LA Assignment Thread X: New Year, New Management, Same Old Unplayable Monsters

[Debatra]

Before anything else, let me once again thank Inevitability for running these threads over the last five years. I hope to hold up to the standard he set.

New Archive Link (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?624825)

We'll be starting this one off with Libris Mortis, AKA "The Book of Bad Latin". As you might expect, this one is packed with various undead monstrosities. And this first one is... something...

On asterisk ratings:

The asterisk is not necessarily 'this will be tricky to normally use'. It denotes 'this has an ability that would be completely broken if allowed, and the rating assumes you remove it'.

The problem with 'low movement speed' and 'has to find a host' is that there's no real trait to remove. Take away 1 ft. movement and... replace it with a basic human walking pace? Remove the symbiont's power restrictions when unattached? There's no obvious way to remove

Furthermore: we've rated monsters that wouldn't fit in most dungeons, monsters that need water to breathe, monsters that die from water, monsters that would get run out of any civilized place, and monsters that explode if you leave them out in the sun. None of those traits got them asterisk-ed, because the underlying assumption that they'd only be played in the campaigns that could accommodate them.

What monsters did get an asterisk? Those whose abilities would innately and effortlessly disrupt any campaign. A dryad can't be used in any campaign that involves 'going places'. A shadow can't be used in any campaign that involves interaction with humanoids. An efreet can't be used in any campaign that involves, well, the PCs having goals.

.


Angel of Decay
https://i.imgur.com/MOgJye3.jpg

Despite the name and appearance, Angels of Decay are not in fact undead angels. Well, they don't have to be.

My breakdowns are going to be a bit more detailed than Inevitability's were, though not quite as thorough as Thurbane likes to get.

Size & Type: Large Undead
HD: 26 - That's right folks, we're already starting off Epic. Need I say more? Well let's keep going anyway.
Speed: 30' land, 50' fly (poor)
Ability Scores: Str +26, Dex +4, Con -, Int +10, Wis +10, Cha +8
Natural Armor: 13
Natural Weapons: Two Primary claws (2d6), two secondary wing slams (1d6)
Skill List: Concentration, Diplomacy, Hide, K: Arcana, Listen, Move Silently, Search, Sense Motive, Spellcraft, Spot, Survival
Body Shape: Humanoid
Speech (Languages): Yes (Common, Abyssal)
CR: 15
WotC LA: -
Our LA: -0

You've got DR 10/adamantine and magic, SR 24 (good for its CR, irrelevant for its ECL), 60' darkvision, and Unholy Grace (Cha to AC and saves). If it hits the same thing at least twice in one round, its Rotting Touch deals an extra 1d6+6 damage and heals it for 5. It also has a party-unfriendly Rotting Aura with no apparent way to turn it off. Each round, any corporeal creature standing on the ground within 15' takes 5d6, Reflex for half. Regardless of that save, they also have to make a will save or be nauseated for the round. Like its touch, the aura heals it for 5 whenever it damages something.

[Thurbane]

Thanks for taking over Debatra, much appreciated. :smallsmile:


Large Undead (with reach)
26 RHD - ouch! (d12 HD, 1 good save, poor BAB, 4 skill points/"level")
Speed 30 ft, fly 50 ft (poor): not bad, but everyone should be able to fly at this level of play.
+13 natural AC, Cha bonus as deflection to AC: not bad.
2 claws 2d6, 2 wing slams 1d6.
Rotting aura: 15 foot aura that requires a Ref save to avoid 5d6 damage (and heals the creature for 5), and a Fort save to avoid being nauseated for 1 round. Not bad, and always on.
Rotting touch: rider effect if you hit with more than one natural weapon - 1d6+6 damage to the opponent, and you heal 5. Like most of its abilities, OK, but not at this level of play.
DR 10/adamantine and magic: not bad.
Darkvision 60 ft.
SR 24: not very impressive at this level of play.
Undead traits: usual immunities and drawbacks.
Unholy grace: Cha bonus to AC and saves. Not bad. Would have been nicer if you got your Cha bonus to hp per HD.
Str +26, Dex +4, Con --, Int +10, Wis +10, Cha +8: net +58, with one non-ability. Would be much more impressive if you weren't starting at epic levels.
OK-ish racial skill list.

Large humanoid in form, has hands and can speak - so no real issues there.

This is a pretty straightforward melee bruiser type. Only issue is this 26 HD. This might make for an OK CR 15 encounter (although even there I suspect it would get curb stomped by the average ECL 15 party of four).

Easy LA -0 due to sheer number of HD. You will not be a viable epic character, I'm afraid. If you halved the number of HD, or thereabouts, would be interesting.

[Unavenger]

Thanks for taking over!

Much like the NoOneIsGonnaReadThisAnyway Copper Dragon (of archive fame), this has just too many hit dice to get anywhere reasonable. -0, naturally.

[Blue Jay]

Thanks again for picking up the reins, Debatra.

Libris Mortis starts out with two of the most repulsive monsters in existence, and the next several after that are also pretty gross. These creatures have no appeal for me, even as monster encounters to run as a DM: they're just too icky for me.

But, I agree with Thurbane: LA -0 is good for the angel of decay. I've never played or DMed for an epic game before, but as I understand it, a monster has to have something really spectacular, or at least have a degree of versatility, to make an interesting PC at epic levels. But, the angel of decay really just gets an array of basic monster features, with only a couple mildly unique effects in the mix. Nausea as a passive area effect and self-healing as a rider on your melee attacks are pretty neat features for a melee character, but I don't think it's enough here.

Thurbane, do you think the angel of decay is designed specifically to be a "Very Difficult" encounter (i.e., used against a party with ECL 1 to 4 levels below the CR)? Level 15 is mostly outside of my personal experience as a DM or player, but this monster seems like it would be a potent boss monster for a party of ECL 12 or 13.

[Thurbane]

Thurbane, do you think the angel of decay is designed specifically to be a "Very Difficult" encounter (i.e., used against a party with ECL 1 to 4 levels below the CR)? Level 15 is mostly outside of my personal experience as a DM or player, but this monster seems like it would be a potent boss monster for a party of ECL 12 or 13.

I think a well built ECL 12-13 party should be able to handle one of these as a tough encounter, yeah.

[danielxcutter]

I actually recall these being basically elite mooks in the final area of an Atropus campaign suggested in Elder Evils - specifically, on Atropus itself. I suppose nightcrawlers would have been a bit too excessive, though.

Also yeah, LA -0; thread title couldn't be more appropriate for this one.

[Falontani]

Usually a lurker in these threads, but necromancers are my jam, and this is my butter. -0 no arguments here.
I eagerly await the Bleakborn and Brain in a Jar. Those ones I expect to have some discussion, and I've done some things with both of em as cohorts.

[Efrate]

-0 26 bad HD killed any hope. They are kind of slacking at their CR let alone at their HD. A boss for like an 11 to 13 party might be okay but at 15 it's just a bruiser and bruisers need to be very special to hold up.

[liquidformat]

Thanks a lot for taking over!

I think this is an easy -0

[Aniikinis]

Thanks for taking over, I have a good feeling you'll do nicely. That being said, there's nothing good about this creature for epic levels. -0

[Asmotherion]

It's a big beat stick. +0.

[danielxcutter]

It's a big beat stick. +0.

It has 26 undead HD. +0 is probably too high.

[Morphic tide]

Rather obviously LA -0 as-is.

I'm kind of wondering what would be a sensible 21+RHD monster in a more normal CR range, to be perfectly honest. This is actually a pretty good starting point for such an exercise, given the innate no-cost (Ex) Flight and health recovery, right alongside ability score concentration and passive SR. The issue it faces in turning it into a PC is that the only scaling here is save DCs and Unholy Grace, and Undead RHD are extremely bad.

But a major thing that tends to be passed up in these threads is that all these monsters that have CR-appropriate AC with bloated hit dice get that AC on top of all their items. So you throw on your Epic armor as per usual and... Have +19 AC over a "blank" character in your niche, from the Natural Armor, Dexterity, and your bonus Charisma. So you literally roll over the die completely an entire extra time on your armor class, in the event you can match the other sources of armor class. And if not, well, you would most definitely be overpowered if that wasn't the case because you'd be guaranteed that any sensible encounter only hits you on a natural 20.

Similarly, the massive Strength bonuses translate to per-hit damage, meaning you inbuild 13 damage per hit, and the four Natural Attacks are usually superior to 20 pre-Epic BAB because of fewer iterative penalties. A standard character needs ~4d6 or 2d12 damage per hit from features to recoup that difference, and will ironically usually have fewer hits because this thing has a full +26 to attack rolls baseline and runs on Natural Attacks, where an actual Epic character has +23 BAB. Granted, getting an extra +3 to attack rolls from class features is so trivial Fighters can do it, but it's still an angle to work with.

The core problem is that, while its chassis is quite likely to be solid for its RHD-determined ECL, it doesn't do anywhere near enough with it. 15 ft. radius is terrible, needing to touch the ground is silly, and the damage doesn't really plug into anything. Rotting Touch being per-hit would do a solid amount to help, as would being in ratio healing... Like the Bleakborn all of three entries later that's CR 7 and 8 RHD. And, of course, things outside combat to do. Probably based on spawn, or Disintegration-like properties from decaying all sorts of random objects.

[danielxcutter]

Well... fair about the AC. A fraction of the WBL of a 27th-level PC would be sufficient to pump your AC into the low 50s.

Attack bonus is... less than stellar, though, and you can literally buy flight and that much SR with items at the CR of this thing.

[Debatra]

For fear of rushing through things, I think we all knew this was going to end up at -0 anyway. Updating the archive and bringing in the next (thankfully non-Epic) momentarily.

[Debatra]

Atropal Scion
https://i.imgur.com/W5Qm92f.jpg

So what happens when a "stillborn godling" gets raised as an undead? Well this is what happens to the remnants of those abominations if any pieces survive.

Size & Type: Medium Undead
HD: 9
Speed: 30' fly (not specified... average I guess?)
Ability Scores: Str +2, Dex +4, Con -, Int +6, Wis +12, Cha +10 - Net +34, no penalties
Natural Armor: 8
Natural Weapons: One Primary slam (1d8)
Skill List: K: Arcana, K: Religion, Listen, Move Silently, Spot
Body Shape: ...The flavor text says "wet, wrinkled and bloated humanoid body", but look at that image. At the very least, it appears to have hand-like appendages that could be used for spellcasting.
Speech (Languages): Yes (Common, Abyssal, Infernal, Celestial)
CR: 11
WotC LA: -
Our LA: +1* (uncapped Spawn ability)

DR 10/adamantine, Fast Healing 8, and Unholy Grace give it some decent durability. 60' Darkvision is always handy. It can also Rebuke/Command Undead as a Cleric of its HD. (Though the table says it can only do so five times per day instead of eight, which would be the normal for 3+ChaMod. The Errata is silent on this.) It also has a Cha-based save-or-die for a gaze attack with a 60' range. (And not one of those "target only" gazes that we've been seeing lately; the normal "if you look at it" kind.) Humanoids that die from it become wights 24 hours later. Wights that are not specifically under the Atropal Scion's control.

This thing is meant for necromancy, and its SLAs mostly focus on that. All are 3/day at CL9: Animate Dead, Create Undead, Cone of Cold, Desecrate, Dispel Magic, Invisibility, Plane Shift, Speak With Dead, Teleport. Save DCs are Int-based.

And now for the mixed bag. Don't you love party-unfriendly passives that you can't turn off? It has a Negative Energy Aura out to a frankly nuts 60' radius. Undead (including itself) in the aura get Turn Resistance +4 and Fast Healing 5. Nice for friendly/controlled undead, but there isn't a listed exception for its own Rebuke ability. Living creatures in the aura get two negative levels, so I hope the rest of the party is protected from those. Fortunately, the aura is also blocked by Protection From Evil, so that's a little easier. At the Scion's option, any creature (not just humanoids this time) that dies from these negative levels rise as a Wight that is under its control a minute later.

Great for an undead party, much less so if anyone is alive. Though permanent Protection From Evil is already handy when available because of the protection from compulsions; custom magic items like that are technically RAW, but we also all know they can be a sticking point at some tables. Needing to be constantly protected from Death on the other hand... At least gaze attacks can be turned off when not otherwise specified.

[Dalmosh]

DM - "So, I encourage creative character concepts, and I'll try and set stats to represent pretty much whoever you decide you want to be in my game. 3.5 is a pretty open-ended system that really allows for diverse builds, and I aim to allow for that where I can. Seriously, go nuts..."
New Player - "Hmmm... I'd really like to be a giant rotting floating dead foetus that drains the souls of anybody who sees it."

[danielxcutter]

I honestly don't think these threads were ever intended for new players. I personally haven't had much experience with playing but I've tinkered around with the system for quite a while, and I don't think I'd go with most of these even if they were allowed(and playable, for that matter). For most players, "unusual" would probably be some flavor of goblinoid or undead, maybe a dragon. The reanimated debris of an undead fetus god isn't going to be that high of a priority.

Really, sometimes I feel some of the veterans are the rough equivalent of Dark Souls players who've been doing naked runs because they're bored with the base game.

[Dalmosh]

Oh, I play a pretty low-op roleplayish table and my campaigns tend to be a bit odd, so I totally allow new people to play stuff off these threads if they want to. If you die, you die, but helping my players design really specific lower level builds is a kind of ongoing minigame I really enjoy away from the table.

Memorably, LA reassigned Worg worked really well a year or so ago and let someone play a really different kind of barbarian character that was pretty fun.
While I aim to please, I'd struggle a bit with an Atrophal Scion though :)

[Efrate]

This is an odd choice at best. It's also doesnt have a variety of clear paths. Its abilities are powerful for a party of necropolitons, and you almost need to be undead just so an unlucky dispel does not end you. You have great stats if somewhat unfocused. Your abilities lend towards minionmancy, and are reasonably powerful. Dread necromancer seems maybe the only solid path, with some flavor of undead bard also maybe doable.

Still pretty good undead minionmancy out the box with no component cost means most encounters are just extending your army. I think like a +2, because assuming a competent party built so you are not a detriment, it has near limitless minionmancy and stellar stats and tons of great stuff. Not sure however and I am swayable.

[danielxcutter]

This is honestly weird because it has a lot of things it can pull off and it's not hard have one of these lead a small army even straight out of the box, but it doesn't really scale and worse, undead-based minionmancy kinda drops off pretty fast and hard from what I hear.

Also regarding the flight: there's an evolved Atropal Scion in Elder Evils and it has the flight listed as good mobility. It's kind of odd though; the CL of the SLAs are all at level 20 and the DCs seem to be Cha-based(which goes against what Debrata said about them being Int-based, though it's probably the Book of Bad Latin also having a bad problem with typos IMO).

[liquidformat]

Yeah I am on the fence, at level this thing is very powerful but its not going to scale well and starting your arcane class at level 9+ means it is going to really suck, even though it has some amazing mental stats its going to be hard to utilize them. Going Ur-Priest is probably one of the only options for this thing to not be completely useless. But as far as LA I am on the fence, it is pretty nasty at level 9 a lot of those SLAs a standard caster is only getting at level 9 ish and create undead you are getting early access to but you also only have 9 spells that can be cast a total of 18 times a day and over a third of them aren't combat spells. The Gaze and the aura are nasty passive weapons but they are nasty to everyone and you really need a team designed to cope with them so they are a mixed bag.

All and all I am floating between +0 and +1, I think I will go with +1 LA though I am open to changing that.



I'm kind of wondering what would be a sensible 21+RHD monster in a more normal CR range, to be perfectly honest. This is actually a pretty good starting point for such an exercise, given the innate no-cost (Ex) Flight and health recovery, right alongside ability score concentration and passive SR. The issue it faces in turning it into a PC is that the only scaling here is save DCs and Unholy Grace, and Undead RHD are extremely bad.

Take a look at the high level outsiders from MM most of them are quite powerful for their RHD and are a good baseline for what type of abilities a monster should have to be appropriate for its ECL.

[Morphic tide]

For the Atropal Scion, I'll vote LA +0 for the mess that is progressing it. There's definitely some work you can do with other boosting mechanics, but when the general consensus is that you're going Ur-Priest or else be stuck dumpster-diving, the thing's really going to hurt in much of actual play.


Take a look at the high level outsiders from MM most of them are quite powerful for their RHD and are a good baseline for what type of abilities a monster should have to be appropriate for its ECL.
The issue is that they are in fact powerful for the RHD, without equipment. Most of the low-Epic outsiders can readily eat LA ratings because of this, because they have the numbers you expect from a low-Epic character once you correct the feats, before you put on the gear that will stack with basically everything they do innately in some capacity. The exercise in question is measuring creatures with RHD well in excess of CR such that PC itemization and feat selection alongside "hooks" for progression readily "fill in" the difference to generate a reasonable LA +0 character.

[Blue Jay]

And the winner for most disgusting monster in all of D&D is...

This monster actually has a pretty good range of things it can do. You could even build this thing for melee and still come out okay, because its defenses are solid and its passive abilities are potent. I agree with Debatra that the atropal scion has hands and can wield weapons, so that helps it out too. Even advancing as a marshal with an undead army would be a pretty solid choice for this monster (if you're okay using almost exclusively passive abilities, and using your actions to command troops).

It will be tough fitting this guy into most parties, but when it fits with the party, it will be quite good. I think I'll agree with Efrate and vote LA +2 for the atropal scion. LA +1 might also work, but since it has a potentially volatile suite of abilities, I'd prefer to vote conservatively.

[Thurbane]

Atropal Scion


Medium Undead.
9 RHD (d12 HD, 1 good save, poor BAB, 4 skill points/"level").
Fly 30 ft (no manoeuvrability listed - I assume being supernatural flight, Perfect would be apt).
+8 natural AC, Cha bonus as deflection - decent.
Slam 1d8.
Death gaze: 60 ft save-or-die non-discriminatory gaze attack. May result in uncontrolled wights, but you do have rebuke.
Negative energy aura: grant turn resistance and fast healing to undead in a 60 ft radius; inflicts virtual loss of 2 levels of living creatures unless they are protected. Low level humanoids can become wights under your control.
SLAs: 3/day - animate dead, create undead, cone of cold (DC 18), desecrate, dispel magic, invisibility, plane shift, speak with dead, teleport; CL 9. Decent set of SLAs, especially good for minionmancy.
DR 10/adamantine - quite good.
Darkvision 60 ft.
Fast healing 8 - pretty decent.
Rebuke undead 5/day - good. You can take Devotion Feats or similar to make this more worthwhile.
Undead traits: usual immunities and drawbacks.
Unholy grace: Cha bonus to AC and saves. Good. Seems like Unholy Grace is a lot more common in this book than Unholy Toughness.
Str +2, Dex +4, Con --, Int +6, Wis +12, Cha +10: net +34, one non-ability. Nice.
Small racial skill list: has some decent stuff, but with +6 Int and 4 skill points per HD etc. probably going to end up taking some cross class ranks.

Basically humanoid in form, and I guess it has limbs/hands from the illustration? Can speak.

Mainly good for it's SLAs and special attacks. Also has decent resilience for an undead. 9 RHD is a lot, but maybe you could slip into a fast-progression casting PrC? Or something that will increase the pool of undead you can control, like Horned Harbinger.

I'm going to agree with LA +2 (though I could be swayed to a strong LA +1): a lot of potential for minionmancy - but not a great deal else, though.

[Debatra]

So far we have six votes for +2 (two of which also say it may be a strong +1 and one that might go higher), one vote for +1 , and three votes for +0.

No, this isn't the final tally yet. While I ideally want to post here at least once a day, the first monster being settled in that time was just because it was so obviously not suited for Epic-level play. Other creatures, like this one, definitely warrant a bit more time for discussion.

[Remuko]

+0 from me. Its okay at first but doesn't progress well.

[Caelestion]

With its good stat boosts and SLAs and its excellent defensive capabilities, all for just 9 undead RHD (hardly a bad thing at all), I'm also inclined to say LA +2.

