find one, and you'll see that all the greatest hits—half-celestial, vampire, etc.—don't have any change to level adjustment in their entry. Unseelie fey was written during the 3.0 era, and it follows this same convention.

You're also missing that every template in Dragon Compendium is sans LA in precisely the same manner (with the LA in the example statblock unchanged from the base creature). Are you really going to argue that bodak creatures are +0 LA? Just casual death gaze attacks at ECL 1? Because that follows logically from your reading here.

[Rebel7284]

Unseelie Fee is an example of a balanced tempalte

😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣

No.

I like the template and I think it's a fun one to use, I even suggest some RAW ways of using it, but it's not at all balanced for an LA+0 template. Sure it's not universally applicable, but neither is half-minotaur.

[Gruftzwerg]

You're missing that in 3.0, templates did not have listed level adjustments at all. Take a look at a 3.0 version of the Monster Manual, if you can find one, and you'll see that all the greatest hits—half-celestial, vampire, etc.—don't have any change to level adjustment in their entry. Unseelie fey was written during the 3.0 era, and it follows this same convention.

You're also missing that every template in Dragon Compendium is sans LA in precisely the same manner (with the LA in the example statblock unchanged from the base creature). Are you really going to argue that bodak creatures are +0 LA? Just casual death gaze attacks at ECL 1? Because that follows logically from your reading here.

and the bodak creature template has no drawbacks?
like:

- being undead is not always profitable, be it positive energy/magic, turn/command undead, social interaction with other races just to name a few
- struck with chaotic evil alignment. If that is not a handicap for a PC I don't know. And if you intent to play a C-E character in the first place, than I don't see any problems at all with the template, cause your goal as chaotic evil character is to overpower all others with your dark gifts in the first place.
- and 1dmg/turn in direct sunlight is a real heavy drawback. Maybe avoidable, but still a high tax for the template.

So do you get all the dark powers for free? No, cause real dark powers in fantasy always come with high dark taxes / trade offs/drawbacks as it is in this chase. The tax doesn't always have to be a LA/RHD to adjust your ECL.

[Saint-Just]

Gruftzwerg, are you suggesting that each and every template published during the 3.0 era is exactingly balanced and has a proper LA of 0?

[Kurald Galain]

So do you get all the dark powers for free? No, cause real dark powers in fantasy always come with high dark taxes / trade offs/drawbacks as it is in this chase. The tax doesn't always have to be a LA/RHD to adjust your ECL.

Right, just like how the Lightning Warrior trades power for great flavor! :smallamused:

[Gruftzwerg]

Gruftzwerg, are you suggesting that each and every template published during the 3.0 era is exactingly balanced and has a proper LA of 0?

3.0 is always a difficult chase and you need to know which things have been globally changed in the transition (e.g DR works a bit different IIRC). The DM needs to check if the templated makes any sense for PC in the first place, as some things in D&D is straight DM stuff and not intended for player use (especialliy in the ealier versions like it's the chase with 3.0). And if all that is given and you can see a clear tradeoff, why not use em as LA0?


I mean, let us imagine a bodak creature PC:

Think about the effort to just avoid the daylight (and any magic pretending to be daylight equivalent) every day under any given circumstances.

Than you have to fear anybody with Turn/Command Undead abilities, who are even lower than you. And for gods sake let us hope that he didn't specialize in Turning/Commanding Undead.

And we hanven't even talked about a single spell that is specially designed against undead. And there are a bunch of em, so lets not go deeper into that topic.

Any kind of social interaction is a problem. Talking to townfolks? I mean, can you even enter a town without magical effects hiding your real form? You want to "buy" gear for all the gold that you got from your so called "adventures" (as C-E character..^^), well good luck finding a magic markt that doesn't either try to kill/capture you or just tries to avoid you by other means. I mean, the minimal safety a magic market owner should have is "true sight" and "immunity to mind affecting effects". Who would interact with you? Less than 1% of the entire animal/humanoid population I would assume.

A template like bodak creature is imho a bit like Vow of Poverty. It looks strong on first glance, but if you consider the drawbacks that it brings to a PC, it's easily understandable why it doesn't come with a heavy LA/RHD tax. And if you think how easy a 1st lvl cleric would fight a 1st lvl Unseelie Fee, once can assume that the drawbacks justify the gains of the build.

