Unseelie Seelie Fey

[Curelomosaurus]

The Seelie Fey template can be applied to any fey creature of pure fey ancestry... Which means that, ironically, Unseelie fey are one of the few LA 0 ways to be a seelie fey. As seelie fey has no LA entry and advances "as the base creature", it has the same LA as the base creature (+0), as per the Monster Manual template rules. As such, unless I'm missing something, Unseelie Seelie Fey can be added to almost any creature at no LA, for scaling DR and SLAs, aura of courage, healing touch, turn undead, bonuses to lots of charisma based skills, and potentially a fly speed. So, is there anything in RAW that prevents a character with one Seelie parent and one Unseelie parent from taking both templates?

I'm thinking of using this for the jack-of-all trades Ranger/Bard/Sublime Chord/Folhucan Lyrist build over in the http://https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?615106-PrCs-that-advance-Mystic-Ranger-spellcasting"]Mystic Ranger PrCs (http://https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?615106-PrCs-that-advance-Mystic-Ranger-spellcasting) thread.

[Troacctid]

Well, one good reason not to take unseelie fey would be that it cuts you off from a much better +0 LA template: ghoulish creature. It's like necropolitan on steroids. Like necropolitan, it changes your type to undead, changes all your hit dice to d12s, and gives you +2 turn resistance; however, it also gives you +2 Str, +4 Dex, +2 Int, +4 Wis, +6 Cha, +2 natural armor, and paralyzing natural attacks. Since this template can only be added to giants, humanoids, and monstrous humanoids, changing your type to fey makes you ineligible for it.

[InvisibleBison]

As far as I can tell, Seelie Fey is a 3.0 template, and in 3.0 templates didn't list a level adjustment. Thus, as part of the process of converting Seelie Fey to 3.5, you have to assign it a level adjustment. In other words, it's not LA: +0, it's LA: Undefined.

[Vampyre_Lord]

Well, one good reason not to take unseelie fey would be that it cuts you off from a much better +0 LA template: ghoulish creature. It's like necropolitan on steroids. Like necropolitan, it changes your type to undead, changes all your hit dice to d12s, and gives you +2 turn resistance; however, it also gives you +2 Str, +4 Dex, +2 Int, +4 Wis, +6 Cha, +2 natural armor, and paralyzing natural attacks. Since this template can only be added to giants, humanoids, and monstrous humanoids, changing your type to fey makes you ineligible for it.

maybe im wrong here, but doesnt ghoulish run into the same problem of being 3.0 material and having no listed LA, therefore being undefined?
unseelie fey has the justification of the sample creature having one, but i dont see that for ghoulish? but i could totally be wrong...

[Rebel7284]

Wasn't there someone on this forum that recently found errata/update for ghoulish to 3.5 that gave it some LA?

Anyway, neither seelie nor unselie fey have a listed LA. However, an example gnome with the unseelie fey template is listed as LA+0. Thus folks deduce that unseelie template is LA+0 too! Whether or not that reasoning works for your DM is a different question. I am sure that some would just assume it's a typo.

Also, if no LA is listed in general, it's assumed to be LA -- or not applicable to player characters. Just because you apply another template on top of it, doesn't change the fact that the base race, or base template, is not applicable. After all NULL + 0 is NULL. Otherwise you get into truly dumb territory turning nearly every creature playable with +1 LA Draconic template or something like that.

[NontheistCleric]

I'm pretty sure the whole point of the Unseelie Fey template is that they aren't pure-blooded fey, and thus the only way this idea would work is if you applied Unseelie Fey to a creature that was already a pure-blooded fey.

As long as you apply this process to something like a killoren (assuming they are written as being pure fey, which I haven't checked), you would indeed end up with a Seelie Unseelie Fey by RAW, but it's not exactly a revelation that a pure-blooded fey with no source of non-fey heritage is eligible for templates that apply only to pure-blooded fey.

[Zanos]

The issue is specific to templates, which often say to use the base creatures statistics if not otherwise noted. That would include level adjustment, however, MM1 says this about LA in general:

Level Adjustment
This line is included in the entries of creatures suitable for use as player characters or as cohorts (usually creatures with Intelligence scores of at least 3 and possessing opposable thumbs).
So if a monster doesn't have an LA listed, it's not suitable for use as a PC. A template that makes no mention of LA though is fair game if applied to a base creature that does have one.

3.0 material however specifically requires updates to be used with 3.5, so if you're trying to use a 3.0 template and saying it has +0 LA, your DM is likely to disagree.

[Rebel7284]

A template that makes no mention of LA though is fair game if applied to a base creature that does have one.

Fair game for a player character? I disagree.

0+NULL is the same as NULL+0. If the race OR template is not designed for player use, then using it is a houserule. 3.0 does complicate things since the term LA wasn't used and sometimes was referenced elsewhere in a X as characters section or in update to 3.5 booklets.

[Zanos]

Fair game for a player character? I disagree.

0+NULL is the same as NULL+0. If the race OR template is not designed for player use, then using it is a houserule. 3.0 does complicate things since the term LA wasn't used and sometimes was referenced elsewhere in a X as characters section or in update to 3.5 booklets.
The template specifically says to use the statistics of the base creature if not noted. It's not 0+NULL, it's just 0.