[Morphic tide]

The problem with LA +2 is where are you going? Because your minionmancy is coming from SLAs, you can't just take a class to move forward from them, you have to go dumpster-diving like mad to find anything that directly improves them. Sure, you're ridiculously capable in combat, but you have no solid tools for non-combat interaction outside skill checks, and actually need to invest quite a bit into not instantly killing large swaths of the population of any settlement you enter. Which, even for Genocidal Evil that wants the huge masses of Wights, is a problem for depriving the rest of the party of any relevant services.

[danielxcutter]

The problem with LA +2 is where are you going? Because your minionmancy is coming from SLAs, you can't just take a class to move forward from them, you have to go dumpster-diving like mad to find anything that directly improves them. Sure, you're ridiculously capable in combat, but you have no solid tools for non-combat interaction outside skill checks, and actually need to invest quite a bit into not instantly killing large swaths of the population of any settlement you enter. Which, even for Genocidal Evil that wants the huge masses of Wights, is a problem for depriving the rest of the party of any relevant services.

Ding ding ding. Someone’s finally figured it out.

[Thurbane]

A lot of creatures in LM are really only going to be playable in an evil campaign, or where your Undead status otherwise doesn't matter.

I'll agree it's progression options are very limited, though. If you wanted to double down on minionmancy, then Horned Harbinger is probably one of the better options I found. Doesn't increase your CL for SLAs, though. Best you're likely to get is CL 13 using the Practiced Magic feat.

[danielxcutter]

A lot of creatures in LM are really only going to be playable in an evil campaign, or where your Undead status otherwise doesn't matter.

Same goes for most of the previous books we covered, actually. Heck, a good portion of the MM, even.


I'll agree it's progression options are very limited, though. If you wanted to double down on minionmancy, then Horned Harbinger is probably one of the better options I found. Doesn't increase your CL for SLAs, though. Best you're likely to get is CL 13 using the Practiced Magic feat.

And here lies the problem. Well, you could actually probably get CL 14 if an orange prism ioun stone works for your SLAs, but that's about it.

[Falontani]

Atropal Scion, one of the scarier undead beasties out there. Lord/Lady of the Dead is direct advancement, Horned Harbinger works well, but you could even go Necrocarnum with Undead Meldshaper.
I agree that Marshal would work well here, but so would Bard with Requiem, and they could advance into Dirgesinger efficiently.
A level into Cleric, or two into Ur Priest allows you the Bone Knight class which would work well as well. Divine Crusader with the Deathbound Domain would be fine as well.

Honestly it could probably go straight commoner or HD advancement if it got Spell Stitched, which I don't know if that is saying that Spell Stitched is too powerful, or if it just advances the creature correctly.

Finally with its CL 9 it could easily take a level of sorcerer then hop into Effigy Master to boost its minionmancy into a different direction (that would still be immune to its aura and stuff).

All of that is easily done without even considering that it could perhaps wield a weapon.
Crusader/Bard/Marshal + Requiem and Song of the White Raven and you would be a fine melee. You won't beat out another creature that is focused entirely on melee, but you have a horde of undead and a nasty aura to go with it.

Don't forget, undead never get tired, so they can do their performance indefinitely. Add in their fast healing and the fact that Crusader doesn't need rest ever, and you got yourself a character that literally never needs to rest.

LA +2 easily

[danielxcutter]

Atropal Scion, one of the scarier undead beasties out there. Lord/Lady of the Dead is direct advancement, Horned Harbinger works well, but you could even go Necrocarnum with Undead Meldshaper.

Lord/Lady of the Dead still has the distinct downside of being a class that advances your non-existent spellcasting, which you will be nine levels behind on anyways, Horned Harbringer actually could work but still isn't terribly powerful since undead minions don't scale nearly enough to keep up at higher levels(and that's ignoring how long it'll slow down combat), and anyone who suggests Undead Meldshaper clearly never looked at a handbook for anything Incarnum-related since all the ones I've seen spell out how it doesn't actually work since you still can't use your Wisdom to qualify for Incarnum feats.


I agree that Marshal would work well here, but so would Bard with Requiem, and they could advance into Dirgesinger efficiently.

Dirgesinger doesn't progress spellcasting, but I guess you're not losing out on too many Bard spells anyways?


A level into Cleric, or two into Ur Priest allows you the Bone Knight class which would work well as well. Divine Crusader with the Deathbound Domain would be fine as well.

Some of Bone Knight's biggest selling points are giving undead immunities while not actually making you lose your Con score, and unless you totally strip the fluff from it there is no way an Atropal Scion Ur-Priest is getting into that. Honestly, you're arguably better off just going straight Ur-Priest and considering how ridiculous that PrC is that's not exactly a strong argument for the LA of this thing.


Honestly it could probably go straight commoner or HD advancement if it got Spell Stitched, which I don't know if that is saying that Spell Stitched is too powerful, or if it just advances the creature correctly.

Finally with its CL 9 it could easily take a level of sorcerer then hop into Effigy Master to boost its minionmancy into a different direction (that would still be immune to its aura and stuff).

Effigies are horrifically underwhelming, not to mention the cost and time needed to craft one.


All of that is easily done without even considering that it could perhaps wield a weapon.
Crusader/Bard/Marshal + Requiem and Song of the White Raven and you would be a fine melee. You won't beat out another creature that is focused entirely on melee, but you have a horde of undead and a nasty aura to go with it.

Don't forget, undead never get tired, so they can do their performance indefinitely. Add in their fast healing and the fact that Crusader doesn't need rest ever, and you got yourself a character that literally never needs to rest.

LA +2 easily

Yeah, no. Song of the White Raven doesn't count your undead HD for bardic music progress, your physical stats and hit points are going to dismal at best, and half your army's going to be wiped out with an Empowered Fireball or something quite easily anyways.

[Falontani]

I realize my mistake Daniel; and it is due to house rules at my table that I over value undead minionmancy. The main one being, instead of creating a Ghoul, a Wight, a Mummy, etc; the tables I tend to play at simply use the respective templates, or apply the Savage Progression to the creature. Just like how Animate Dead applies the skeleton or zombie template to the creature it is cast upon, a suitable corpse that is applicable to the template gains the Ghoulish Template, the Mummified Template, the Wight Template, etc. But even barring the use of those templates, Create Undead can be used to create Bone and Corpse Creatures, which are powerful undead.

Undead Meldshaper; yes it doesn't give access to the feats, but then the only things that incarnum care about is your essentia count, the soulmelds bound, and what you can do with both of those. Necrocarnate has effectively infinite essentia as long as you can get your hands on fresh corpses, (I believe it was you earlier that was arguing that there would never be a lack of corpses since you wouldn't not be able to kill things by the dozens. Not to mention a rat counts as a corpse...) the build would have 2 chakra binds, and 5-6 soulmelds available.

Empowered Fireball: Average 52 damage. That is not able to kill a 10 HD skeleton on average. If you are carting around a couple thousand 1 HD skeletons, sure an empowered fireball will take them out, but carting around a pair of Fire Giant Skeletons each with (on average) 98 hit points and immunity to fire and cold, will be completely fine.

I won't argue about Effigy Master, due to the ambiguity and degree that DM intervention is required when speaking about Effigy Master (by RAW, there is nothing stating you can't template stack effigies, so a Paragon Fire Giant Effigy costs the same amount as a Fire Giant Effigy).

I see your skepticism; but having (easily) a 32 charisma, gaining a +11 deflection bonus to AC and a +11 bonus to saving throws is powerful defensively. Fast Healing 8, DR 10, and +8 natural armor makes you very hardy. Unless the player tries to get himself killed, or the DM intentionally tries to kill the character, the character is not going to accidentally die. Damage wise you are going to be killed from a bad roll on disintegrate, an ubercharger with shock trooper, or a powerful creature. At ECL 17 (with a +2 LA) you will easily have 98 hit points without any itemization, temporary hit points, or effort. The human wizard with heavy investment will be around 153 hit points. I don't see wizards getting one shot at that level. I don't see why the creature with more defensive capability and 66% the hit points will be.

[H_H_F_F]

I agree that there are powerful paths open to a Scion, and it's definitely powerful as-is. However, I still think with 9 rhd and no way to directly advance its capabilities, +2 is too high. My vote is for LA +1

[danielxcutter]

I realize my mistake Daniel; and it is due to house rules at my table that I over value undead minionmancy. The main one being, instead of creating a Ghoul, a Wight, a Mummy, etc; the tables I tend to play at simply use the respective templates, or apply the Savage Progression to the creature. Just like how Animate Dead applies the skeleton or zombie template to the creature it is cast upon, a suitable corpse that is applicable to the template gains the Ghoulish Template, the Mummified Template, the Wight Template, etc. But even barring the use of those templates, Create Undead can be used to create Bone and Corpse Creatures, which are powerful undead.

Abandon all houserules, ye who enter here!

I should check the Bone and Corpse Creature templates again, but they're not that strong IIRC.


Undead Meldshaper; yes it doesn't give access to the feats, but then the only things that incarnum care about is your essentia count, the soulmelds bound, and what you can do with both of those. Necrocarnate has effectively infinite essentia as long as you can get your hands on fresh corpses, (I believe it was you earlier that was arguing that there would never be a lack of corpses since you wouldn't not be able to kill things by the dozens. Not to mention a rat counts as a corpse...) the build would have 2 chakra binds, and 5-6 soulmelds available.

First of all, no, at best that was Morphic Tide not me so don't put words in my mouth, and second, that's only the case if you're "Genocidal Evil". Which is going to get several paladin orders on your necrotic ass pretty quickly, mind. Corpses are hardly guaranteed, unless you've bribed the DM.

Worse... where are you going to put that essentia, even if you do get access to it? I would like to point out that the number of soulmelds you can shape as well as the amount of essentia you can invest in each of them will be sharply limited because your meldshaper level will be abysmal and you lack Incarnum feats to utilize the essentia you do manage to harvest.


Empowered Fireball: Average 52 damage. That is not able to kill a 10 HD skeleton on average. If you are carting around a couple thousand 1 HD skeletons, sure an empowered fireball will take them out, but carting around a pair of Fire Giant Skeletons each with (on average) 98 hit points and immunity to fire and cold, will be completely fine.

That was hyperbole, and also where are you getting fire giant corpses in the first place? Not every campaign uses them. Even if the DM doesn't intentionally gimp you by denying you corpses of powerful creatures, the very premise of a campaign can impact the viability of necromantic minionmancy heavily; a war between two humanoid races is going to provide far less powerful corpses than one that features a Dracorage.


I won't argue about Effigy Master, due to the ambiguity and degree that DM intervention is required when speaking about Effigy Master (by RAW, there is nothing stating you can't template stack effigies, so a Paragon Fire Giant Effigy costs the same amount as a Fire Giant Effigy).

Pun-Pun is entirely RAW, I believe. Nobody sane is going to let you pull that off in a typical campaign.


I see your skepticism; but having (easily) a 32 charisma, gaining a +11 deflection bonus to AC and a +11 bonus to saving throws is powerful defensively. Fast Healing 8, DR 10, and +8 natural armor makes you very hardy. Unless the player tries to get himself killed, or the DM intentionally tries to kill the character, the character is not going to accidentally die. Damage wise you are going to be killed from a bad roll on disintegrate, an ubercharger with shock trooper, or a powerful creature. At ECL 17 (with a +2 LA) you will easily have 98 hit points without any itemization, temporary hit points, or effort. The human wizard with heavy investment will be around 153 hit points. I don't see wizards getting one shot at that level. I don't see why the creature with more defensive capability and 66% the hit points will be.

And what are you going to do during your turn? Weakly slap people across the face? And 32 Cha isn't hardly getting online that quickly; by the time that'd become viable most people would have finished their prestige class advancements or something.

[Caelestion]

Ding ding ding. Someone’s finally figured it out.

Perhaps, instead of being passive-aggressive, you'd actually state it yourself next time.


Sure, you're ridiculously capable in combat, but you have no solid tools for non-combat interaction outside skill checks...

That's a problem with the monster, rather than the LA system, wouldn't you say? D&D is primarily a combat game, after all.

[Efrate]

You might not be able to have access to graveyards immediately for looting, but you have teleport as a SLA. With any social skill and your CHA bonus you can likely find a location, teleport until you get there, then teleport back.

Also given a standard 4 encounter day, you have enough to animate pretty much everything
you kill. Unless your DM screws you by having all your encounters be oozes, elementals, plants, and summoned creatures, you will get body that you can animate. They also will be reasonably CR appropriate, unless you are fighting hordes of things 32 goblins at cr 6, which your aura just wightpocolypses.

Yes minionmancy can be game breaking and if your DMs stomp on it, but this is kind of the epitome of talk with your DM about kind of campaign. It's not suitable for a hero's save the princess (probably) campaign. But for an undead party or evil party.

Just because advancement is difficult doesnt mean you ignore all its strengths. We explicitly are giving LA to things that wotc decided we should not play as. We also are assuming DMs do not go out of their way to shut a character down.

[Asmotherion]

It's a tank that also has excelent debuffing, and potent minionmancy. Sure, it can animate some Whites, but it's real ace is it's Rebuke Undead; It can effectivelly have access to a lot of feats that use turn/rebuke mechanics (like Divine Metamagic) or to hand pick an army of undead, and control them. Excelent SLAs for minionmancy. Also, did I mention it can fly?

I'm going for +2, and could be persuaded for even higher.

[liquidformat]

It's a tank that also has excelent debuffing, and potent minionmancy. Sure, it can animate some Whites, but it's real ace is it's Rebuke Undead; It can effectivelly have access to a lot of feats that use turn/rebuke mechanics (like Divine Metamagic) or to hand pick an army of undead, and control them. Excelent SLAs for minionmancy. Also, did I mention it can fly?

I'm going for +2, and could be persuaded for even higher.

Unless you are going Ur-Priest or Divine Crusader and PRC domain dumpster diving DMM is probably worthless, even if you are going for either of those two options DMM is still worthless until you are around level 18~. You will probably be better off going more of a paladin style route and using your rebukes to power combat when you aren't leveraging it to control undead.



Yes minionmancy can be game breaking and if your DMs stomp on it, but this is kind of the epitome of talk with your DM about kind of campaign. It's not suitable for a hero's save the princess (probably) campaign. But for an undead party or evil party.

No you are pretty much SOL unless you are in an all undead party that goes to an all undead city to do all your business, get quests and so on. At least you can stop your gaze by wearing some sunglasses so you aren't killing everything that looks at you from the front but that aura is a real problem. Unless I am misunderstanding and the aura can be turned off, this thing is going to cause no end of headaches for any party member that isn't undead and any time you go anywhere that has living creatures you don't want to kill.

So you have two passive abilities that are great in fights against things that aren't immune to them but horrible for day to day activities, a bunch of SLAs that don't scale well, and yes high ability scores but with so many RHD your going to have a hard time really leveraging them. That doesn't sound like a great place to start, sure you are super powerful at level 9 but by level 15 you are struggling to make use out of your SLAs and unless you are jumping right into Tier 0 PRCs your struggling to be useful to your party. Even worse you are a hindrance to the party if you haven't taken care of your still useful abilities. At +2 LA that means you will see play at level 11-20 ignoring epic games and most of your SLAs peter off around level 15 means for half the levels you are playing at you are not performing on par with the rest of the party. That seems like a pretty strong argument that +2 LA is too high. Even at +1 LA I question whether the LA might be a bit high.

[Asmotherion]

Unless you are going Ur-Priest or Divine Crusader and PRC domain dumpster diving DMM is probably worthless, even if you are going for either of those two options DMM is still worthless until you are around level 18~. You will probably be better off going more of a paladin style route and using your rebukes to power combat when you aren't leveraging it to control undead.



No you are pretty much SOL unless you are in an all undead party that goes to an all undead city to do all your business, get quests and so on. At least you can stop your gaze by wearing some sunglasses so you aren't killing everything that looks at you from the front but that aura is a real problem. Unless I am misunderstanding and the aura can be turned off, this thing is going to cause no end of headaches for any party member that isn't undead and any time you go anywhere that has living creatures you don't want to kill.

So you have two passive abilities that are great in fights against things that aren't immune to them but horrible for day to day activities, a bunch of SLAs that don't scale well, and yes high ability scores but with so many RHD your going to have a hard time really leveraging them. That doesn't sound like a great place to start, sure you are super powerful at level 9 but by level 15 you are struggling to make use out of your SLAs and unless you are jumping right into Tier 0 PRCs your struggling to be useful to your party. Even worse you are a hindrance to the party if you haven't taken care of your still useful abilities. At +2 LA that means you will see play at level 11-20 ignoring epic games and most of your SLAs peter off around level 15 means for half the levels you are playing at you are not performing on par with the rest of the party. That seems like a pretty strong argument that +2 LA is too high. Even at +1 LA I question whether the LA might be a bit high.

I don't agree. Even diping pure cleric, it gives great spells to persist, and at low level investmet. I don't particularly see any advantage to going Paladin over Cleric tbh.

[liquidformat]

I don't agree. Even diping pure cleric, it gives great spells to persist, and at low level investmet. I don't particularly see any advantage to going Paladin over Cleric tbh.

Sorry for the confusion I didn't mean taking paladin levels but utilizing your rebuke to power other divine feats like Divine Might and Divine Shield like a paladin often does.

You are investing 3 feats and 7 turn attempts for each casting of persistence and I am not seeing any spells pre level 4 that are worth that investment when compared to other Divine Metamagic feats. Please highlight what early spells you are thinking are worth their bang for the buck as I am not seeing anything.

[Morphic tide]

With regard to Undead Meldshaper, per-Soulmeld cap is dictated solely by your overall hit dice, regardless of class or lack thereof, so the "bag of rats" type exploit works "perfectly", if you consider near-permanently maximizing every Essentia receptacle a good thing.

Meldshaper level is used for a very minuscule number of scaling effects, while the class levels give you your limit of Shaped and Bound Soulmelds alongside Chakras.

Crusader seems the best bet for a progression into something that isn't hideously abusive from White Raven getting a target-rich environment and Divine Spirit self-supplying a lot more endurance across your dudes for being type-agnostic healing.

[Falontani]

I should check the Bone and Corpse Creature templates again, but they're not that strong IIRC.
The creature that you place bone or corpse creature on keeps all their previous abilities, meaning if you turn an enemy spellcaster into a Bone Creature then you have a Bone Creature Spellcaster.





First of all, no, at best that was Morphic Tide not me so don't put words in my mouth, and second, that's only the case if you're "Genocidal Evil". Which is going to get several paladin orders on your necrotic ass pretty quickly, mind. Corpses are hardly guaranteed, unless you've bribed the DM.


I apologize, I remembered incorrectly who had stated it. Genocidal Evil when playing a character that is 'Always Chaotic Evil' and 'seeks power over both life and unlife in an unrelenting bid for domination that only its lifeless tissue is able to sustain.'
It sounds to me like if you are playing an Atropal Scion Genocidal Evil is more than likely in the cards and assumed.
Sure Faerun has several powerful paladin orders, but not every campaign setting does, take Eberron for example. There are 4 factions that would attempt to hunt you down. First off we have The Silver Flame. Great bunch of paladins, whose most powerful statted member is level 20 but can't leave her church with that power, and second most powerful statted member is level 8. Yea, a level 8 paladin and 3 dozen level 1-6 paladins are going to whittle you down if you are alone, but you aren't. You have a party, but more importantly you have that army of mooks that you said are basically worthless. Secondly you have the Ghaashkala, an order of raging orc paladin barbarians (seriously) who as far as I could recall have no statted members and are supposed to be a minor order. You have the paladins of the Sovereign Host who have so much else to do that unless you really overdo it; and even then I think their most powerful was around level 12, which is a suitably difficult encounter, but one that the party should be able to take on. The one order that you would fear is a faction of aerenal elves that hunt down undeath, but they don't have teleportation abilities.... so... Teleport. This is not saying that there aren't campaigns where paladin orders wont hunt you down, but if you are playing an undead, in an undead party, with the DM's permission, then the DM won't go out of their way to obliterate you.

I think there may be a difference with the tables you seem to frequent compared to my own, in that it sounds like your DMs are cruel, capricious, and stomps anything and everything that might mess with the story out of existence.