While a bodak creature is stronger against most type of other possible enemies, it struggles hard against those who are "good/positive" focused. I mean, how much lvl difference can you beat with an optimized turn undead build? Just think about it.

edit: corrected the template names. twisted them, I'm sorry..^^

[StevenC21]

Undead type is waaaaaaaay better than weak ol humanoid. That's not even a discussion.

Chaotic Evil is an alignment for Boccob's sake, you can't consider that a boon or a drawback, it's possibly the most situational change you could ever make.

And oooooh 1 damage/round. Maybe scary at level 1, but just a bit beyond that and you'll completely forget. Or just, y'know, wear a hood.

[Saint-Just]

3.0 is always a difficult chase and you need to know which things have been globally changed in the transition (e.g DR works a bit different IIRC). The DM needs to check if the templated makes any sense for PC in the first place, as some things in D&D is straight DM stuff and not intended for player use (especialliy in the ealier versions like it's the chase with 3.0). And if all that is given and you can see a clear tradeoff, why not use em as LA0?


I mean, let us imagine a Unseelie Fee PC:

Think about the effort to just avoid the daylight (and any magic pretending to be daylight equivalent) every day under any given circumstances.

Than you have to fear anybody with Turn/Command Undead abilities, who are even lower than you. And for gods sake let us hope that he didn't specialize in Turning/Commanding Undead.

And we hanven't even talked about a single spell that is specially designed against undead. And there are a bunch of em, so lets not go deeper into that topic.

Any kind of social interaction is a problem. Talking to townfolks? I mean, can you even enter a town without magical effects hiding your real form? You want to "buy" gear for all the gold that you got from your so called "adventures" (as C-E character..^^), well good luck finding a magic markt that doesn't either try to kill/capture you or just tries to avoid you by other means. I mean, the minimal safety a magic market owner should have is "true sight" and "immunity to mind affecting effects". Who would interact with you? Less than 1% of the entire animal/humanoid population I would assume.

A template like Unseelie Fee is imho a bit like Vow of Poverty. It looks strong on first glance, but if you consider the drawbacks that it brings to a PC, it's easily understandable why it doesn't come with a heavy LA/RHD tax. And if you think how easy a 1st lvl cleric would fight a 1st lvl Unseelie Fee, once can assume that the drawbacks justify the gains of the build.

While a Unseelie Fee is stronger against most type of other possible enemies, it struggles hard against those who are "good/positive" focused. I mean, how much lvl difference can you beat with an optimized turn undead build? Just think about it.

You are probably talking about bodak, but calling it Unseele Fee [sic]. Fay only get vulnerability to metal, no other drawbacks.

But I will ask again - do you really think that every template from a 3.0 should be LA 0? If no then we can talk about what is the best LA for unseelie fay, for bodak etc, but this is in a realm of homebrew\table rules. Pretending that Unseelie Fay has an official LA 0 is disingenuous. OP's DM may or may not allow it as a LA 0 race, but it's not the same as taking officially published template with LA 0.

[Gruftzwerg]

You are probably talking about bodak, but calling it Unseele Fee [sic]. Fay only get vulnerability to metal, no other drawbacks.

But I will ask again - do you really think that every template from a 3.0 should be LA 0? If no then we can talk about what is the best LA for unseelie fay, for bodak etc, but this is in a realm of homebrew\table rules. Pretending that Unseelie Fay has an official LA 0 is disingenuous. OP's DM may or may not allow it as a LA 0 race, but it's not the same as taking officially published template with LA 0.

oh yeah, sorry twisted the two somehow. Replying on 2 different threads confused me ..^^ I'll correct it asap.

[sreservoir]

The general lack of listed LAs does, however, lend more credence to the argument from the sample character's listed 0 LA.

[Gruftzwerg]

Undead type is waaaaaaaay better than weak ol humanoid. That's not even a discussion.

Chaotic Evil is an alignment for Boccob's sake, you can't consider that a boon or a drawback, it's possibly the most situational change you could ever make.

And oooooh 1 damage/round. Maybe scary at level 1, but just a bit beyond that and you'll completely forget. Or just, y'know, wear a hood.


Yeah ignore all the drawbacks and it's op. If you consider the drawbacks, it's fine.

As already asked:
How many lvl difference can an non-/optimized Turn Undead beat?
How many effects especially target undead or evil creatures.