[Troacctid]

maybe im wrong here, but doesnt ghoulish run into the same problem of being 3.0 material and having no listed LA, therefore being undefined?
unseelie fey has the justification of the sample creature having one, but i dont see that for ghoulish? but i could totally be wrong...
Of course neither is really an option since they were never properly updated from 3.0. I'm just saying that if unseelie fey were an option, ghoulish creature would immediately become a superior option. Any discussion that includes the one has to acknowledge the other. Also, let's not forget bodak creature—if you can get around the sunlight vulnerability, an insta-death gaze attack is preeetty broken at +0 LA.

Like, f'reals, I don't get why people are so high on unseelie fey when it's, like, the weakest template in the book.

[Bronk]

Like, f'reals, I don't get why people are so high on unseelie fey when it's, like, the weakest template in the book.

Free fey type, with the possibility of flight thrown in, etc.? I've always thought it was pretty neat too.

Looks like the seelie and unseelie templates came out in Dragon 304, and the goulish template came out in Dragon 307, In Feb and May of 2003 so firmly in 3.0. The fey templates were reposted in Dragon Compendium, so I'd think they would count as being updated to 3.5, despite being reprinted with all the same problems as they were originally.

[Troacctid]

Free fey type, with the possibility of flight thrown in, etc.? I've always thought it was pretty neat too.

Looks like the seelie and unseelie templates came out in Dragon 304, and the goulish template came out in Dragon 307, In Feb and May of 2003 so firmly in 3.0. The fey templates were reposted in Dragon Compendium, so I'd think they would count as being updated to 3.5, despite being reprinted with all the same problems as they were originally.
The undead templates were also reprinted in Dragon Compendium.

[Bronk]

The undead templates were also reprinted in Dragon Compendium.

So it looks like all three are 3.5, seelie and ghoulish are still LA -, and unseelie may still squeak by with a LA +0 on a technicality. Score?

[Troacctid]

So it looks like all three are 3.5, seelie and ghoulish are still LA -, and unseelie may still squeak by with a LA +0 on a technicality. Score?
If one of them is +0, they're all +0. None of them list any change to level adjustment, and none of the example creatures' LA differs from the base creature.

[Zanos]

If one of them is +0, they're all +0. None of them list any change to level adjustment, and none of the example creatures' LA differs from the base creature.
Are the example monsters LA 0? If a monster itself does not have an LA entry it isn't appropriate for use as a PC.

[Troacctid]

Are the example monsters LA 0? If a monster itself does not have an LA entry it isn't appropriate for use as a PC.
That's a problem if you're trying to play a bodak hydra, but not if you're trying to play a bodak halfling. For Dragon Compendium, in all cases, there is no change between the LA of the base creature and the templated creature, nor is there any change in LA prescribed by the template's text. Just like you said, they use the statistics of the base creature unless otherwise noted.

[Bronk]

If one of them is +0, they're all +0. None of them list any change to level adjustment, and none of the example creatures' LA differs from the base creature.

LA is only listed at all for the unseelie example creature.

[Curelomosaurus]

Is there a Dragon Compendium errata that covers these? Because if ghoulish, Unseelie, etc. were left un-errata'd when updated to 3.5, that should make the +0 LA a legit thing.

[Toliudar]

Well, if you're going to treat LA: undefined as LA +0, you should aim higher than seelie/unseelie fey. For the build you're describing, the Magister (https://www.realmshelps.net/monsters/templates/magister.shtml) template would be a huge boost. I'm also fond of Divine Rank 0, which also has no LA listed.

[Doctor Despair]

Well, if you're going to treat LA: undefined as LA +0, you should aim higher than seelie/unseelie fey. For the build you're describing, the Magister (https://www.realmshelps.net/monsters/templates/magister.shtml) template would be a huge boost. I'm also fond of Divine Rank 0, which also has no LA listed.

The Magister template doesn't have a sample creature that explicitly has a level adjustment of zero though, does it? It seems like that's the main distinction between Unseeley Fey and any other given LA - template, right? That Unseeley Fey has that explicit example? At least going off of the discussion in the thread.

[Troacctid]

Is there a Dragon Compendium errata that covers these? Because if ghoulish, Unseelie, etc. were left un-errata'd when updated to 3.5, that should make the +0 LA a legit thing.
There isn't any errata for the templates' LA.


The Magister template doesn't have a sample creature that explicitly has a level adjustment of zero though, does it? It seems like that's the main distinction between Unseeley Fey and any other given LA - template, right? That Unseeley Fey has that explicit example? At least going off of the discussion in the thread.
No. The keystone of the ruling here is that if the template doesn't list a change to the base creature's LA, then the LA is the same as the base creature's. So an unseelie fey gnome is +0 because a gnome is +0; unseelie fey doesn't change it. An unseelie fey hobgoblin would be +1, not +0. Now look at the example bodak hydra. A normal hydra is LA: —. The bodak hydra is also LA: —. They're the same, which means the bodak template didn't change its LA. Therefore, by the exact same logic, the bodak template is also LA +0. As mentioned upthread:

The template specifically says to use the statistics of the base creature if not noted.

[ShurikVch]

Note:

Unseelie fey are considered repulsive and usually driven out of seelie court fey demesnes.
Thus, it would be strictly against fluff...

[Curelomosaurus]

Just say you're half seelie and half Unseelie.