[liquidformat]

The creature that you place bone or corpse creature on keeps all their previous abilities, meaning if you turn an enemy spellcaster into a Bone Creature then you have a Bone Creature Spellcaster.



I apologize, I remembered incorrectly who had stated it. Genocidal Evil when playing a character that is 'Always Chaotic Evil' and 'seeks power over both life and unlife in an unrelenting bid for domination that only its lifeless tissue is able to sustain.'
It sounds to me like if you are playing an Atropal Scion Genocidal Evil is more than likely in the cards and assumed.
Sure Faerun has several powerful paladin orders, but not every campaign setting does, take Eberron for example. There are 4 factions that would attempt to hunt you down. First off we have The Silver Flame. Great bunch of paladins, whose most powerful statted member is level 20 but can't leave her church with that power, and second most powerful statted member is level 8. Yea, a level 8 paladin and 3 dozen level 1-6 paladins are going to whittle you down if you are alone, but you aren't. You have a party, but more importantly you have that army of mooks that you said are basically worthless. Secondly you have the Ghaashkala, an order of raging orc paladin barbarians (seriously) who as far as I could recall have no statted members and are supposed to be a minor order. You have the paladins of the Sovereign Host who have so much else to do that unless you really overdo it; and even then I think their most powerful was around level 12, which is a suitably difficult encounter, but one that the party should be able to take on. The one order that you would fear is a faction of aerenal elves that hunt down undeath, but they don't have teleportation abilities.... so... Teleport. This is not saying that there aren't campaigns where paladin orders wont hunt you down, but if you are playing an undead, in an undead party, with the DM's permission, then the DM won't go out of their way to obliterate you.

I think there may be a difference with the tables you seem to frequent compared to my own, in that it sounds like your DMs are cruel, capricious, and stomps anything and everything that might mess with the story out of existence.

Are you sure this whole thing shouldn't be blue? I mean ignoring the Thrane a country of 2.4 million is a theocracy devoted to Silver Flame I guess you can take a jab at an elven year old because she is only a level 18 cleric while in the Flame Keep. However, just inside of the campaign setting I counted 5 characters besides Jaela Daran the eleven year old Keeper of flame. Also the typical Silver Flame priest is statted as a level 4 cleric and there are temples of the silver flame in basically every single city in Khorvaire. Eberron doesn't typically try and stat out many people just so it leaves power level up to the DM and table.

[Thurbane]

Is NPC factions potentially curb-stomping monstrous/evil PCs something we should be taking into account when calculating LA?

Seems very counterproductive, since it is going to vary massively on the individual table, campaign and DM.

[danielxcutter]

Fair, but I still don’t think you should assume you’re going to get buttloads of high-CR creature corpses anyways.

[Morphic tide]

Fair, but I still don’t think you should assume you’re going to get buttloads of high-CR creature corpses anyways.
I mean, unless the DM is extremely insistent on not using reanimatable monsters, you do have combat encounters. And you don't need buttloads in the slightest, you just need 3-5 that are solid Skeletons/Bone Creatures to cover your cap and occasional replacements if the party doesn't have the healing to spare.

[Thurbane]

I mean, unless the DM is extremely insistent on not using reanimatable monsters, you do have combat encounters. And you don't need buttloads in the slightest, you just need 3-5 that are solid Skeletons/Bone Creatures to cover your cap and occasional replacements if the party doesn't have the healing to spare.

Agreed. And the nice thing is that you even provide your own Fast Healing aura for your undead minions.

If your main schtick is undead minions, and the DM goes out of the way to make acquiring bodies difficult, then there are bigger issues at play than your LA.

Sure, you might not be able to cherry pick every single specific monster you want to animate, but in the course of adventuring, there should be enough combat encounters to keep you fairly well stocked.

[danielxcutter]

Well, it's a good thing the CL problem can be partially worked around with if you use Desecrate.

How does this compare to a... I want to say Wizard or Sorcerer, but even ignoring the tier differences I think Dread Necromancer might be a better comparison?

[Falontani]

How does this compare to a... I want to say Wizard or Sorcerer, but even ignoring the tier differences I think Dread Necromancer might be a better comparison?

Dread Necromancer and Death Master are the comparisons to undead minionmancy; however they do have spellcasting.

A Dread Necromancer has Animate Dead, but does not yet have Create Undead. The Dread Necromancer's undead pool is larger and his undead are more powerful. His spells add a lot to his versatility making the Dread Necromancer more powerful than the Atropal Scion out the box at ECL 9 10 and 11. Dread Necromancers get Create Undead at level 12. However defensively the Dread Necromancer is far behind. If the Dread Necromancer spent a feat then he can heal himself with inflict spells and charnel touch, but his at will healing (charnel touch) will never match the Atropal Scion's fast healing, and it takes standard action each round to do it. The Dread Necromancer has proficiency in light armor, and even with a +5 Mithril Breastplate (+10 armor, 29,200 GP), Ring of Protection +3 (+3 deflection, 18,000 GP), an Amulet of Natural Armor +3 (+3 NA, 18,000 GP), and lets say a 14 dex for a total AC of 28 which is nearly his entire WBL at ECL 11, the atropal scion will have a +8 natural armor (free), +8 deflection (16 base cha +10 racial, free), and an 18 dex (14 base +4 racial, free) for an AC of 30 without spending any of his WBL on it and still being able to get an armor bonus either through mundane armor, spells, or bracers of armor. The Atropal Scion easily wins in the AC category. Finally the Dread Necromancer gets DR 6/magic+bludgeoning, light fortification, +2 saves vs sleep, stunning, paralysis, poison, and disease, and a +4 bonus on saving throws vs negative energy effects, while the Atropal Scion gets undead traits and DR 10/adamantine. The final class feature that the Dread Necromancer gets is his fear aura, which I personally say compares weakly to the Atropal Scion's Aura and gaze attack.

Overall, I think the Dread Necromancer's spells may put the Dread Necromancer better offensively, but his utility spells aren't all that impressive, and his defense and survivability pales in comparison to the Atropal Scion's.

The Death Master is a slightly more interesting comparison, but long story short, the Death Master is about on par minionmancy wise as the Atropal Scion save for the Death Master's disposable undead companion, his spells are slightly better than the Dread Necromancer's for utility but falls slightly behind in offensive capability, and his defense is worse than both of theirs.

I don't think that the Atropal Scion's spell likes compare favorably to either spellcasting of the Death Master or the Dread Necromancer, but his Aura, gaze, and defensive abilities all are vastly more powerful than the Death Master and Dread Necromancer's non spellcasting abilities. (although we are comparing a creature to spellcasters here).

So the Atropal Scion definitely compares well against them, even lacking any sort of spellcasting at all. Progression wise, Dread Necromancers usually stop taking dread necromancer levels at level 8, and Death Masters either go pure or stopped taking death master levels the moment they qualified for a prestige that progressed spellcasting.

Future Advancement of the Atropal Scion is not as easy as either the dread necromancer nor the death master, but the Atropal Scion can take a cleric or ur priest level and then enter straight into Master of Shrouds which is a decent undead focused minionmancy summoning class. Add a single level of Marshal to that for Aura of Tactics and the Atropal Scion's summoned shadows (which use incorporeal touch attacks, allowing them to hit far above their paygrade, and being incorporeal are still worthwhile in many fights) hit for 1d6+8 str damage.
If the Atropal Scion is in a party with a focused necromancer, then the Atropal Scion can easily take a level in Divine Crusader and them level in Bone Knight to give the Necromancer (or even just himself) a higher undead pool through your Bone March ability. Sure the Bonecraft Armor isn't doing as much for you as it would a human, but your entering the class for the proficiency in armors, weapons, shields, minionmancy, and progressing the Deathbound Domain.

I personally would be able to have fun, and stay relevant compared to another necromancer while playing an Atropal Scion with LA +2.

[danielxcutter]

How much optimization and sourcebook diving do you need to make this viable? I'm not saying this doesn't have a lot more potential than I expected, but Ur-Priest is kind of eh for me and I'm not sure if you can progress your innate Rebuke Undead with prestige classes by RAW.

Personally I'd just go with Horned Harbringer and try to find a way to qualify for Elder Giant Spellcasting, I dunno. Would that work?

[Falontani]

Honestly you could make a decent build out of the Atropal Scion with just core and libris mortis. A single level of rogue, ranger, bard, or even monk to get the hide ranks and you can enter Lurking Terror, combined with Ability Focus you have +5 to the DC of your Death Gaze and hide in plain sight. I believe people have to see you to be affected by your gaze attack, so this would allow you to hide from even allies and only use your gaze attack if you were ready to kill whatever was in sight. The aura does hit everyone, but you don't have to create wights if you dont want to.

Cleric level into Master of Shrouds combined with Necromantic Might and you still have Shadows that hit for 1d6+2 str damage and have fast healing and turn resistance.

+5 RHD into Blackguard and you will be far stronger than a core + Libris Mortis only Paladin of your same ECL. (alternatively just take 2 ranger into blackguard)

Pure Cleric wouldn't be terrible, at level 18 you would have Divine Power, which honestly isn't terrible and you'd still be effective as a minionmancer.

You will never be as powerful as a cleric, wizard, druid, or probably even a sorcerer. But no matter how you advance, you will probably be a good to powerful T3. (if you care about the tiers)

[danielxcutter]

Honestly you could make a decent build out of the Atropal Scion with just core and libris mortis. A single level of rogue, ranger, bard, or even monk to get the hide ranks and you can enter Lurking Terror, combined with Ability Focus you have +5 to the DC of your Death Gaze and hide in plain sight. I believe people have to see you to be affected by your gaze attack, so this would allow you to hide from even allies and only use your gaze attack if you were ready to kill whatever was in sight. The aura does hit everyone, but you don't have to create wights if you dont want to.

Hmm, I suppose you could do worse... wait Bard has Hide as a class skill?


Cleric level into Master of Shrouds combined with Necromantic Might and you still have Shadows that hit for 1d6+2 str damage and have fast healing and turn resistance.

+5 RHD into Blackguard and you will be far stronger than a core + Libris Mortis only Paladin of your same ECL. (alternatively just take 2 ranger into blackguard)

Pure Cleric wouldn't be terrible, at level 18 you would have Divine Power, which honestly isn't terrible and you'd still be effective as a minionmancer.

I personally don't think this thing should be focusing on melee, if only because it has relatively poor physical stats. Especially when there are other things you can do.


You will never be as powerful as a cleric, wizard, druid, or probably even a sorcerer. But no matter how you advance, you will probably be a good to powerful T3. (if you care about the tiers)

Eh, fair enough.

Incidentally, am I the only one who thinks you'd really want Divine Vigor when playing one of these? Sure, standard action, but you're primarily going to be a minonmancer and even with your varied defenses your actual hit point total is still going to be low.

[Debatra]

I believe people have to see you to be affected by your gaze attack, so this would allow you to hide from even allies and only use your gaze attack if you were ready to kill whatever was in sight.

I will again point out that creatures with gaze attacks can turn them off unless specified (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#gazeAttacks).

[danielxcutter]

I think there's a feat that allows you to only affect a single target anyways.

[liquidformat]

I think there's a feat that allows you to only affect a single target anyways.

Yep I believe it is in Serpent Kingdom, there are also glasses in savage species to let you go all cyclops on people.


Incidentally, am I the only one who thinks you'd really want Divine Vigor when playing one of these? Sure, standard action, but you're primarily going to be a minonmancer and even with your varied defenses your actual hit point total is still going to be low.
No I was looking at that as well.

Is NPC factions potentially curb-stomping monstrous/evil PCs something we should be taking into account when calculating LA?

Seems very counterproductive, since it is going to vary massively on the individual table, campaign and DM.
My point was more you are going to have a hell of a time selling loot and getting quests in 99% of campaigns since you are walking death and most people don't take kindly to being attacked even if it is just passively so because they come within 60' of you. The aura is questionably * just because it has to be dealt with somehow or it will literally ruins campaigns. Sure the answer might be throw the shriveled fetus thing in a bag of holding whenever we come across a living thing that we don't want to kill but it still needs to be addressed and handled.


Dread Necromancer and Death Master are the comparisons to undead minionmancy; however they do have spellcasting.

A Dread Necromancer has Animate Dead, but does not yet have Create Undead. The Dread Necromancer's undead pool is larger and his undead are more powerful. His spells add a lot to his versatility making the Dread Necromancer more powerful than the Atropal Scion out the box at ECL 9 10 and 11. Dread Necromancers get Create Undead at level 12. However defensively the Dread Necromancer is far behind. If the Dread Necromancer spent a feat then he can heal himself with inflict spells and charnel touch, but his at will healing (charnel touch) will never match the Atropal Scion's fast healing, and it takes standard action each round to do it. The Dread Necromancer has proficiency in light armor, and even with a +5 Mithril Breastplate (+10 armor, 29,200 GP), Ring of Protection +3 (+3 deflection, 18,000 GP), an Amulet of Natural Armor +3 (+3 NA, 18,000 GP), and lets say a 14 dex for a total AC of 28 which is nearly his entire WBL at ECL 11, the atropal scion will have a +8 natural armor (free), +8 deflection (16 base cha +10 racial, free), and an 18 dex (14 base +4 racial, free) for an AC of 30 without spending any of his WBL on it and still being able to get an armor bonus either through mundane armor, spells, or bracers of armor. The Atropal Scion easily wins in the AC category. Finally the Dread Necromancer gets DR 6/magic+bludgeoning, light fortification, +2 saves vs sleep, stunning, paralysis, poison, and disease, and a +4 bonus on saving throws vs negative energy effects, while the Atropal Scion gets undead traits and DR 10/adamantine. The final class feature that the Dread Necromancer gets is his fear aura, which I personally say compares weakly to the Atropal Scion's Aura and gaze attack.

Overall, I think the Dread Necromancer's spells may put the Dread Necromancer better offensively, but his utility spells aren't all that impressive, and his defense and survivability pales in comparison to the Atropal Scion's.

The Death Master is a slightly more interesting comparison, but long story short, the Death Master is about on par minionmancy wise as the Atropal Scion save for the Death Master's disposable undead companion, his spells are slightly better than the Dread Necromancer's for utility but falls slightly behind in offensive capability, and his defense is worse than both of theirs.

I don't think that the Atropal Scion's spell likes compare favorably to either spellcasting of the Death Master or the Dread Necromancer, but his Aura, gaze, and defensive abilities all are vastly more powerful than the Death Master and Dread Necromancer's non spellcasting abilities. (although we are comparing a creature to spellcasters here).

So the Atropal Scion definitely compares well against them, even lacking any sort of spellcasting at all. Progression wise, Dread Necromancers usually stop taking dread necromancer levels at level 8, and Death Masters either go pure or stopped taking death master levels the moment they qualified for a prestige that progressed spellcasting.

Future Advancement of the Atropal Scion is not as easy as either the dread necromancer nor the death master, but the Atropal Scion can take a cleric or ur priest level and then enter straight into Master of Shrouds which is a decent undead focused minionmancy summoning class. Add a single level of Marshal to that for Aura of Tactics and the Atropal Scion's summoned shadows (which use incorporeal touch attacks, allowing them to hit far above their paygrade, and being incorporeal are still worthwhile in many fights) hit for 1d6+8 str damage.
If the Atropal Scion is in a party with a focused necromancer, then the Atropal Scion can easily take a level in Divine Crusader and them level in Bone Knight to give the Necromancer (or even just himself) a higher undead pool through your Bone March ability. Sure the Bonecraft Armor isn't doing as much for you as it would a human, but your entering the class for the proficiency in armors, weapons, shields, minionmancy, and progressing the Deathbound Domain.

I personally would be able to have fun, and stay relevant compared to another necromancer while playing an Atropal Scion with LA +2.

So what I am hearing from you is in comparison to its two main comparison points dread necromancer and death master it is worse in utility/offensive, similar in minionmancy, and better in defense? Color me convinced I am changing my rating to LA +0

[danielxcutter]

Yep I believe it is in Serpent Kingdom, there are also glasses in savage species to let you go all cyclops on people.

Hah! Really? I wonder what other monsters could use that a lot... medusae would be obvious I guess...


No I was looking at that as well.

Yeah, figures. Considering base Atropal Scions have Lightning Reflexes(which is horrible), you can probably manage it unless you really need something for the prereqs.


My point was more you are going to have a hell of a time selling loot and getting quests in 99% of campaigns since you are walking death and most people don't take kindly to being attacked even if it is just passively so because they come within 60' of you. The aura is questionably * just because it has to be dealt with somehow or it will literally ruins campaigns. Sure the answer might be throw the shriveled fetus thing in a bag of holding whenever we come across a living thing that we don't want to kill but it still needs to be addressed and handled.

Yeah, even if you are Genocidal Evil you might not want that commoner to die now for some reason.


So what I am hearing from you is in comparison to its two main comparison points dread necromancer and death master it is worse in utility/offensive, similar in minionmancy, and better in defense? Color me convinced I am changing my rating to LA +0

I would actually argue that in some ways an Atropal Scion is actually better at undead minionmancy than a Dread Necromancer, now that I think of it.

[liquidformat]

I would actually argue that in some ways an Atropal Scion is actually better at undead minionmancy than a Dread Necromancer, now that I think of it.

Atropal has an easier and cheaper time creating undead out of the box for sure, undead on the cheap is something all Dread Necromancers have to address. However, there are quite a few work arounds out there and the Dread Necromancer can have significantly more undead so I think it is in a better position over all.

[danielxcutter]

Atropal has an easier and cheaper time creating undead out of the box for sure, undead on the cheap is something all Dread Necromancers have to address. However, there are quite a few work arounds out there and the Dread Necromancer can have significantly more undead so I think it is in a better position over all.

Hmm, yeah Undead Mastery does count for a lot, but there's only so much numbers can do.

Incidentally, I believe the Necromancer Handbook (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?444597-The-Necromancer-Handbook) might help put things into perspective.

[Thurbane]

My point was more you are going to have a hell of a time selling loot and getting quests in 99% of campaigns since you are walking death and most people don't take kindly to being attacked even if it is just passively so because they come within 60' of you. The aura is questionably * just because it has to be dealt with somehow or it will literally ruins campaigns. Sure the answer might be throw the shriveled fetus thing in a bag of holding whenever we come across a living thing that we don't want to kill but it still needs to be addressed and handled.

Fair point. I would imagine, through, that if you were going to play this creature, it would likely be in an all-undead party (free fast healing for everyone), or at the very least, characters that are somehow otherwise immune to the negative aura.

For interacting with shopkeeps etc. hopefully one of your party members could be a proxy.

In terms of auto-killing random commoners/NPCs by proximity: you need to either be playing in the type of campaign where that doesn't really matter (i.e. eeevil), or yes, you need to come up with some kind of workaround. You do have teleport 3/day, so you could bamf out if you spot some peeps you don't want to kill. In outdoor situations, you could fly/hover 70 feet up. Bag of holding would probably also be a good idea for other situations.

In my mind, the kind of game where this creature is even on the table as an option would be evil focused by default. Like many other evil/destructive creatures we've rated, it wouldn't be suitable for an out of the box "save the princess" type campaign. I'd like to think most groups would be savvy enough not to encourage or allow totally inappropriate characters at character generation, at least not without serious thought and discussion.

If one of my players had their heart set on playing an Atropal Scion, I would advise it isn’t suitable and would be problematic in my standard type of campaign, but offer to run a campaign at some point specifically where this type of creature would be suitable, if the other players were amenable.

[Debatra]

So then how do we feel about an asterisk on the aura?

[Thurbane]

So then how do we feel about an asterisk on the aura?

I could live with that - no denying it is problematic.

[InvisibleBison]

So then how do we feel about an asterisk on the aura?

I think an ability that prevents you from going into towns without wiping out a good portion of their population does merit an asterisk.

[Debatra]

So we're currently at six votes for +2 (two of which also say it may be a strong +1 and one that might go higher), two votes for +1 , and three votes for +0. And yes, that is counting liquidformat changing his vote. That's also including me now voting for +1*. (By now I'm sure you guys all know I tend to vote conservatively on these.)