And if you stay at the "oh my god all that good stuff at lvl 1" I come with the argument "oh all that redundant stuff" at later levels where an optimized T1 or even T2 can overshadow it with ease without any of the drawbacks at all. So the trageoff is early power and hard early taxes and low late game effect while still paying the high tax. The 1dmg/turn sunlight might be ignore able to some degree, but the fact that lower level clerics and paladins can kick your butt is still a high tax. Your social problem hasn't become any better and is still effecting your daily life. Besides from the sunburn problem, all other handicaps still effect you as strong as ever. Maybe even more on later levels, cause the clerics and paladins had more opportunities from lvl to pimp their arsenal of anti undead abilities/spells.

[Kurald Galain]

Yeah ignore all the drawbacks and it's op. If you consider the drawbacks, it's fine.

Being undead is definitely a big drawback. Aside from getting darkvision (a big downside), you end up immune to
mind-affecting effects
poison
sleep effects
paralysis
stunning
disease
death effects.
critical hits
nonlethal damage
ability drain
energy drain
damage to its physical ability scores
fatigue
exhaustion effects.
any effect that requires a Fortitude save
death from massive damage
lack of air
starvation


Yes, that's a substantial drawback indeed!

[Gruftzwerg]

Being undead is definitely a big drawback. Aside from getting darkvision (a big downside), you end up immune to
mind-affecting effects
poison
sleep effects
paralysis
stunning
disease
death effects.
critical hits
nonlethal damage
ability drain
energy drain
damage to its physical ability scores
fatigue
exhaustion effects.
any effect that requires a Fortitude save
death from massive damage
lack of air
starvation


Yes, that's a substantial drawback indeed!

again you only see the cool stuff they get and ignore the drawbacks.

It's more like you exchange vulnerability to regular mind affecting effects for mind effecting effects specifically targeting undead (e.g. Command Undead, Control Undead, Rebuke Undead, Energy Drain...).

Other things become later easy available (poison, stunning, death effects...) or are very niche or little with their benefits (no need to breathe, eating - when was the last table where these things caused a problem?).

The template doesn't give anything unique and those benefits that you get (which are strong abilities, not arguing about that) are easily replaceable or things that high lvl characters would already be aiming for with other ways to get em.

Like VoP, you get some cool stuff, but somehow have to live with the drawbacks. It's not impossible, but that doesn't mean it's not balanced.

Having basically only 1/2 of the day (on average) to be active (in the means of being able to travel / go on adventures and stuff), compared to a normal living character that has 2/3 of the day where he can be active without any drawbacks. Again, like someone with VoP may live fine without magic items, so can one with this template. But still a trade like you do with feats and flaws. If you do it right, you profit a lil bit more than you suffer.

[Asmotherion]

Well, that escalated quickly!

In any case, my conclusion would be that because it's 3e it's not clearly defined by Raw, and thus falls to DM judgment.

I'd suggest something along the Lines of LA +2/+3. It's weaker than a Half Fiend, and about the same level as Fiendish Creature.

[Shinoskay]

And now I love giant in the playground.

15 years or more later and here we are arguing our sides and personal perspectives once again on something thats been argued 15 years or more.

And you guys are all throwing smashingly amazing points.

I've done personal research in the past, I believe the results I got then was that LA - was equatable to LA +0.
Just my own perspective.
Also, I also believe seelie court fey is largely balanced. Most weapons are iron, which means there's a flat 1d6 damage from all basic weapons. Sure, the dr 5/cold iron removes that, 9 times out of ten, and some change but there's also that slight (13%?) chance that ill take an extra 1 damage.

And if they have cold iron then it's just a flat extra 1d6 damage to me.

The skill bonus is balanaced by a penalty.

and most the spell likes are low grade spells, and the only place where theres straight net gain.

It's nice, maybe cool, but not op.

also, and most importantly,
(("Seelie court fey" is a template that can be added to any fey creature (referred to hereafter as the "base creature") if it has exclusively fey ancestry))

Typically it needs to be a fey creature.

this requirement requires my char should be born fey, meaning I need a fey template. Though, the Seelie court fey gnome previously mentioned may be where I should go *script kiddie hacking a go go

the gnomish spell like ability isn't a big loss, Seelie court fey template replaces those just fine. the skills are kind of important though.

*edit: oh, wait, that hack is an unseelie fey (sucks they are deemed evil, damn writers/editors, likes like in werewolf the forsaken purebloods are good and the other werewolves are evil).


*edit edit
also found this: Desert (AKA Desert-Dweller) – – – change to ranger – Dragon 306 pg. 63