Looking at other creatures that have been given an asterisk, I think this certainly fits. There are ways around the inability to enter populated areas (as mentioned, you could hide in a bag of holding or something since you don't need to breathe), but those methods are annoying at best. And of course we're supposed to be rating these on general playability, not necessarily assuming the entire party is undead to make life easier. The potentially-infinite zombie spawn is just gravy, partly because zombies aren't exactly amazing, and partly because you need more level draining to make it work on anything worth worrying about.

So far, it's looking like +2*. I'l give it another day or so for more discussion.

[liquidformat]

Yeah I think it deserves an asterisk seems reasonable

[Remuko]

Just chiming in about the asterisk. i could go either way on it being there or not but keep in mind if we go with it, we rate as if the ability doesnt exist at all. so if the aura being gone would change your vote, keep that in mind. i dont think it changes mine from +0 (so +0 or +0* for me)

[Falontani]

Gah the dreaded Asterisk. I was afraid of this.

LA +2, or +0*

Dropping the aura removes it's turn resistance and drops the fast healing it grants to its minions. While this in itself does not make the creature vastly weaker, it absolutely wrecks a lot of it's minionmancy. It is the signature ability of the creature. We still have a death gaze, which is still potent. We still have animation. But losing the Turn Resistance... That is bad. Really really bad.

[Caelestion]

Just applying an asterisk doesn't mean we should start gutting a monster on a technicality. It's there to indicate that this creature has a power that requires special handling.

[Thurbane]

Just applying an asterisk doesn't mean we should start gutting a monster on a technicality. It's there to indicate that this creature has a power that requires special handling.

^^ Agreed.

AFAIK, the asterisk has never been there to say an ability should be removed or nerfed, just that it may be problematic and/or require special handling.

[Blue Jay]

With a multifaceted ability like the aura, I think the spirit of the asterisk would have us rate the creature without the wight-spawning aspect, not necessarily without the entire ability.

[Morphic tide]

Just applying an asterisk doesn't mean we should start gutting a monster on a technicality. It's there to indicate that this creature has a power that requires special handling.
Yes, but the asterisk is still about rating the LA as if the ability in question isn't there, specifically because of the special handling. Still grumpy about the Glaistig getting LA -0 entirely on the basis of area restrictions...

[liquidformat]

Yes, but the asterisk is still about rating the LA as if the ability in question isn't there, specifically because of the special handling. Still grumpy about the Glaistig getting LA -0 entirely on the basis of area restrictions...

My understanding is normally to rate with creature without the ability as it would often take some homebrewing to make the ability ok for players. Granted in this case the right game may be able to just run the Psion as is that type of game is rare.

[Caelestion]

Yes, but the asterisk is still about rating the LA as if the ability in question isn't there, specifically because of the special handling. Still grumpy about the Glaistig getting LA -0 entirely on the basis of area restrictions...

The least invasive option there would be to assume that its aura simply doesn't murder people. After all, rating an undead without its turn resistance or a minion-master without its minion bonuses is at the point where any rating is going to be wildly out-of-kilter with what actually happens.

[danielxcutter]

The least invasive option there would be to assume that its aura simply doesn't murder people. After all, rating an undead without its turn resistance or a minion-master without its minion bonuses is at the point where any rating is going to be wildly out-of-kilter with what actually happens.

Or maybe having the aura suppressible? That might help.

[liquidformat]

The least invasive option there would be to assume that its aura simply doesn't murder people. After all, rating an undead without its turn resistance or a minion-master without its minion bonuses is at the point where any rating is going to be wildly out-of-kilter with what actually happens.

This is the reason why we are supposed to rate the creature as if the ability doesn't exist when we give it a '*' rating there are many ways to handle 'fixing' the ability that can swing its power level. That is why some people will post say '+0*/+2' as they believe the ability can be handled just by increasing the LA and without the ability it drops the power level significantly.

[Thurbane]

It seems like I may have totally misunderstood the asterisk, then.

I thought it was rating the monster as is, but noting that it may be problematic or even game breaking without due caution.

I guess the asterisk indicating that changes to- or house ruling of- a monster makes sense.

[Debatra]

From Inevitability himself in the last thread:


The asterisk is not necessarily 'this will be tricky to normally use'. It denotes 'this has an ability that would be completely broken if allowed, and the rating assumes you remove it'.

The problem with 'low movement speed' and 'has to find a host' is that there's no real trait to remove. Take away 1 ft. movement and... replace it with a basic human walking pace? Remove the symbiont's power restrictions when unattached? There's no obvious way to remove

Furthermore: we've rated monsters that wouldn't fit in most dungeons, monsters that need water to breathe, monsters that die from water, monsters that would get run out of any civilized place, and monsters that explode if you leave them out in the sun. None of those traits got them asterisk-ed, because the underlying assumption that they'd only be played in the campaigns that could accommodate them.

What monsters did get an asterisk? Those whose abilities would innately and effortlessly disrupt any campaign. A dryad can't be used in any campaign that involves 'going places'. A shadow can't be used in any campaign that involves interaction with humanoids. An efreet can't be used in any campaign that involves, well, the PCs having goals.

Think I'm gonna put this in the OP of this and future threads.

---

so we can assume an all-undead campaign just like we can assume an aquatic campaign for water-breathers. But one of his listed examples tells us that we can't assume a campaign in which the party doesn't interact with anything they don't want to kill. This reaffirms my previous vote of +1*.

[AvatarVecna]

LA +2/-0*

Vampire is +3*, and the asterisk is explicitly there because spawn is just too problematic an ability on PCs, even if it's fairly slow. The fact that this one has a slow spawn ability and a fast spawn ability doesn't change that even a slow spawn ability warrants an asterisk. But that's just why *, not why +0. +0 is because it sucks and has no good advancement options. Even if we're assuming +0, Atropal Scion 9/Ur-Priest 9 is not on the same level as (for example) Cleric 18 - Ur-Priest has fewer spells per day, which the AS Wis bonus helps make up for, but the caster level is crap and there's nothing you can really do about that (even practiced spellcaster will only help a tiny bit). And that's the point where Ur-Priest build has finally caught up on spell levels; up until that point, you're lagging behind outside of a few high-level SLAs. Even assuming LA +0, even assuming using one of the most powerful PrCs in the game, I can only really say that I'd maybe consider playing this instead of a normal caster in a lv 17+ game. That's not speaking well of this race at all.

It has Create Undead as a 3/day SLA (a 6th lvl spell), but CL means it's going to be stuck using that to make ghouls forever, unless I've missed that SLA CL automatically advances with HD? And sure that's up to 300 gp worth of material components you don't have to spend each day, but that doesn't really warrant more build punishment than the 9 HD you already sunk into this failboat. Quite frankly, compared to equivalent-level casters, the ability to start a quick controlled wightpocalypse is the only thing this race really has going for it.

If the quick controlled wightpocalypse is left in, I could see LA +2 for that, and you basically just have to lean really hard into that one ability to be useful in the campaign - you go marshal or cleric or undead-bard-prc or something that lets you buff your wights, and you just wander around with a small army of weak undead slowly taking over the world. If that ability is removed...everything else, even the death gaze with its slower uncontrolled wightpocalypse, is worth less than 9 normal levels.

[Thurbane]

Given my misunderstanding of the asterisk, then, I'm changing my vote to LA +1*. If the commoner slaying/wightocalypse aspect of the aura is removed, then I still think it's worth a +1, IMHO.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

DM - "So, I encourage creative character concepts, and I'll try and set stats to represent pretty much whoever you decide you want to be in my game. 3.5 is a pretty open-ended system that really allows for diverse builds, and I aim to allow for that where I can. Seriously, go nuts..."
New Player - "Hmmm... I'd really like to be a giant rotting floating dead foetus that drains the souls of anybody who sees it."

DM - "Not a problem, that already exists."
New Player - "what"

[Blue Jay]

This is the reason why we are supposed to rate the creature as if the ability doesn't exist when we give it a '*' rating there are many ways to handle 'fixing' the ability that can swing its power level. That is why some people will post say '+0*/+2' as they believe the ability can be handled just by increasing the LA and without the ability it drops the power level significantly.

I think we still need to be careful here, because we need to make sure that eliminating the problematic ability is being applied consistently for all monsters. For example, some monsters (like the vampire and the wight) have their special abilities broken down more finely, so the problematic "Create Spawn" ability is defined separately from the other special attacks. But other monsters (like the ghoul and the atropal scion) have their abilities less finely broken down, so their "Create Spawn" ability isn't separate defined: it's buried in the text of one or more of the monster's other special attacks. So, if we apply our rule uncritically and just remove the entire problematic "ability" from each monster, we end up surgically removing a specific thing from the vampire, but absolutely gutting the atropal scion. For example, the vampire gets to keep its level-draining ability, but the atropal scion loses its level-draining ability.

So, I think it needs some careful thought. Uncritically trying to apply a simplified rule in a one-size-fits-all manner is exactly what made WotC's LA system unusable and inconsistent; so we really, really need to not repeat that mistake. We need to make sure that the abilities we flag as problematic are really analogous across monsters.

Incidentally, I agree with the asterisk. I had forgotten to apply it before (I had overlooked the potential for wight-spawning shenanigans entirely); but I do agree that the atropal scion needs an asterisk. And, on further reflection, I am okay with LA +1* for the atropal scion. I still think I might prefer the higher LA personally, but I'm also willing to lower my official vote, like Thurbane, because of the addition of the asterisk.

[Debatra]

So far we have:

+0/+0* - 1
+1* - 3
+2/-0* - 1
+2/+0* - 1

+0 - 2
+1 - 1
+2 - 3

EDIT: Ninja'd by Blue Jay changing his vote, which is now included above.


I think we still need to be careful here, because we need to make sure that eliminating the problematic ability is being applied consistently for all monsters. For example, some monsters (like the vampire and the wight) have their special abilities broken down more finely, so the problematic "Create Spawn" ability is defined separately from the other special attacks. But other monsters (like the ghoul and the atropal scion) have their abilities less finely broken down, so their "Create Spawn" ability isn't separate defined: it's buried in the text of one or more of the monster's other special attacks. So, if we apply our rule uncritically and just remove the entire problematic "ability" from each monster, we end up surgically removing a specific thing from the vampire, but absolutely gutting the atropal scion. For example, the vampire gets to keep its level-draining ability, but the atropal scion loses its level-draining ability.

Yes, but the entire aura is partly responsible for the asterisk, not just the spawn. As stated above, not being able to interact with people is also a valid reason for the mark.

[Blue Jay]

Yes, but the entire aura is partly responsible for the asterisk, not just the spawn. As stated above, not being able to interact with people is also a valid reason for the mark.

I don't feel like that's a valid reason for an asterisk at all. The shadow didn't get an asterisk for not being able to interact with people: it got an asterisk for its uncapped spawn ability. I don't think we've ever used a non-friendly aura as a reason for an asterisk before, have we?

[danielxcutter]

I think "disruptive, but manageable if you make the aura not instantly murder commoners who come near" sounds fairly accurate for the Atropal Scion IMO.

[Debatra]

Yeah, I'm not actually sure why he said that about the Shadow. But let's take another look at what we've asterisked and why.

A simple Ctrl+F for * on the index gives 51 results. Without listing every single monster, the given reasons for an asterisk so far are:


Being able to increase HD with an ability (Barghests, etc)
Wish (various demons)
Certain problematic spells at-will (Mind-Flayers)
Spawn/Split/Merge abilities (many and various)
Abilities that we can't even figure out what they do (Formian Taskmaster)
Inability to go places (Dryads)
A unique potential abuse with making a coven to get high-level SLAs at ECL4 (Sea Hags)
Infinite or NI Stat boosting (Shambling Mounds)
Abilities that vary wildly depending on unpredictable circumstances (Unholy Scion)
Going permanently insane after a few rounds of combat (Alchemical Golem)
...Being able to spam save-or-loses that don't work on things with 7 or more HD? (Lurking Strangler, which to be fair, Inevitability also disagreed with that asterisk)
Being vulnerable to remote-Domination (among other things) by unknown NPCs (Voidmind)
Not being able to transfer away from or survive the death of your host (Fiendish Familiar - To be clear, just needing the host didn't get the asterisk)

So yes, we have indeed never given an asterisk to a creature just because they are a walking blight that can't turn off an ability that could potentially wipe out the low-level NPCs you may want to not murder. I'm open to debating if we should do that here, but we've never done it before.

[danielxcutter]

Well, being able to start the Wightpocalypse like the Atropal Scion can probably is pretty disruptive... though it's not like this thing gets infinite minionmancy or anything like that either?

[Debatra]

Wights created by its gaze are uncontrolled. Wights created by its aura are controlled.

[AvatarVecna]

I don't see why the asterisk is debatable. Spawn abilities are a common asterisk. This thing has two spawn abilities. The only question is how much we're assuming the asterisk cuts out.

[Debatra]

The asterisk itself isn't really being debated. It whether it should include just the spawn or the entire aura because of the "can't enter a populated area" part.

[TiaC]

I don't think there's any reason to give this an asterisk for being unable to interact with people. You can easily create intelligent minions that can interact with people for you.

An uncapped number of wight minions might deserve an asterisk, but the casters we've been comparing it to can also easily create swarms of wights at levels 9-11, and they aren't that effective in combat at that level, so I might just say it's one of the parts of the game that you just shouldn't poke at too hard.

[danielxcutter]

Does it have a cap on how many of the wights it makes it can control?

[Debatra]

Does it have a cap on how many of the wights it makes it can control?

It does not.


I don't think there's any reason to give this an asterisk for being unable to interact with people. You can easily create intelligent minions that can interact with people for you.

An uncapped number of wight minions might deserve an asterisk, but the casters we've been comparing it to can also easily create swarms of wights at levels 9-11, and they aren't that effective in combat at that level, so I might just say it's one of the parts of the game that you just shouldn't poke at too hard.

I definitely agree that at a certain point, even infinite minion spawn can be pretty pointless depending on what exactly you can spawn. Things that can give negative levels and generate their own spawn can remain relevant for quite a while though.

[danielxcutter]

So if nothing else, asterisk for at-will Greater Wightpocalypse then?

[AvatarVecna]

The asterisk itself isn't really being debated. It whether it should include just the spawn or the entire aura because of the "can't enter a populated area" part.

You sure about that? Cuz the very next comment is...


An uncapped number of wight minions might deserve an asterisk, but the casters we've been comparing it to can also easily create swarms of wights at levels 9-11, and they aren't that effective in combat at that level, so I might just say it's one of the parts of the game that you just shouldn't poke at too hard.

:smalltongue:

[Blue Jay]

I don't think there's much to be gained by further debating what we're giving an asterisk for: I'm personally satisfied knowing that we all agree that it deserves an asterisk. We don't have to agree on how everything needs to be rated: we just need to be able to understand each other's perspectives, and to get a good number of votes that are a reasonable representation of those different perspectives.

[Debatra]

As per the above-listed votes, I will be calling this +1*, the asterisk being its uncapped Spawn ability and not the entire aura. Blaspheme is up next.

[Debatra]

So today we have our first creature that uses the Undead Diet rules. In a nutshell, a creature that is either diet dependent or has an inescapable craving must feed in some way. If they do not, they make will saves or take Wisdom damage every so often. If this causes them to hit 0 Wis, they temporarily become NPCs whom the DM should play as a ravenous beast that seeks only to sate its hunger at all costs. A single feeding immediately heals all of this Wisdom damage.

Inescapable Cravings must feed more often than Diet-Dependent undead and have a higher save DC, but take less Wisdom damage. For full details, see pages 8-10 of Libris Mortis.

.


Blaspheme
https://i.imgur.com/nOJBSdL.png

It's a bunch of pieces of corpses stitched together. Basically, imagine Dr. Frankenstein was a necromancer.

Size & Type: Medium Undead
HD: 18
Speed: 40'
Ability Scores: Str +18, Dex +2, Con -, Int -6, Wis +4, Cha +0 - Net +18, One penalty
Natural Armor: 9
Natural Weapons: One Primary bite (1d6 - Listed as 1d8 with Improved Natural Attack)
Skill List: Listen, Spot, Survival
Body Shape: Humanoid
Speech (Languages): Yes (Common)
CR: 9
WotC LA: -
Our LA: -0

So what do these things have to show for all those undead HD? When it bites a non-evil creature, it deals 1d6 Str damage and a no-save daze for one round. This is also how it feeds its Inescapable Craving. It can make a single turn of up to 90 degrees when charging. It has immunity to cold, DR 5/slashing, and 60' darkvision.

...Yes, that's it. Easy -0. The "lost secret" to creating these things can stay lost.

[H_H_F_F]

Easy LA 0 indeed. As a DM, I like having high HD high STR monsters you can throw as a longer fight at low level or low op parties - but they obviously aren't made to play along at their ECL.

[danielxcutter]

I'm reminded of the fact that way back when we were doing Vampires, Inevitability mentioned that they actually need to drain levels even more than blood. And then someone mentioned the vampire luring someone into an alley and punching them in the face.

Also I have no idea why these things are named Blasphemes yet don't have any abilities related to the Blasphemy spell, but looking at their abilities they're certainly a blasphemy against PC optimization. LA -0.

[Remuko]

easy -0. Next!

[Morphic tide]

Very trivial LA -0

[AvatarVecna]

La -0. Nothing to say.

[Unavenger]

For a moment, I mistook the 9 for its hit dice, and was prepared to state my case that it should actually be +0 based on the potential to dazelock.

...

-0, under the actual circumstances.

[H_H_F_F]

For a moment, I mistook the 9 for its hit dice, and was prepared to state my case that it should actually be +0 based on the potential to dazelock.

...

-0, under the actual circumstances.

Oh man, I didn't realize there was a difference. Is -0 the rating for something that could use negative LA, if such a thing existed? If so, that's my rating as well.

[liquidformat]

Oh man, I didn't realize there was a difference. Is -0 the rating for something that could use negative LA, if such a thing existed? If so, that's my rating as well.

-0 LA isn't super well stated or understood. There was a thread a few years ago to look at how to make these creatures playable and a lot of the time it comes down to slashing rhd. Even though CR is pretty bad and there are a lot of issues with it, clearly you can see that a monster with 18 rhd but CR 9 was never meant to be played in a party of ECL 18 characters.

Anyways its an easy -0 LA

[GreatWyrmGold]

I fell out of this more than a year ago, so I've got an archive to binge. Though since we've got new management, it's worth asking—are you going to make a new archive? Or at least link the old one in the OP?

[Batcathat]

I fell out of this more than a year ago, so I've got an archive to binge. Though since we've got new management, it's worth asking—are you going to make a new archive? Or at least link the old one in the OP?

It's already done, you can find it in Debatra's sig, or right here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?624825).

[Unavenger]

Oh man, I didn't realize there was a difference. Is -0 the rating for something that could use negative LA, if such a thing existed? If so, that's my rating as well.

-0 means "I technically recommend a LA of +0, but the resulting monster will probably be weaker than a comparable PC of the same ECL. Consider asking your DM to strengthen the monster somehow to make it more appropriate as a PC. At lower optimization levels, creatures with this LA may be more balanced: use your own discretion." (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?518086-The-LA-assignment-archive&p=21798987)

[Mike Miller]

I haven't been around much recently so I am a bit late with this, but Thank You Inevitability for all these threads. Also, thank you Debatra for continuing them!

[Efrate]

-0 Undead rhd are bad and there are a ton of them.

[H_H_F_F]

I think we can probably move on, right?

[AvatarVecna]

I think so. Not as if there's anything to really debate here. Even if the CR is accurate (and more than likely, the CR is higher than its true challenge rating), the game is still admitting that this thing doesn't belong anywhere near a lvl 18 party.

[Debatra]

Yeah, only reason I didn't already is because I want to have at least a full day between monsters no matter how obvious their rating is. Never know when I might misread or miss something that could change things up.

Updating the archive, posting the next one soon.

[Debatra]

Fun Fact: Attempting to stat up a necromancer who had a Bleakborn for an Undead Cohort was what first brought me to these threads.
.


Bleakborn

https://i.imgur.com/8LAgrON.png

Size & Type: Medium Undead
HD: 8
Speed: 30'
Ability Scores: Str +12, Dex +6, Con -, Int +4, Wis +4, Cha +4 - Net +30, No penalties
Natural Armor: 14
Natural Weapons: One Primary slam (1d6)
Skill List: Diplomacy, Hide, Intimidate, Listen, Search, Sense Motive, Spot, Survival
Body Shape: Humanoid
Speech (Languages): Yes (Common, Moilian)
CR: 7
WotC LA: -
Our LA: +0* (Uncapped Spawn Ability)

Finally, a monster with a CR close to its number of HD.

So let's get this out of the way first. Any humanoid a Bleakborn kills becomes a zombie under its command after 1d4 rounds. Also: "Sometimes a newly created spawn becomes a bleakborn instead of a mere zombie, though the wiles of the dark gods determine such instances (that is, the DM decides when this occurs)". Don't expect to ever create another Bleakborn, except maybe as an Undead Cohort. Uncapped Spawn abilities of course get an asterisk. (Though I am also personally on-record as believing that normal zombies are kinda crap.) We now return to our regularly-scheduled monster evaluations.

For its more basic set of abilities, we have 60' of darkvision, +2 turn resistance, your standard undead traits, and a Diet Dependency for warmth; which it feeds through its Heat-Draining Aura. Its touch deals 2d6 cold damage, and those who hit it in melee (without Reach) take 1d6 of the same. For every three points of cold damage it deals, it heals for one. Any excess healing is kept as temporary HP for up to an hour. A Bleakborn is also immune to magical fire, healing from it in the same way as its cold touch.

The most interesting thing about Bleakborns is that they simply can't be destroyed by hit point damage alone. They are rendered inactive by hitting zero, but they can heal from that with their Heat-Draining Aura. This aura deals 2d6 cold damage per round to any living creature within 30'. On a successful Cha-based Fortitude save, those creatures take only 1d6 per round. There's also a bit of RAW weirdness. (Naturally for WotC, the errata is silent on this.)

The "heal from dealing cold damage" thing is specifically part of its cold touch. The Heat-Draining Aura does not have this text, though the description of its Contingent Healing ability implies this is the case. Further complicating the matter is that the stat block lists the latter as "Contingent Healing 10", perhaps implying it's meant to work like fast healing, but only when a living creature is within its aura, but not actually describing what if anything the ten is for. This is also the only creature I've been able to find with "contingent healing", so we can't even use other examples or a general definition (Unless someone else can find something? I've been through LM and all five Monster Manuals.). So here's what I can think of:


Interpretation A: It's just broken. You're not destroyed at 0 HP, but you'll need good old-fashioned negative energy to heal
Interpretation B: Fast Healing 10, but only when a living creature it could affect with it is within its Heat-Draining Aura.
Interpretation C: The ten is a misprint that does nothing. It is meant to heal from all cold damage dealt, not just its touch.


As a DM, I'd go with C. Other talk has me leaning more towards B now.

[AvatarVecna]

I'm deliberating on a ranking but I do wanna say wrt the healing thing: score based on you think it would be ruked rather than on a literal reading of the text. My thought is, a DM sticking to RAW in a situation lik this wouldn't be using LA reassignment in the first place.

[Thurbane]

OK, fell behind over the weekend. Blaspheme LA -0: too many HD, and not enough to show for it.

I'll try to do Bleakborn later today.

[Thurbane]

Bleakborn


8 RHD (d12 hp, poor BAB, 1 good save, 4 skill points/"level")
30 ft speed
+14 natural AC: nice.
Slam 1d6 (+2d6 cold)
Cold to the touch: deal 2d6 cold damage on a touch, heal 1 point for each 3 you drain (or temp HP if you are at max health). Also inflicts 1d6 when it is hit, unless with a reach weapon. Not bad.
Create spawn: humanoids you kill rise as zombies under you control, apparently with no HD limit. Not bad, but being restricted to humanoids only limits it a fair bit. Fluffwise, you occasionally create bleakborn, but I can't see many DMs letting that fly for a PC.
Heat draining aura: all living creatures not immune to cold in a 30 foot range take 2d6 cold damage per round (1d6 on a successful Fort save).
Contingent healing 10: 30 foot aura. If I'm reading this right it's fast healing 10 when a living creature is in range, and works even you are at 0 HP or less? Aren't undead instantly destroyed at 0? This ability could have been much more clearly defined.
Darkvision 60 ft.
Diet depending: warmth.
Fire lover: heal 1 hit point for each 3 points of fire damage an attack would cause. Nice.
Undead traits: the usual.
+2 turn resistance.
Str +12, Dex +6, Con --, Int +4, Wis +4, Cha +4: net +30, one non-ability. Not bad.
Small but OK-ish racial skill list.

Medium, humanoid in form, and can speak. Should be minimal issues with gear or class progression.

This guy has a lot going for him, with three distinct sources of self healing; a form of minionmancy; extra cold damage on a hit; minor damaging aura; solid natural armor; decent ability mods and undead immunity stuff. I honestly don't know how to read that Contingent Healing ability: do you pop back to life after going to 0 HP? I assume that wording is just an oversight, and you are destroyed at 0 like all other undead - I would guess it's not intended to be like a ghost's or lich's respawn ability.

Your damaging aura will cause issues for living allies, but you need a living creature within 30 ft to take advantage of fast healing. You probably want one (or more) living party members who have the cold subtype, or or otherwise immune to cold.

I can see this guy making a passable melee type, although -4 BAB hurts in this role. I'm voting LA +0* for now, but could change to -0* or +1* on further consideration. AT LA +0, you can at least hit +16 BAB by ECL 20. . Amended to LA +1*. I'd recommend wielding a melee weapon, and taking Snap Kick or similar so you can still inflict cold damage. Otherwise, maybe some type of unarmed or natural attacker. Should there be an asterisk for spawn? Being limited to humanoid zombies only, dunno. I guess I should have it there anyway.

OK, I may have badly misread Contingent Healing. Maybe you do keep popping back to life like some kind of Freddy Kruger popsicle. Also, you can't benefit from fast healing if the creature is immune to your cold aura. This is a badly defined and potentially problematic ability. I might need to think on this more.

[Debatra]

You indeed do keep popping back to life unlife, but it's very unclear whether it works like fast healing or if it's meant to be healing from your cold aura (which again, does not explicitly heal you to begin with).

So far; there has been exactly one creature, the Formian Taskmaster, which we've given an asterisk purely because the ability in question was just too unclear to properly parse. Ignoring the Spawn ability for a moment, do we feel like this would be a good second?

[danielxcutter]

I don't think the defenses on this thing are particularly noteworthy, though, aside from the actually nice natural armor; fire damage is common but not quite ubiquitous for that for that to heal enough unless you intentionally take friendly fire(heh) which the other frontliners may have trouble with or are on an Elemental Plane, and Cold To The Touch doesn't heal much either and also doesn't seem to work with weapons. There's no DR to keep your somewhat unimpressive hit points from being turned into shaved ice and being able to get up later on isn't enough if the rest of your party has been obliterated in the meantime.

Disintegrate is going to be your bane, but I suppose it is going to be a few levels until that becomes mainstream and that's more an inherent weakness of undead in general.

[Falontani]

Popping in (finally) to say a few things!

Winterhaunt of Iborighu is a great prestige class for this guy because of Coldstrike boosting the damage you deal with any magical cold ability you possess.

While not the best, you could enter with a cleric dip and warlock then use Hellrime Blast to add your Coldstrike dice to your Eldritch Blast Damage. Add in Hideous Blow and slam a target once per round for Eldritch Blast damage, Slam Damage, and 2x Coldstrike damage.

I personally read the Contingent Healing as option B. I don't think that the zombie apocalypse will really warrant an asterisk when being limited to humanoids, but I am fine with rating it with an asterisk.

So what are we left with: a quickly healing undead with a large amount of natural armor and some cold damage. Another creature that is not too flexible in routes available (you are either a melee, a fast progression spellcaster, or a very niche build). I will vote LA +1* but only just. I think that they can do fine in melee, and are more capable than a Water Orc in most scenarios.

Even a simple Bleakborn 8/Paladin of Tyranny 2/Blackguard 10 would work. Again a simple straightforward character that reaches T3 and does well.

[danielxcutter]

Popping in (finally) to say a few things!

Winterhaunt of Iborighu is a great prestige class for this guy because of Coldstrike boosting the damage you deal with any magical cold ability you possess.

Okay, that actually kinda makes a lot of sense. Wouldn't be exactly shocked if I'd seen his clerics using them, either. Fits with the fluff as well.


While not the best, you could enter with a cleric dip and warlock then use Hellrime Blast to add your Coldstrike dice to your Eldritch Blast Damage. Add in Hideous Blow and slam a target once per round for Eldritch Blast damage, Slam Damage, and 2x Coldstrike damage.

Hellrime Blast is a lesser essence so you'd need at least six levels to get in the first place, and Coldstrike becomes available at WoI level 4 and doesn't get to 2d6 until 8th level. To get all of that you'd need to be ECL 23 or higher for absolute crap at everything.

I think that rules-wise it works though, because Hellrime Blast and Cold to the Touch are separate sources of cold damage.


I personally read the Contingent Healing as option B. I don't think that the zombie apocalypse will really warrant an asterisk when being limited to humanoids, but I am fine with rating it with an asterisk.

Yeah, I think the aura should be read as B as well.


So what are we left with: a quickly healing undead with a large amount of natural armor and some cold damage. Another creature that is not too flexible in routes available (you are either a melee, a fast progression spellcaster, or a very niche build). I will vote LA +1* but only just. I think that they can do fine in melee, and are more capable than a Water Orc in most scenarios.

I should note that your actual hit point max is going to be terrible for a melee though, something I think people keep forgetting. The high AC helps with that, but the fast healing seems more like a DM 'gotcha!' tool than a particularly great survival mechanic. As I've said, regeneration et al. doesn't help much if your party's already been slaughtered.


Even a simple Bleakborn 8/Paladin of Tyranny 2/Blackguard 10 would work. Again a simple straightforward character that reaches T3 and does well.

Paladin of Tyranny/Blackguard makes no sense whatsoever, you know. Also Blackguard in general kinda sucks without a lot of ex-Paladin levels, though I guess you might be able to make it worth if you know what spells to use. And Hexblade or Crusader should still work.

[Thurbane]

Ability to constantly re-spawn after being killed by damage is pretty huge, at least IMHO. I personally think regeneration and similar are fairly undervalued in these threads. Sure it won't help in a TPK...but what exactly will (aside from being a Tier 1 type who who wipe enemies before there is any fear of a TPK).

It may be a little low on HP, but that's going to be an issue for all Undead (and Constructs too, to a slightly lesser extent). We've had other Con -- monsters that have been considered viable melee types.

All things considered, I'm amending my vote to LA +1*.

[liquidformat]

The "heal from dealing cold damage" thing is specifically part of its cold touch. The Heat-Draining Aura does not have this text, though the description of its Contingent Healing ability implies this is the case. Further complicating the matter is that the stat block lists the latter as "Contingent Healing 10", perhaps implying it's meant to work like fast healing, but only when a living creature is within its aura, but not actually describing what if anything the ten is for. This is also the only creature I've been able to find with "contingent healing", so we can't even use other examples or a general definition (Unless someone else can find something? I've been through LM and all five Monster Manuals.). So here's what I can think of:


Interpretation A: It's just broken. You're not destroyed at 0 HP, but you'll need good old-fashioned negative energy to heal
Interpretation B: Fast Healing 10, but only when a living creature is within its Heat-Draining Aura.
Interpretation C: The ten is a misprint that does nothing. It is meant to heal from all cold damage dealt, not just its touch.


As a DM, I'd go with C. I feel like B is least likely of the three, and I really just mention it for the sake of thoroughness.

I think this thing definitely deserves an asterisk but I don't think it is for the same reason as everyone else is saying. Reading through the Contingent Healing ability it seems pretty straight forward, you heal 10 hp each time your aura affects a living creature, and as long as its corpse isn't destroyed this healing is in effect and it will revive again. Contingent Healing clearly states it can 'only' be healed by its Contingent Healing ability in conjunction with Heat-Draining Aura which flies in the face of the fact that in other sections it is also healed by cold touch and fire. That is screwy but I can live with that too, it makes this undead a lot less powerful since it can't heal from other sources like negative energy only Contingent Healing, cold to the touch, and fire.

The real issue is Heat-Draining Aura spawns Bleakborn whenever the aura kills a humanoid. It is pretty much guarantied that every level 1 commoner is dead in 1 round of this ability and even if they live they are dead within a couple rounds, so the bleakborn is quite capable of spawning a bleakalypse. It is no wonder the bleakborn in the picture is an elf, elf commoners with their crap con score are prime targets to becoming bleakborn.

Because of Contingent Healing ability in conjunction with Heat-Draining Aura having to be removed by the dm to make this playable I think this is an easy -0*

[danielxcutter]

The Create Spawn ability says that humanoids slain by a bleakborn become zombies, but Heat-Draining Aura says that any humanoids killed by the aura rise as "bleakborn spawn".

Wow, between this inconsistency and the general "gotcha!" design it seems to have, this thing is a mess. I mean, it's no Tome of Magic, but still...

[Blue Jay]

The Create Spawn ability says that humanoids slain by a bleakborn become zombies, but Heat-Draining Aura says that any humanoids killed by the aura rise as "bleakborn spawn".

The second paragraph of the Create Spawn ability does say that humanoids slain by bleakborn sometimes become bleakborn. By my reading, it seems like the rule under "Create Spawn" is the general rule, and the rule under "Heat-Draining Aura" is a more specific exception to that rule.

But, it doesn't do much, other than deal cold damage and create spawn. My vote is LA -0* for the bleakborn.

[AvatarVecna]

From a noncaster perspective, Bleakborn is problematic but workable. d12 HD with no Con mod isn't a huge upgrade for most frontliners, and will even be a downgrade for Fighters/Barbarian/similar bruisers...but the Dex boost, the big NA bonus, and the health recovery mechanics help make up for that. The lack of penalties to attributes means that being MAD hurts quite a bit less, and the big bump to Str will help a meleer out quite a lot. The recovery mechanics mean that anything that fails to actually outright kill you will essentially be auto-healed post-fight, meaning fewer resources are spent keeping you on your feet for the rest of the adventuring day - and "gradual loss of HP over the course of the adventuring day" is one of the few resource management issues noncasters tend to have to worry about. That's pretty useful. But...

The biggest issue is going to be the BAB +4: while their accuracy shouldn't be an issue, being behind on BAB means iteratives are coming online later, and Bleakborn doesn't have the natural attacks or pounce necessary to make the lack of iteratives sting less. Even assuming we set it at LA +0, we're talking about a second iterative at lvl 10, and only barely reaching 4 iteratives pre-epic. Again, that's assuming we set the LA as low as possible. Being stuck doing "move + single attack" is the bane of noncaster's existence past lvl 6, but at least with them a spell or item can maybe solve their problem. You're just kinda stuck with it until you get another couple BAB under your belt, which is at minimum lvl 10, just barely before other frontliners are getting their 3rd attack. This is straight up going to make your DPR suffer. Str +12, even two-handed, is at most effectively +9 damage per swing, but that's not as good as getting an extra swing for your DPR outside of weird situations. Is the extra cold damage going to make up for that? That'll help, certainly, especially if you're using the natural attack, but it's not going to be enough to get you into rocket tagging hard enough in the mid-high levels.

TL;DR Bleakborns make a good enemy because they don't play rocket tag - they don't hit too hard compared to equal-level PCs, but they're difficult to hit and insanely hard to keep down. This avoids some of the usual problems of encounter design and almost makes them into a puzzle boss. That's great monster design, and terrible race design: self-healing, effectively self-rezzing, and being super-difficult to hit makes you a really good tank. The problem is, this is 3.5 and tanking sucks. Being able to deal subpar DPR for more rounds of combat per day than a real fighter could spend dealing useful DPR does not a frontliner make, and self-healing to make up for the fact that your super-AC and mediocre HP weren't good enough is more or less saving you from having to apologize to your cleric for not being good at your one job. The mental attribute bonuses and the good Will save help noncasters enough that I can't really justify a -0. It's a tossup between +0 and +1 for me, at least for noncasters. That makes casters the tiebreaker.

From a caster perspective, there's a lot to like here. d12 HD, even without Con, might well be a significant upgrade for you overall. The BAB isn't much lower than you were going to have anyway even if it gets a good chunk of LA, and attack rolls are for people who can't control the universe. The big boosts to all remaining stats means you can dump all points into your casting stat without worrying too much about everything else, the big NA bonus and the regen mechanics make you that much harder to take out of the fight, and you can self-target with AoE fire blasts without a care in the world. Except then inevitably we come to the downside of big HD on a caster build: the lost spell levels. CL can be made up with items and feats and shenanigans, but it's difficult to cheat your way into casting spells of a level you shouldn't.

A bleakborn 8/Paladin 6 can cast a single first lvl spell pre-Cha, while a Paladin 14 has 4th lvl spells. A bleakborn 8/Bard 2 has 1st lvl spells, while a Bard 10 has 4th lvl spells. A bleakborn 8/Cleric 1 can cast Cure Light Wounds, while a Cleric 9 can cast Mass Cure Light Wounds. A bleakborn 8/sorcerer 4 can cast Scorching Ray, while a Sorcerer 12 can cast Disintegrate. A bleakborn 8/Wizard 9 has started using Scry N Die tactics...while a Wizard 17 is busy using Wish or Shapechange or Gate to achieve ultimate cosmic power.

TL;DR Bleakborn does a lot of great things for casters. Really just an absolute ton of them. But the one bad thing is does is really freaking bad. If the game only had casters in it, Bleakborn would be a -0 IMO - certainly nowhere near as bad for their level as the vast majority of -0s are, but even +0 feels like a ripoff tbh.

Final vote for me: -0*

[Lapak]

I don't own the book, so I'm not clear: does the cold damage rider (with healing) apply only to their standard natural attack, or could it be piled on to any rider NAs they get? I'm wandering down the idea of one that grabbed Undead Meldshaper and went Totemist or something, piling on as many natural attacks as possible.

[Debatra]

It's from their touch. So if you really wanted to go ham on the cold natural attacks, I guess you could polymorph into a hydra or something.

[Thurbane]

So let me get this straight: any humanoid slain by a bleakborn become zombies under its control. Sometimes, though, they become bleakborn instead. And a humanoid slain by the heat draining aura rises as a "bleakborn spawn" (whatever that is), but not under its control?

Also, how exactly do you permanently destroy them, since they can be healed from 0hp or below. Does destruction of the body stop this happening? Does it have to be destroyed in some manner not involving loss of HP?

The more I hear about and re-read this monster entry, the more questions I have. This thing needed some serious editing before being published.

[danielxcutter]

So let me get this straight: any humanoid slain by a bleakborn become zombies under its control. Sometimes, though, they become bleakborn instead. And a humanoid slain by the heat draining aura rises as a "bleakborn spawn" (whatever that is), but not under its control?

Also, how exactly do you permanently destroy them, since they can be healed from 0hp or below. Does destruction of the body stop this happening? Does it have to be destroyed in some manner not involving loss of HP?

The more I hear about and re-read this monster entry, the more questions I have. This thing needed some serious editing before being published.

I have a feeling this was at least partly designed as a "gotcha!"

[Debatra]

So let me get this straight: any humanoid slain by a bleakborn become zombies under its control. Sometimes, though, they become bleakborn instead. And a humanoid slain by the heat draining aura rises as a "bleakborn spawn" (whatever that is), but not under its control?

Also, how exactly do you permanently destroy them, since they can be healed from 0hp or below. Does destruction of the body stop this happening? Does it have to be destroyed in some manner not involving loss of HP?

The more I hear about and re-read this monster entry, the more questions I have. This thing needed some serious editing before being published.

Disintegrate would work, since it would still turn to dust if it hits 0 even if it makes the save. Sufficient dismemberment should as well, since they can't regenerate. (Though I suppose it may technically be possible for it too just turn into an immobile but still technically active pile of body parts.)

As for what a "bleakborn spawn" is, I'm just assuming the fact that I can't find any reference to that anywhere else just means it was a poorly-worded reference to its zombie-spawning ability. Yes, I know I'm being naive.

Would you guys like to know what the Libris Mortis errata says about bleakborns? It corrects the missing grapple bonus in its stat block. That's it.

[Remuko]

My vote is LA -0* for the bleakborn.

[Efrate]

-0* Rules wise it's a mess. Infinite spawning generally always get the *, and all its abilities are kind of all over. Great strength but horrid BaB, good mentals but piles of HD, weird aura and you cannot die. It's an odd one.

[liquidformat]

Also, how exactly do you permanently destroy them, since they can be healed from 0hp or below. Does destruction of the body stop this happening? Does it have to be destroyed in some manner not involving loss of HP?
PAO the corpse into a humanoid corpse should work as it is technically still a humanoid corpse already. Baleful Polymorph in general is good strategy in dealing with this thing. As has been said a few times, disintegrate and other such things that destroy the corpse also work just fine.

[danielxcutter]

I don't think "corpse" would be the right word, since even ignoring that it's already undead it normally isn't destroyed. But Disintegrate should work yeah... and is like at least four levels away from when you're likely to meet one of these. And that depends on what your DM had for breakfast.

Yeah, not exactly a fan.

[H_H_F_F]

My vote is for LA +0. I think -0 is too harsh here: 8 RHD is not that much, and it gets great ability modifiers and a few great benefits. I think especially being practically unkillable by normal means didn't get enough credit by quite a few here. At most campaigns, a clever player could utilize that a LOT.

[Sutr]

Haven't voted in a while but +1 no asterisk it needs the minion spawning to be there. If your killing villagers I'm not seeing it matter and after level 8 you are going on adventures by themselves to get zombies that matter. +0* if you believe it needs an asterisk but I'm wondering what you are raising in the humanoids? What would this thing hunt down to be broken, serious question.

Edit:Assuming the aura makes zombies

[Caelestion]

I don't see how this is -0 in the slightest. The absolute lowest it could be is +0.

[liquidformat]

My vote is for LA +0. I think -0 is too harsh here: 8 RHD is not that much, and it gets great ability modifiers and a few great benefits. I think especially being practically unkillable by normal means didn't get enough credit by quite a few here. At most campaigns, a clever player could utilize that a LOT.

I don't see how this is -0 in the slightest. The absolute lowest it could be is +0.

Haven't voted in a while but +1 no asterisk it needs the minion spawning to be there. If your killing villagers I'm not seeing it matter and after level 8 you are going on adventures by themselves to get zombies that matter. +0* if you believe it needs an asterisk but I'm wondering what you are raising in the humanoids? What would this thing hunt down to be broken, serious question.

The issue that is making this * is Heat Draining Aura as the text seems to suggest you spawn Bleakborn whenever you kill a humanoid with the aura, this would very easily create a bleakalypse since walking into any urban area would kill pretty much all the level 1 npcs in a round. That is a major issue, and * means we rate the creature without the offending ability. If we get rid of Heat Draining Aura we also have to get rid of Contingent healing 10 since it is a rider on Heat Draining Aura and without either of these abilities Bleakborn is been fairly gimped making it -0*.

I agree with you all of you that if we leave it alone its probably sitting around +0/+1 but that aura is a major issue similar to shadow's spawning ability that should be addressed, this one would be a fairly easy homebrew fix just simply making Heat Draining Aura spawn zombies but as is the language of the ability leans towards spawning uncontrolled bleakborn...

[Caelestion]

Once again, you're interpreting the asterisk in the harshest manner possible. It's pointless even pretending to rate these creatures if we keep stripping out their unique abilities because they're difficult to handle.

[Thurbane]

Once again, you're interpreting the asterisk in the harshest manner possible. It's pointless even pretending to rate these creatures if we keep stripping out their unique abilities because they're difficult to handle.

The unfortunate truth, though, is some creatures simply are too problematic or virtually unplayable as written. I think the asterisk is a good device to signal that DMs need to be aware of potential issues if they allow the creature in question as characters.

It would be interesting to run some kind of play-by-post/forum campaign with a party made up of asterisked monsters to see how they play out...

[liquidformat]

Once again, you're interpreting the asterisk in the harshest manner possible. It's pointless even pretending to rate these creatures if we keep stripping out their unique abilities because they're difficult to handle.

That is what the asterisk means, we need to be consistent with the way we use the asterisk as we are consistent with other things in our rating system. Here is what using the asterisk means inside this thread:

Some monsters and templates may be marked with an asterisk. In such a case, the rated material has abilities that are not simply strong, but entirely game-breaking. Examples include an efreeti's ability to grant essentially unlimited free Wishes, or a nightmare's ability to use ridiculously powerful high-level spells at-will at a very low ECL.

In such a case, no LA is going to make these monsters truly balanced, with the resulting PCs being either one-trick ponies or overpowered abominations. Instead, they will be rated as if they didn't possess the offending ability, with the asterisk indicating the actual statblock cannot be rated properly. Anyone wanting to play these creatures is advised to simply do away with the ability in question.

So unless we change what the asterisk means (in which case we must go back and rerate all asterisk'ed monsters) that is the way I will continue interpreting it and you should as well. If you think there is an LA it functions just fine with without an asterisk then great give that LA. However, the asterisk specifically means we are dumping the offending ability and rating it as if it didn't have said ability.

There is already RAW backing for doing this with monsters such as Pixies being rated differently based on having irresistible dance, summoned monsters not being able to summon other monsters or shadowdancer's shadow not being able to spawn shadows.

[AvatarVecna]

The unfortunate truth, though, is some creatures simply are too problematic or virtually unplayable as written. I think the asterisk is a good device to signal that DMs need to be aware of potential issues if they allow the creature in question as characters.

It would be interesting to run some kind of play-by-post/forum campaign with a party made up of asterisked monsters to see how they play out...

I'm playing a vampire lord yathrinshee in an actual game here ITP where the campaign goal is taking over the world. It's a gestalt-ish game using the Oslecamo monster classes. Long story short, I have all my spawn-generating abilities, including powerful necromancy magic, but a lot of it's being relegated to the background as "this fortress is being kept in good repair by all the zombies and wights and vampires I made when we were here", to avoid having to actually deal with having an army of minions in every fight. Uncapped spawning abilities are leadership by another name, which is to say that they can either be cool fluff that lets you not worry about certain background stuff, or they can be the thing that's actually incapable of not breaking the campaign over your knee.

EDIT: You may notice that "the ability is only really useful in the background" is, for all purposes but the big-picture story, functionally identical to how the game would be going if I didn't have those spawning abilities.

...well, that's not quite true either. Whenever we pick a fight, I'm weighing in the back of my head whether they'd be more useful to the story as themselves or as undead versions of themselves. Because I'm a yathrinshee, I default to "more useful dead", but the party doesn't always agree. If I didn't have my spawning abilities, we'd have to got the diplomatic route every time to get the allies we need.

So in a weird roundabout fashion, spawning abilities let me "fill" the role of party face.

[H_H_F_F]

The issue that is making this * is Heat Draining Aura as the text seems to suggest you spawn Bleakborn whenever you kill a humanoid with the aura, this would very easily create a bleakalypse since walking into any urban area would kill pretty much all the level 1 npcs in a round. That is a major issue, and * means we rate the creature without the offending ability. If we get rid of Heat Draining Aura we also have to get rid of Contingent healing 10 since it is a rider on Heat Draining Aura and without either of these abilities Bleakborn is been fairly gimped making it -0*.

I forgot the asterisk on mine.

My view was that it is completely reasonable to assume the offending ability is the ability to raise Bleakborn. Removing that does not necessitate removing the aura, or the healing. I think the ability to raise more Bleakborn, which is clearly the only problematic part, is distinct enough to be removed on its own. It's not really tethered with the aura itself in a way that would make it hard to distinguish.

Removing half of the bleakborn capabilities when you could have just as easily remove the issue in an uncomplicated and straightforward way doesn't seem sensible, IMO.

[Caelestion]

There's more than one way to interpret "remove the offending ability" and I stand by saying that we should interpret stat-blocks as fairly as possible when removing problematic abilities.

[Blue Jay]

That is what the asterisk means, we need to be consistent with the way we use the asterisk as we are consistent with other things in our rating system. Here is what using the asterisk means inside this thread:

So unless we change what the asterisk means (in which case we must go back and rerate all asterisk'ed monsters) that is the way I will continue interpreting it and you should as well. If you think there is an LA it functions just fine with without an asterisk then great give that LA. However, the asterisk specifically means we are dumping the offending ability and rating it as if it didn't have said ability.

There is already RAW backing for doing this with monsters such as Pixies being rated differently based on having irresistible dance, summoned monsters not being able to summon other monsters or shadowdancer's shadow not being able to spawn shadows.

Like I said upthread, slavish devotion to the semantics of this rule is not going to make our results any more consistent, because it's the monsters themselves that are written inconsistently. For example, the way the vampire is written, the "offending ability" that we removed encompassed only the uncapped spawn-creation effect, so the vampire lost its uncapped spawn-creation without losing any of the abilities that fed into it (Energy Drain and Blood Drain). But, the bleakborn isn't written with its abilities so neatly parsed out, so you're talking about removing its uncapped spawn creation effect and all mechanics that are peripherally related to it.

Applying the rule with the kind of consistency you've advocating will have us surgically clipping something off the top of one monster, and completely gutting another one. I don't see how you think this is going to be more consistent than trying to apply some common sense to the problem.

[Debatra]

The issue that is making this * is Heat Draining Aura as the text seems to suggest you spawn Bleakborn whenever you kill a humanoid with the aura, this would very easily create a bleakalypse since walking into any urban area would kill pretty much all the level 1 npcs in a round. That is a major issue, and * means we rate the creature without the offending ability. If we get rid of Heat Draining Aura we also have to get rid of Contingent healing 10 since it is a rider on Heat Draining Aura and without either of these abilities Bleakborn is been fairly gimped making it -0*.

I agree with you all of you that if we leave it alone its probably sitting around +0/+1 but that aura is a major issue similar to shadow's spawning ability that should be addressed, this one would be a fairly easy homebrew fix just simply making Heat Draining Aura spawn zombies but as is the language of the ability leans towards spawning uncontrolled bleakborn...

Why would we get rid of the entire aura instead of just the spawning ability?

EDIT: And I'm also not convinced that one line means it doesn't heal from negative energy, et al. Now that the specific line has been pointed out, it actually just makes me think it works like fast healing with a prerequisite.

[liquidformat]

There's more than one way to interpret "remove the offending ability" and I stand by saying that we should interpret stat-blocks as fairly as possible when removing problematic abilities.

No there is not. And the fairest way is to be consistent across the board, not to pick and choose what the asterisk means each time we have a situation that requires an asterisk. Changing what the asterisk means each time we have a problematic creature is in no way fair nor consistent.


Why would we get rid of the entire aura instead of just the spawning ability?

EDIT: And I'm also not convinced that one line means it doesn't heal from negative energy, et al. Now that the specific line has been pointed out, it actually just makes me think it works like fast healing with a prerequisite.


Like I said upthread, slavish devotion to the semantics of this rule is not going to make our results any more consistent, because it's the monsters themselves that are written inconsistently. For example, the way the vampire is written, the "offending ability" that we removed encompassed only the uncapped spawn-creation effect, so the vampire lost its uncapped spawn-creation without losing any of the abilities that fed into it (Energy Drain and Blood Drain). But, the bleakborn isn't written with its abilities so neatly parsed out, so you're talking about removing its uncapped spawn creation effect and all mechanics that are peripherally related to it.

Applying the rule with the kind of consistency you've advocating will have us surgically clipping something off the top of one monster, and completely gutting another one. I don't see how you think this is going to be more consistent than trying to apply some common sense to the problem.

The problematic ability for a vampire was a standalone ability and not a subset of an ability. That is dramatically different. If we want to change what asterisk means that is fine but as is the asterisk means scrapping the entire offending ability and that is how we have been rating creatures. It hasn't been a big deal in the past because as you point out many of the offending abilities are self insolated.

It is also fine if you want to say that the Aura is referring to the zombie spawning ability just doing a crap job of doing so and therefore doesn't need an asterisk. However, until we change what using an asterisk means we should be rating it as if the offending ability was removed when using an asterisk.

[Sutr]

It is also fine if you want to say that the Aura is referring to the zombie spawning ability just doing a crap job of doing so and therefore doesn't need an asterisk. However, until we change what using an asterisk means we should be rating it as if the offending ability was removed when using an asterisk.

Is it not just as much house rules to fix the aura creating bleakborn spawn, a creature that doesn't exist. To have it create a bleakborn and therefore bleakborn needs an asterisk? My vote assumes it creates a zombie, which I'll edit to make clear. Poorly written monster is poorly written and causing disagreements isn't an uncommon occurrence in these threads.

[Blue Jay]

The problematic ability for a vampire was a standalone ability and not a subset of an ability. That is dramatically different. If we want to change what asterisk means that is fine but as is the asterisk means scrapping the entire offending ability and that is how we have been rating creatures. It hasn't been a big deal in the past because as you point out many of the offending abilities are self insolated.

You only see a distinction between the two monsters because of contrasting formatting decisions made by the writers; not because of actual differences in the way they operate in the game. Mechanically, they work in more-or-less the same way: the vampire's energy drain and blood drain abilities have the same relationship with its spawn creation ability as the bleakborn's heat-draining aura has with its spawn creation ability.


Is it not just as much house rules to fix the aura creating bleakborn spawn, a creature that doesn't exist. To have it create a bleakborn and therefore bleakborn needs an asterisk? My vote assumes it creates a zombie, which I'll edit to make clear. Poorly written monster is poorly written and causing disagreements isn't an uncommon occurrence in these threads.

I don't think "bleakborn spawn" is meant to be the name of a unique creature: I think it's referring back to the Create Spawn ability, where it says, "Sometimes a newly created spawn becomes a bleakborn instead of a mere zombie..." So, it's saying the slain humanoid becomes a spawn, and the type of spawn it becomes is a bleakborn. Very poorly written, but if there is a valid reading of the text that yields a functional result, I feel like it's only fair to reject any alternative readings that yield non-functional results.

--

But, my personal opinion is that everyone has given their votes at this point, and it doesn't look like many votes are likely to change.

[Thurbane]

If I was going to re-edit this creature for publication myself, these are probably the changes I would make (rough draft):

Contingent Healing: When a bleakborn is reduced to 0 hit points or less by damage, it is not truly destroyed, but enters a state of torpor indistinguishable from death/destruction.
A bleakborn gains fast healing 10 while a living creature that it can effect with it's heat draining aura is within range. As soon as it reaches a positive hit point total, it is re-animated and springs back into action on its turn. This happens regardless of how long the bleakborn has been in its torpor state, even after years of inactivity. As long as affected creatures are within its heat-draining aura, a bleakborn’s contingent healing remains active.
If its body is completely destroyed, such as by a disintegrate spell, or a destruction result from a turn undead attempt, the bleakborn is forever destroyed, and cannot use this ability.
A bleakborn does not have immunity to cold. While a bleakborn doesn’t take cold damage from its own abilities, it can take cold damage from another of its kind.

Heat-Draining Aura (Su): All living creatures (except those immune to cold damage) that approach within 30 feet of a bleakborn are subject to its heat-draining aura. Victims must make a DC 16 Fortitude save. If they fail, they take 2d6 hit points of cold damage per round as their living heat is sucked away, but if they succeed, they lose only 1d6 hit points per round that they remain in the radius. Any humanoid slain by this aura rises as an undead in 1d4 rounds (see create spawn above). The save DC is Charisma-based.

[Caelestion]

This thread is about making monsters playable as much as possible. That should be our guiding principle, not creating semantic issues over formatting that was never intended to be subjected to such scrutiny.

[TiaC]

This thread is about making monsters playable as much as possible. That should be our guiding principle, not creating semantic issues over formatting that was never intended to be subjected to such scrutiny.

If people can't agree what the asterisk means, this thread isn't doing a good job of making monsters playable. If I have a player who wants to play a bleakborn and I check the index and see "+0*", then I have to look at the thread to see what the asterisk is talking about. If some people are saying the asterisk is for its entire aura, some are saying the asterisk is just for spawning Bleakborn, and some are saying it's just for spawning zombies, that's really going to affect what LA they give it, and means that averaging the votes isn't reflecting any sort of consensus. I think that if there's contention over what an asterisk means, we should first nail that down, then say "given that the asterisk means this, what LA should this have?"

[liquidformat]

If people can't agree what the asterisk means, this thread isn't doing a good job of making monsters playable. If I have a player who wants to play a bleakborn and I check the index and see "+0*", then I have to look at the thread to see what the asterisk is talking about. If some people are saying the asterisk is for its entire aura, some are saying the asterisk is just for spawning Bleakborn, and some are saying it's just for spawning zombies, that's really going to affect what LA they give it, and means that averaging the votes isn't reflecting any sort of consensus. I think that if there's contention over what an asterisk means, we should first nail that down, then say "given that the asterisk means this, what LA should this have?"

This is the point I was trying to make but more eloquent, I am not bothered by changing what the asterisk means, and I also don't have anything against Bleakborn, I just think it is important that we be consistent with our rating system in order for it to be useful. If we change what an asterisk means every time it is assigned we are not being consistent and that makes the asterisk less useful. I believe Inevitable and our community decided the asterisk meant getting rid of the whole offending ability because that is the only way to rate things fairly and consistently across the board. Sure removing Heat-Draining Aura guts Bleakborn but arguing that its ok just to change the ability is unfair to all other monsters we have rated with an asterisk.

If the consensus is we are not removing the ability when giving an asterisk but adjusting it to be playable then we need to go back and re-evaluate all monsters given an asterisk.

[Debatra]

I would like to point out that most creatures with Wish have that ability listed with the rest of their SLAs. Were those creatures rated as if they had no SLAs at all? Did Efreeti lose Detect Magic? Were wish-capable demons/devils rated as if they also couldn't teleport?

They have an ability called "Spell-Like Abilities". Within that is listed Wish. We took out only that part and those directly related to it (can only grant wishes to non-genies, etc) instead of removing the entire thing. Stupid comparison. Please ignore me being stupid for a moment.


If people can't agree what the asterisk means, this thread isn't doing a good job of making monsters playable. If I have a player who wants to play a bleakborn and I check the index and see "+0*", then I have to look at the thread to see what the asterisk is talking about. If some people are saying the asterisk is for its entire aura, some are saying the asterisk is just for spawning Bleakborn, and some are saying it's just for spawning zombies, that's really going to affect what LA they give it, and means that averaging the votes isn't reflecting any sort of consensus. I think that if there's contention over what an asterisk means, we should first nail that down, then say "given that the asterisk means this, what LA should this have?"

Agreed.

Assuming the asterisk applies only to the spawn creation, and not to Heat-Draining Aura or the monster being poorly-written in general, how do you vote?

[H_H_F_F]

Assuming the asterisk applies only to the spawn creation, and not to Heat-Draining Aura or the monster being poorly-written in general, how do you vote?

As this was what I assumed, +0.

[AvatarVecna]

I also assumed the aura was in play, and voted assuming the damage was allowed. I also provided my experience of real play playing an uncapped-spawner monster: in a game where such an ability actually exists (not only as a racial feature, but as a class feature - folks slain by a Yathrinshee are animated for free), the abilities that actually create spawn are allowed (as in, the damaging things that result in minions), but the actual generated minions themselves are being treated as background fluff that lets me circumvent the face role to a degree in our party. At best, I am allowed one particularly powerful minion in a fight, and despite a couple level-ups I've yet to find an enemy really worth fully vampirizing to bring into a fight like that. This is to avoid slowing combat down drastically, and to avoid severely unbalancing fights in what is already a difficult-to-balance game when we "just" have four characters who are monster//class gestalts. And that's fine, because even though I made somebody with severe minionmancy abilities, most of those minions wouldn't be useful in a straight fight, and it's more useful to know how many of them there are so that we know the requirements for keeping them fed, and we know about how big our armies are for vague story reasons.

As it stands, as far as this thread is concerned: we are currently having a "I will die on this hill" argument over whether Bleakborn has a 30 ft aura dealing (at most) 2d6 cold damage per round. If we say "it doesn't have the aura", it's LA is probably +0. If we say "it has the aura", it's LA is probably still +0 because Bleakborn may get quite a bit, but 8 levels would give quite a bit of stuff even to a noncaster, and a 2d6 cold damage aura doesn't really change that.

...although...

...if we wanna get technical about the kind of things we've given an asterisk for: earlier in this exact same thread, we gave Atropal Scion an asterisk not just on the spawn abilities, but on the damaging aura that made interacting with NPCs difficult by virtue of murdering them. Yes, 60 ft radius no-save dealing 2 negative levels is a good deal worse than 30 ft radius Fort save dealing 2d6 cold damage, but the 2 negative levels were just a maximum that auto-applied to all living creatures, while the cold damage will keep getting dealt with over time. One immediately kills ~90% of NPCs that get too close, and the other will eventually kill any NPC who doesn't have enough fast healing, regeneration, or cold resistance/immunity to overcome the minimum 1d6 per round. Let's be real: An atropal scion coming to town auto-murders anybody with 2 HD or less that gets too close, but there's going to be a lot of NPCs with more than 2 HD. But a Bleakborn just keeps dealing damage while you're within the aura. It's not quite as bad for that first round, but it's not that difficult to argue that Bleakborn will have an even harder time just going to town and doing some shopping.

[Debatra]

...if we wanna get technical about the kind of things we've given an asterisk for: earlier in this exact same thread, we gave Atropal Scion an asterisk not just on the spawn abilities, but on the damaging aura that made interacting with NPCs difficult by virtue of murdering them. Yes, 60 ft radius no-save dealing 2 negative levels is a good deal worse than 30 ft radius Fort save dealing 2d6 cold damage, but the 2 negative levels were just a maximum that auto-applied to all living creatures, while the cold damage will keep getting dealt with over time. One immediately kills ~90% of NPCs that get too close, and the other will eventually kill any NPC who doesn't have enough fast healing, regeneration, or cold resistance/immunity to overcome the minimum 1d6 per round. Let's be real: An atropal scion coming to town auto-murders anybody with 2 HD or less that gets too close, but there's going to be a lot of NPCs with more than 2 HD. But a Bleakborn just keeps dealing damage while you're within the aura. It's not quite as bad for that first round, but it's not that difficult to argue that Bleakborn will have an even harder time just going to town and doing some shopping.

While there was a good bit of discussion on that, we ultimately just asterisked the uncapped spawn abilities for Atropal Scion.

[liquidformat]

While there was a good bit of discussion on that, we ultimately just asterisked the uncapped spawn abilities for Atropal Scion.

I thought the asterisk on Atropal Scion was similarly removing the walking death aura, not adjusting its uncapped spawn. Either way both of these suffer from the same can't interact with most npcs issue which seems as big a problem as their spawning ability.

[AvatarVecna]

So then how do we feel about an asterisk on the aura?


I could live with that - no denying it is problematic.

Yes for asterisk.


I think an ability that prevents you from going into towns without wiping out a good portion of their population does merit an asterisk.

Yes for asterisk.


Looking at other creatures that have been given an asterisk, I think this certainly fits. There are ways around the inability to enter populated areas (as mentioned, you could hide in a bag of holding or something since you don't need to breathe), but those methods are annoying at best. And of course we're supposed to be rating these on general playability, not necessarily assuming the entire party is undead to make life easier. The potentially-infinite zombie spawn is just gravy, partly because zombies aren't exactly amazing, and partly because you need more level draining to make it work on anything worth worrying about.

Yes for asterisk.


Yeah I think it deserves an asterisk seems reasonable

Yes for asterisk.


Just chiming in about the asterisk. i could go either way on it being there or not but keep in mind if we go with it, we rate as if the ability doesnt exist at all. so if the aura being gone would change your vote, keep that in mind. i dont think it changes mine from +0 (so +0 or +0* for me)

Yes for asterisk, neutral for removal. This is the point in the conversation where removal became a point of discussion.


Gah the dreaded Asterisk. I was afraid of this.

LA +2, or +0*

Dropping the aura removes it's turn resistance and drops the fast healing it grants to its minions. While this in itself does not make the creature vastly weaker, it absolutely wrecks a lot of it's minionmancy. It is the signature ability of the creature. We still have a death gaze, which is still potent. We still have animation. But losing the Turn Resistance... That is bad. Really really bad.

Yes for asterisk, Yes for removal. Or at least, is voting +0* on the basis that asterisk is removing the whole ability, not just the problematic parts (with the commoner-slaying aura being included among the "problematic parts").


Just applying an asterisk doesn't mean we should start gutting a monster on a technicality. It's there to indicate that this creature has a power that requires special handling.

Yes for asterisk, No for removal, yes for special handling.


^^ Agreed.

AFAIK, the asterisk has never been there to say an ability should be removed or nerfed, just that it may be problematic and/or require special handling.

Yes for asterisk, No for removal, yes for special handling.


With a multifaceted ability like the aura, I think the spirit of the asterisk would have us rate the creature without the wight-spawning aspect, not necessarily without the entire ability.

Yes for asterisk, No for removal.


Yes, but the asterisk is still about rating the LA as if the ability in question isn't there, specifically because of the special handling. Still grumpy about the Glaistig getting LA -0 entirely on the basis of area restrictions...

Yes for asterisk, Yes for removal.


The least invasive option there would be to assume that its aura simply doesn't murder people. After all, rating an undead without its turn resistance or a minion-master without its minion bonuses is at the point where any rating is going to be wildly out-of-kilter with what actually happens.

Yes for asterisk, No for removal, yes for houseruling.


Or maybe having the aura suppressible? That might help.

Yes for asterisk, No for removal, yes for houseruling.


This is the reason why we are supposed to rate the creature as if the ability doesn't exist when we give it a '*' rating there are many ways to handle 'fixing' the ability that can swing its power level. That is why some people will post say '+0*/+2' as they believe the ability can be handled just by increasing the LA and without the ability it drops the power level significantly.

Yes for asterisk, Yes for removal.


From Inevitability himself in the last thread:



Think I'm gonna put this in the OP of this and future threads.

---

so we can assume an all-undead campaign just like we can assume an aquatic campaign for water-breathers. But one of his listed examples tells us that we can't assume a campaign in which the party doesn't interact with anything they don't want to kill. This reaffirms my previous vote of +1*.

Yes for asterisk, Yes for removal, but this time not from Debatra, but from Inevitability (in spirit).


Given my misunderstanding of the asterisk, then, I'm changing my vote to LA +1*. If the commoner slaying/wightocalypse aspect of the aura is removed, then I still think it's worth a +1, IMHO.

Yes for asterisk, Yes for removal (and this is why Thurbane's earlier comment was stricken).


I think we still need to be careful here, because we need to make sure that eliminating the problematic ability is being applied consistently for all monsters. For example, some monsters (like the vampire and the wight) have their special abilities broken down more finely, so the problematic "Create Spawn" ability is defined separately from the other special attacks. But other monsters (like the ghoul and the atropal scion) have their abilities less finely broken down, so their "Create Spawn" ability isn't separate defined: it's buried in the text of one or more of the monster's other special attacks. So, if we apply our rule uncritically and just remove the entire problematic "ability" from each monster, we end up surgically removing a specific thing from the vampire, but absolutely gutting the atropal scion. For example, the vampire gets to keep its level-draining ability, but the atropal scion loses its level-draining ability.

So, I think it needs some careful thought. Uncritically trying to apply a simplified rule in a one-size-fits-all manner is exactly what made WotC's LA system unusable and inconsistent; so we really, really need to not repeat that mistake. We need to make sure that the abilities we flag as problematic are really analogous across monsters.

Incidentally, I agree with the asterisk. I had forgotten to apply it before (I had overlooked the potential for wight-spawning shenanigans entirely); but I do agree that the atropal scion needs an asterisk. And, on further reflection, I am okay with LA +1* for the atropal scion. I still think I might prefer the higher LA personally, but I'm also willing to lower my official vote, like Thurbane, because of the addition of the asterisk.

Yes for asterisk, No to removal, yes to nuanced removal.


Yes, but the entire aura is partly responsible for the asterisk, not just the spawn. As stated above, not being able to interact with people is also a valid reason for the mark.

Yes for asterisk, Yes to removal.


I don't feel like that's a valid reason for an asterisk at all. The shadow didn't get an asterisk for not being able to interact with people: it got an asterisk for its uncapped spawn ability. I don't think we've ever used a non-friendly aura as a reason for an asterisk before, have we?

No to removal or asterisk, on the grounds that a creature incapable of talking intelligibly and a creature that auto-kills any 1 or 2 HD creatures that get close to it are on the same level of "unable to interact with NPCs".


I think "disruptive, but manageable if you make the aura not instantly murder commoners who come near" sounds fairly accurate for the Atropal Scion IMO.

Yes for asterisk, No to removal, yes to nuanced removal...I think. This sounds like what Blue Jay was talking earlier, about removing just the parts of the ability that are problematic. Of course, Blue Jay's opinion on whether the commoner-killing aura is problematic enough to warrant an asterisk at all shifted over the course of the conversation, so...eh.


So yes, we have indeed never given an asterisk to a creature just because they are a walking blight that can't turn off an ability that could potentially wipe out the low-level NPCs you may want to not murder. I'm open to debating if we should do that here, but we've never done it before.

Maybe to removal. Additionally, in this context I'll say that the Atropal aura (and the Bleakborn aura as well), by virtue of not being able to be turned off, aren't quite anywhere near as problematic as the "literally can't leave a particular place" issue that Dryad has, but they're moving in the same direction, as far as "able to interact with NPCs" goes.


The asterisk itself isn't really being debated. It whether it should include just the spawn or the entire aura because of the "can't enter a populated area" part.

Maybe to removal.


I don't think there's any reason to give this an asterisk for being unable to interact with people. You can easily create intelligent minions that can interact with people for you.

No to removal or asterisk.


I don't think there's much to be gained by further debating what we're giving an asterisk for: I'm personally satisfied knowing that we all agree that it deserves an asterisk. We don't have to agree on how everything needs to be rated: we just need to be able to understand each other's perspectives, and to get a good number of votes that are a reasonable representation of those different perspectives.


As per the above-listed votes, I will be calling this +1*, the asterisk being its uncapped Spawn ability and not the entire aura. Blaspheme is up next.

Final tally: no to asterisk or removal or alteration for the death aura???

Conclusion: One person argued many things, among them being that an inability to interact with NPCs doesn't warrant an asterisk (which disagrees with some of the other arguments that same person made). One other person argued that the ability to create intelligent minions allows for normal interaction. Everybody else agreed it was a problematic ability that should on its own deserve an asterisk, with the debate being on whether the entire aura got removed, or just the "can't not kill NPCs" and the "uncapped spawning" parts of the aura. I have no idea why reading through that would give anybody the impression that the group consensus was "this ability isn't a problem".

[Remuko]

I would like to point out that most creatures with Wish have that ability listed with the rest of their SLAs. Were those creatures rated as if they had no SLAs at all? Did Efreeti lose Detect Magic? Were wish-capable demons/devils rated as if they also couldn't teleport?

They have an ability called "Spell-Like Abilities". Within that is listed Wish. We took out only that part and those directly related to it (can only grant wishes to non-genies, etc) instead of removing the entire thing.

This is NOT the same at all. Spell-Like Abilities (bolding mine) are multiple different things. The header is a list of separate abilities, Wish being one of them. That is absolutely in no way the same as an aura that has multiple effects. Its one ability with multiple effects. Wish is also one ability with multiple effects. The comparison youre trying to make would be like the * meaning "they keep wish but can use the teleportation ability of it".

I'd have rather this series died with Inevitability's retirement than see the rules he set up massively altered especially so soon after he's gone.

[Debatra]

This is NOT the same at all. Spell-Like Abilities (bolding mine) are multiple different things. The header is a list of separate abilities, Wish being one of them. That is absolutely in no way the same as an aura that has multiple effects. Its one ability with multiple effects. Wish is also one ability with multiple effects. The comparison youre trying to make would be like the * meaning "they keep wish but can use the teleportation ability of it".

I'd have rather this series died with Inevitability's retirement than see the rules he set up massively altered especially so soon after he's gone.

No, no. You're right. Stupid comparison. Sorry. (Though I will still argue that removing only the problematic part of the ability is better than the entire thing.)


Conclusion: One person argued many things, among them being that an inability to interact with NPCs doesn't warrant an asterisk (which disagrees with some of the other arguments that same person made). One other person argued that the ability to create intelligent minions allows for normal interaction. Everybody else agreed it was a problematic ability that should on its own deserve an asterisk, with the debate being on whether the entire aura got removed, or just the "can't not kill NPCs" and the "uncapped spawning" parts of the aura. I have no idea why reading through that would give anybody the impression that the group consensus was "this ability isn't a problem".

While some of the comments you mark as being in favor seem neutral at best, I am certainly not going to claim infallibility. I evidently should have been a bit more thorough. If we want to reopen Atropal Scion, I'll be happy to do that.

---

Okay, so I have clearly made some mistakes along the way. Here's my attempt to fix them and make sure we're on the same page. On the plus side, I now have a handle on what I did wrong and I will not repeat those mistakes.

1. How do you feel about an asterisk only removing the problematic parts of an ability when feasible?

For example, let's pretend for a moment the spawn creation is the only issue with Heat-Draining Aura. The uncapped spawn would still give it an asterisk. Do you feel this should mean we remove the entire aura, or just the spawn creation?

2. Do you think the Atropal Scion's asterisk should include the Negative Energy Aura?

3. If it does, do you still agree with the original rating of +1*? If not, how would you now rate it?

4. Do you believe the Bleakborn's asterisk should include its Heat-Draining Aura? (Note that this also effectively nerfs Contingent Healing, as only the "doesn't get destroyed at 0 HP" part will be able to function without the aura.)

5. If it does, what rating would you give it? (Note that this also effectively nerfs Contingent Healing, as only the "doesn't get destroyed at 0 HP" part will be able to function without the aura.)

6. If the Bleakborn's asterisk does not include its Heat-Draining Aura, how would you rate it?

Once again, I am sorry. But I'm not giving up yet.

[Death_Lord12]

So, first thing:


I'd have rather this series died with Inevitability's retirement than see the rules he set up massively altered especially so soon after he's gone.

Having the series die seems a bit much don't you think? I skim this series most of the time, but I still immensely enjoy it and want it to keep going. Correct me if I'm wrong but no one has brought up a situation like the Bleakborn before, with it's abilities tying into each other. With new (complicated) scenarios we sometimes have to adapt, no rules are perfect from the start and just giving up instead of adapting would be a massive disappointment imo.

Second thing:


The problematic ability for a vampire was a standalone ability and not a subset of an ability. That is dramatically different. If we want to change what asterisk means that is fine but as is the asterisk means scrapping the entire offending ability and that is how we have been rating creatures. It hasn't been a big deal in the past because as you point out many of the offending abilities are self insolated.

It is also fine if you want to say that the Aura is referring to the zombie spawning ability just doing a crap job of doing so and therefore doesn't need an asterisk. However, until we change what using an asterisk means we should be rating it as if the offending ability was removed when using an asterisk.

This is the point I was trying to make but more eloquent, I am not bothered by changing what the asterisk means, and I also don't have anything against Bleakborn, I just think it is important that we be consistent with our rating system in order for it to be useful. If we change what an asterisk means every time it is assigned we are not being consistent and that makes the asterisk less useful. I believe Inevitable and our community decided the asterisk meant getting rid of the whole offending ability because that is the only way to rate things fairly and consistently across the board. Sure removing Heat-Draining Aura guts Bleakborn but arguing that its ok just to change the ability is unfair to all other monsters we have rated with an asterisk.

If the consensus is we are not removing the ability when giving an asterisk but adjusting it to be playable then we need to go back and re-evaluate all monsters given an asterisk.
So, I understand what point you're making, but this is just the way I view it. Let's say for a second we change the asterisk ruling from removing the problematic ability to removing the problematic part of the ability.
If, like you said, most or all of the previously asterisked abilities are stand alone, then it shouldn't matter if the asterisk was changed to only be problematic parts, because that entire ability is the problematic part. However it would prevent cases like the Bleakborn from losing more than they should. Now, I don't know how many abilities are asterisked and not stand alone, but so what if we had to go back and change those? Isn't the entire point of this thread to make interesting monsters playable? I happen to be in software engineering, and there are next to 0 times where we get something right on the first try and don't have to go back. If the definition of the asterisk changed and we had to adjust some things, I don't see that as a huge problem, especially since it sounds like most asterisked abilities are actually stand alone anyways (which again, wouldn't change).

As for the discussion about the Heat-Draining Aura making NPC interaction impossible and it should be removed because of that, imo this thread shouldn't mess with that. Yes it could be a problem in game, but it could also be part of your game, like say if you're playing an Evil campaign and actually want to kill the peasants. If the DM deals with it themselves there's a lot of ways that could be done, each of which would affect the balance of the LA. For all we know they're playing in a campaign where everything has the Cold subtype, and it wouldn't hurt the general population at all. Or the DM could let you turn it on and off, or they might remove it altogether, regardless those are all different in terms of power. I say just remove the problematic parts that are simple to remove and obviously aren't right for a player to have. Get the base LA and leave the no interaction with NPCs abilities up to the DM. Worst case scenario the player might have to social distance, which could be some interesting roleplaying imo. If they don't want that they can always work it out with the DM or play something else.

(I typed the above before I saw Debatra's latest post, so sorry if some things seem repeated)



Okay, so I have clearly made some mistakes along the way. Here's my attempt to fix them and make sure we're on the same page. On the plus side, I now have a handle on what I did wrong and I will not repeat those mistakes.

1. How do you feel about an asterisk only removing the problematic parts of an ability when feasible?

For example, let's pretend for a moment the spawn creation is the only issue with Heat-Draining Aura. The uncapped spawn would still give it an asterisk. Do you feel this should mean we remove the entire aura, or just the spawn creation?

2. Do you think the Atropal Scion's asterisk should include the Negative Energy Aura?

3. If it does, do you still agree with the original rating of +1*? If not, how would you now rate it?

4. Do you believe the Bleakborn's asterisk should include its Heat-Draining Aura? (Note that this also effectively nerfs Contingent Healing, as only the "doesn't get destroyed at 0 HP" part will be able to function without the aura.)

5. If it does, what rating would you give it? (Note that this also effectively nerfs Contingent Healing, as only the "doesn't get destroyed at 0 HP" part will be able to function without the aura.)

6. If the Bleakborn's asterisk does not include its Heat-Draining Aura, how would you rate it?

Once again, I am sorry. But I'm not giving up yet.

Honestly you're doing fairly good so far imo, and owning up to mistakes is a good thing. Thank you for not giving up, I'm sure I'm not the only person who really wants this thread to continue.

Most of my answers should be obvious from the rest of my post but if not I'll reiterate them.
1. I definitely believe asterisk should only remove the problematic parts, not entire abilities, if it can be helped.
2. No, I think it should keep the aura. As I said above there's a lot of different ways the DM and/or player could deal with this without completely removing it. Even if they keep it in, maybe they like the idea of massive social distancing. I think a baseline for the more problematic abilities is the way to go and let individual DMs handle stuff like this.
3. Not sure, but if I get some time to think about it I'll let you know.
4. No, again keep the aura.
5. N/A
6. I'd probably say +0*

[liquidformat]

---

Okay, so I have clearly made some mistakes along the way. Here's my attempt to fix them and make sure we're on the same page. On the plus side, I now have a handle on what I did wrong and I will not repeat those mistakes.

1. How do you feel about an asterisk only removing the problematic parts of an ability when feasible?

For example, let's pretend for a moment the spawn creation is the only issue with Heat-Draining Aura. The uncapped spawn would still give it an asterisk. Do you feel this should mean we remove the entire aura, or just the spawn creation?

2. Do you think the Atropal Scion's asterisk should include the Negative Energy Aura?

3. If it does, do you still agree with the original rating of +1*? If not, how would you now rate it?

4. Do you believe the Bleakborn's asterisk should include its Heat-Draining Aura? (Note that this also effectively nerfs Contingent Healing, as only the "doesn't get destroyed at 0 HP" part will be able to function without the aura.)

5. If it does, what rating would you give it? (Note that this also effectively nerfs Contingent Healing, as only the "doesn't get destroyed at 0 HP" part will be able to function without the aura.)

6. If the Bleakborn's asterisk does not include its Heat-Draining Aura, how would you rate it?

Once again, I am sorry. But I'm not giving up yet.

No I agree you are doing a good job, I just want to make sure we are being consistent and fair across the board, it is similar to our conversations of what we should be using as a comparison point that we have had multiple times or to a lesser extent body slots.

1. I think that should be fine though we might want to go back and take a look at some of the old asterisk'ed monsters to see if this change would apply to any. (I will skim through them this weekend to see if any might need re evaluation).

2. After thinking about this more and rereading some of the previous monsters we do already have a number of monsters with aura abilities that weren't given * for being walking death to NPCs so I will get behind not removing the whole ability because you are killing most npcs you come across.

3. I think +1* would work for keeping Negative Energy Aura without infinite spawning

4. As said above I can get behind not removing the aura

5. & 6. +0* for Heat-Draining Aura without spawn

[Debatra]

The auras are an inconvenience to be sure, but unless you also insist on being the party face, you could normally just stay away from people.

[Thurbane]

Rating the Bleakborn with all abilities other than creating spawn with the aura? I still say +1*.

Removing Heat-draining Aura, which as a knock on effect removes Contingent Healing, might bring it down to +0.

[H_H_F_F]

1. How do you feel about an asterisk only removing the problematic parts of an ability when feasible?

For example, let's pretend for a moment the spawn creation is the only issue with Heat-Draining Aura. The uncapped spawn would still give it an asterisk. Do you feel this should mean we remove the entire aura, or just the spawn creation?

2. Do you think the Atropal Scion's asterisk should include the Negative Energy Aura?

3. If it does, do you still agree with the original rating of +1*? If not, how would you now rate it?

4. Do you believe the Bleakborn's asterisk should include its Heat-Draining Aura? (Note that this also effectively nerfs Contingent Healing, as only the "doesn't get destroyed at 0 HP" part will be able to function without the aura.)

5. If it does, what rating would you give it? (Note that this also effectively nerfs Contingent Healing, as only the "doesn't get destroyed at 0 HP" part will be able to function without the aura.)

6. If the Bleakborn's asterisk does not include its Heat-Draining Aura, how would you rate it?

1. Yes, when feasible, only problematic aspects should be removed.

2. For the reason stated above, I think only the problematic stuff should be included an the Scion's asterisk.

3. Not sure.

4. No, it should only include actual problems.

5. Probably -0*.

6. As I've said, +0*.

By the way, I'm new to the thread (though I've been lurking for some time), but I think you're doing a fine job. There will always be issues when taking on such a responsibility, but I think you've dealt with those with much reason, calm and maturity.

[Caelestion]

Rating the Bleakborn with all abilities other than creating spawn with the aura? I still say +1*.

Removing Heat-draining Aura, which as a knock on effect removes Contingent Healing, might bring it down to +0.

I think that I agree with both, here.

[Remuko]

So, first thing:


Having the series die seems a bit much don't you think? I skim this series most of the time, but I still immensely enjoy it and want it to keep going. Correct me if I'm wrong but no one has brought up a situation like the Bleakborn before, with it's abilities tying into each other. With new (complicated) scenarios we sometimes have to adapt, no rules are perfect from the start and just giving up instead of adapting would be a massive disappointment imo.

{Scrubbed}

If an ability can cause a problem, just remove it. No thinking, not cutting out just small parts, thats homebrew levels of work for individual tables. its outside the scope of the thread, just mark the LA, rate as if it doesnt have the ability, and move on. Plus a lot of monsters have huge LA because of their abilities, some might still need too much LA even with problematic parts removed. Removing the whole thing is MORE likely to make something playable than not, which seems in-line with the purpose of these threads.

I've been around since the first LA thread iirc and it means a lot to me, and I'd be really upset to see the whole way its run changed now that its under new management. If everythings changed, then it might as well be dead yes. Someone else can do their own thing unrelated, but this is currently set as a "sequel series under a new author" rather than something else. Its like a 3rd party 3.5 book vs a pathfinder 1e book.

hopefully some of my rambling here made sense.

[lylsyly]

Snip ....

Yes Inevitablity did a damn fine job for all the time doing it and my hats off to them for a job damned well done.

Now there is a new sheriff and apparently a few new folks chiming in on ratings ...

[H_H_F_F]

If an ability can cause a problem, just remove it. No thinking, not cutting out just small parts, thats homebrew levels of work for individual tables. its outside the scope of the thread, just mark the LA, rate as if it doesnt have the ability, and move on. Plus a lot of monsters have huge LA because of their abilities, some might still need too much LA even with problematic parts removed. Removing the whole thing is MORE likely to make something playable than not, which seems in-line with the purpose of these threads.

I really don't think "it's LA +X, except there's no heat draining aura" is in any way simpler to understand than "it's LA +X, except there's no spawning Bleakborn."

I agree that we shouldn't start homebrewing alternatives to things, but in cases in which the problem is a distinct ability of the creature (not "a listed ability", a distinct ability), I don't see why that shouldn't be the only ability addressed. Banning the issue doesn't require any more thought than identifying it as the issue. We're not trying to program AI here, this thread is for human use.

If someone sees an asterisk on an entry saying "No spawning" or "No immunity to conjuration spells" they will immediately understand and address the issue. They won't be confused, or have to think about it, based on whether or not that specific, concrete, and simply put problematic ability is listed by itself or jumbled together with another ability (for a fictional example, "magic resistance" giving +4 to saving throws against spells and immunity to conjuration).

[Caelestion]

Just on a social interaction viewpoint, given that Debatra is only running the thread because no one else wanted to, blasting him about how he's doing it wrongly is hardly par for the course. If he wasn't doing it all, we wouldn't even be rating monsters any more!

[Remuko]

Just on a social interaction viewpoint, given that Debatra is only running the thread because no one else wanted to, blasting him about how he's doing it wrongly is hardly par for the course. If he wasn't doing it all, we wouldn't even be rating monsters any more!

I'd prefer that over this change.

[Caelestion]

Well, I wouldn't and I imagine that I'm not the only one.

[Chaos Jackal]

What the discussion here aims to accomplish is to rate playability and aid those who wanna play or allow their table to play something out of the box. It's about flexibility and an open mind, by default. Pedantic arguments over semantics aren't flexible, nor are open-minded. Arguments about complete removal of abilities aren't flexible or open-minded. Lobotomizing what makes a monster interesting isn't flexible or open-minded, and it doesn't aid anyone who might think of playing or allowing one in any way.

What's the point of a monster whose schtick is draining the heat out of everything around it if that monster can't drain the heat of everything around it? Why would anyone play it at any LA, when it's not doing what its whole point of existence and flavor is about?

How is it following the spirit of the thread to do so? How is it respectful to the work of Inevitability, and everyone who has participated over time, to say that it's better to not have a discussion at all?

And what's so difficult or inconsistent in removing the actual thing that everyone agrees is problematic - namely the bleakborn spawning? Yes, if you wanna be extremely pedantic for no real reason, it's not an ability in and of itself, but part of an ability. Yet it's certainly obvious and distinct. Nobody who reads this is going to find it strange, or inconsistent, or difficult to understand. "If included, don't allow it to spawn bleakborn" is pretty clear.

The asterisk is removal of abilities that, for whatever reason, make the monster broken or unplayable. It's not for stripping the monster of everything that makes it a possibly interesting PC option because a problem it has happens to be in a paragraph without a heading.

I believe this answers Debatra's questions regarding my opinion on what the asterisk should do. In that vein, I'll also cast my first vote and say LA +0* for the bleakborn. It can't die (well, not by most conventional means anyway), it has good stats and a number of other perks, but it's kinda hard to advance it, either because it has too many HD to get far as a caster or too low a BAB for a martial. Still, what it has is decent, and I wouldn't call it unplayable, far from it. But certainly not much gain either.

[Thurbane]

Well, I wouldn't and I imagine that I'm not the only one.

You're definitely not alone. I'm really appreciative that the threads will continue, and I think Debatra is doing a fine job.

[Blue Jay]

Guys, I'm sorry for the role my comments have played in prolonging a heated debate.

For my two cents, there is a wide range of variation in the power level of monsters, and in how the monsters were written. So, any attempt by us to consistently apply the same standard to all monsters we come across is going to be imperfect and sloppy. Frankly, I think it's absurd to believe that this project has ever been (or will ever be) consistent by any metric. But in my mind, the inconsistency is not necessarily a bad thing: with the material we're using, inconsistency was always unavoidable, and there was never any chance that our "final product" would be neat and tidy and devoid of substantial glitches.

I think the best solution for a disagreement like this is for everyone to "vote their conscience," and depend on the law of averages to work it out in a favorable way. I don't think it was ever our job to come up with definitive answers to questions like this: our job has always been to provide advice and perspectives for DMs and players to use at their tables, so we can frankly leave all the decision-making to them.

This kind of nuts-&-bolts disagreement has happened a lot of times during the course of this project. But in reality, the great majority of monsters go by without sparking any debates like this. So, I think we can rest assured that our methodological disagreements are pretty minor in the long run, and the project can continue just fine even if we disagree on this particular point. At worst, the methodological disagreement here is going to swing this monster's rating by a fraction of a point of LA, and 99% of the monsters we rate in the future will be unaffected by our disagreement.

So, let's not get too hung up on these disagreements: they're just a drop in the bucket.

Debatra, my opinion is that you should just tally up the votes now, take an average, add an asterisk, and move on. And for what it's worth, I think you're doing a great job trying to fill some big shoes.

[Debatra]

Just on a social interaction viewpoint, given that Debatra is only running the thread because no one else wanted to, blasting him about how he's doing it wrongly is hardly par for the course. If he wasn't doing it all, we wouldn't even be rating monsters any more!

While I appreciate the show of support, that also doesn't shield me from criticism. By all means, call me on it when you feel I make a mistake. I not only welcome but encourage it.

---

I've gone through the archive, looking at every creature that's been given an asterisk so far. And we actually have only partly removed a problematic ability before! Only once I'll admit, but it's been done. The Shambling Mound - Unaltered, it has immunity to electricity. In that same ability, still listed under "Immunity to Electricity", it says that any electric attack temporarily increases its Constitution (to potentially infinite levels). The Con-boosting was asterisked, but nobody even mentioned the idea of making them not immune to electricity. All of the others had their problematic abilities removed completely, though that doesn't say much considering none of the rest of those abilities were rider effects attached to other abilities.

I also found several discussions where having a non-suppressible unfriendly aura had specifically been rejected as a reason for an asterisk.

[H_H_F_F]

While I appreciate the show of support, that also doesn't shield me from criticism. By all means, call me on it when you feel I make a mistake. I not only welcome but encourage it.

---

I've gone through the archive, looking at every creature that's been given an asterisk so far. And we actually have only partly removed problematic abilities before! Only once I'll admit, but it's been done. The Shambling Mound - Unaltered, it has immunity to electricity. In that same ability, still listed under "Immunity to Electricity", it says that any electric attack temporarily increases its Constitution (to potentially infinite levels). The Con-boosting was asterisked, but nobody even mentioned the idea of making them not immune to electricity. All of the others had their problematic abilities removed completely, though that doesn't say much considering those abilities were never rider effects attached to other abilities.

I also found several discussions where having a non-suppressible unfriendly aura has specifically been rejected as a reason for an asterisk.

Great work, Debatra!

So, if historically, there were no cases of entire abilities being removed because of a rider effect, there is no need to worry about inconsistency, correct? No need for repeat discussions?

That worry seemed to me to be the ground for all current objections. With this information, does anyone still object to "asterisking" Bleakborne spawning, and not the heat draining aura?

[Debatra]

Debatra, my opinion is that you should just tally up the votes now, take an average, add an asterisk, and move on. And for what it's worth, I think you're doing a great job trying to fill some big shoes.Would you believe we're currently at a three-way tie? Four votes each for -0*, +0*, and +1*

All that said, I'm going to give it just a little longer. I'm going to bed soon, and I probably won't be jumping onto the Playground first thing in the morning.

Also, since we technically reopened it, I'm taking our history of specifically not asterisking unfriendly auras as good enough reason to close Atropal Scion again, unchanged.

[Caelestion]

Well, if we ever end up in a tie (or close to it), host's privilege prevails. It's on you. :)

[AvatarVecna]

1. How do you feel about an asterisk only removing the problematic parts of an ability when feasible?

For example, let's pretend for a moment the spawn creation is the only issue with Heat-Draining Aura. The uncapped spawn would still give it an asterisk. Do you feel this should mean we remove the entire aura, or just the spawn creation?

Just the spawn creation. I've heard the arguments of both sides, and I think removing just the problematic parts, but not homebrewing/houseruling things, is the best way to give advice to somebody using the thread to figure out LA for their specific game. "It's LA +1 if you make this change" isn't helpful because not everybody will agree with that change.


2. Do you think the Atropal Scion's asterisk should include the Negative Energy Aura?

I do, moreso than with the Bleakborn's DoT aura. The part of the aura that is AoE 60 ft radius no-save-just-die that can't be turned off is far from an insigificant hurdle in a normal playing game. You could play a mind flayer in a normal game and just deal with the reputation hit. You could play a shadow and learn Drow Sign Language to communicate, that's a two skill point investment at most. A bleakborn can shoot their Cha in the foot, and can do a bit better job at keeping distance than Atropal Scion. But this big 60 ft aura means that any interaction with friendly NPCs - shopping for food, meeting with prospective employers, rescuing people in imminent danger - is going to be made that much more complicated unless you're sitting it out. I really don't see how some people think automatically killing 90% of the population if they get within shouting distance of you isn't a major problem just because there are powerful magic solutions. It's the equivalent to saying the game isn't broken because the DM can houserule away the broken parts.


3. If it does, do you still agree with the original rating of +1*? If not, how would you now rate it?

I voted +2/-0* for Atropal Scion on the assumption that +2 was appropriate for its uncapped-spawning abilities being left in, and -0 was appropriate if they were taken out. But to answer the question you're really asking, no I wouldn't change my vote. My +2 operated on the assumption it wouldn't have anything removed, so that stands. And if it was -0 with just the spawn mechanics removed, then removing more stuff isn't going to make it worse than -0.


4. Do you believe the Bleakborn's asterisk should include its Heat-Draining Aura? (Note that this also effectively nerfs Contingent Healing, as only the "doesn't get destroyed at 0 HP" part will be able to function without the aura.)

No. With the spawn mechanics removed from Atropal Scion, the main point of the aura becomes the friendly-undead-buff, and the death aura was still problematic even if it didn't spawn wights. With bleakborn, it's a smaller aura with a save vs DoT. It's still capable of decimating populations, but it's a bit more manageable. Additionally, the Contingent Healing is a big part of the point of playing this monster in the first place.


5. If it does, what rating would you give it? (Note that this also effectively nerfs Contingent Healing, as only the "doesn't get destroyed at 0 HP" part will be able to function without the aura.)

I was already voting -0 on the assumption we were just removing the spawn mechanics, on the basis that it's either a noncaster giving up a good chunk of BAB/an iterative for a small pile of buffs, or it's a caster giving up 8 class levels of casting for a small pile of admittedly-nice buffs. Either way, taking away even more stuff from Bleakborn can't make my vote worse than -0, so...yeah. I will say that if "removing nothing" is on the table, I'd probably go with +1/-0*. Uncapped quick controlled zombie spawning is less problematic than uncapped quick controlled wight spawning by a wide margin, and even uncapped quick controlled bleakborn spawning is still less problematic (albeit way more so than zombies). Wights and Bleakborns can multiply beyond the original creator, where zombies can't, and wights have a better method than that of bleakborn.


6. If the Bleakborn's asterisk does not include its Heat-Draining Aura, how would you rate it?

+1 if we take out nothing, -0* if we take out spawning. And so, -0* if we take out spawning + even more stuff.

[Debatra]

With the three-way tie (AvatarVecna's original -0 vote was counted in that), the average between them is +0*. The Heat-Draining Aura will remain, without Spawn creation.

Blood Amniote is next. Check back in a few minutes.

[Debatra]

Blood Amniote
https://i.imgur.com/CnZm9Gv.jpg

Size & Type: Huge Undead (but see below)
HD: 10
Speed: 30', Climb 20'
Ability Scores: Str +8, Dex +10, Con ,- Int -, Wis -10, Cha -10 - Net -2, two massive penalties on top of mindlessness
Natural Armor: 13
Natural Weapons: One Primary Slam (2d6)
Skill List: None
Body Shape: Ooze
Speech (Languages): No
CR: 9
WotC LA: -
Our LA: -0* (Uncapped Spawn/Split Ability)

So there are various flavors of zombie, which are more-or-less intact corpses. There are various skeletal undead, which are reanimated bones. A Blood Amniote is reanimated blood.

It is literally a blood ooze. It even has Ooze traits on top of Undead traits. For its numbers, it retains the D12 Undead hit dice, but gets the 3/4 BAB and all poor saves from the Ooze. It's mindless, so I have no idea how many skill points it would get if it weren't. It has 60' darkvision despite being blind and having blindsight out to the same range. Its creature type is still Undead.

DR 10/- and fast healing 5 go well with the high natural armor and dual traits to give it some decent durability, and its Blood Call ability attaches 1d4 Con damage to its melee attacks against living creatures (errata'd to exclude Plants and Oozes). Blood Call is also how it feeds its inescapable craving for blood... And also how it uses its uncapped Self Spawn ability, essentially a Split.

When it manages to deal its full HP total in Con damage over the course of its existence, it splits into two, both of equal power. No mention is made of control. Oddly enough, this ability is also both a separate entry as well as a rider effect of its Blood Call. This is probably the slowest spawn/split ability I've seen, but it's still uncapped and potentially abusable. Asterisk it.

[InvisibleBison]

This looks like a -0* to me. Too many hit dice to make a decent caster, not enough BAB to compete with martial characters, and no noteworthy special abilities to make up the difference. The crippling mental stat penalties are just icing on the cake of badness.

[Blue Jay]

Huh. There's usually a distinction between "traits" and "features." Save bonuses, BAB and skill points are classified as "features", so having "Ooze Traits" shouldn't have changed any of those things: the blood amniote should (hypothetically) still have Undead features. But you're right: the stat block has the Will save calculated with a poor progression and BAB calculated with 3/4's progression (both as the Ooze type, and not the Undead type).

The only thing about Self Spawn is that the spawn aren't explicitly stated to be under the blood amniote's control, so I'm not sure the asterisk is warranted for this. I'm still going to include it in my vote, but I wouldn't flinch if others choose not to include it.

It's also curious that "Blood Call" was errata-ed to exclude plants and oozes, but not elementals (who are usually also excluded from blood-based effects).

Beyond those hiccups (boy, there are a lot of those in this book, aren't there?), the blood amniote is just an amorphous thing with 10 racial hit dice, a negative net modifier to stats, and some Constitution damage appended to a slam attack. It has lots of immunities, Fast Healing and above-average natural armor, so it's pretty sturdy. But, you'll still probably struggle to contribute effectively without some real DM mercy.

LA -0* for the blood amniote.

[H_H_F_F]

I don't see any reason for this not to be -0*. 01 RHD, mindless, single attack; no good options really. Only thing its got going for it is the no-save-just-suffer blood call, and while that's decent, it doesn't nearly make up for the rest.

[AvatarVecna]

Relevant:


When assigning LA to nonsentient (so, either mindless or 1-2 intelligence) creatures, I assume they somehow get a 3+ intelligence score, whether through one of the templates that grants it, an Awaken spell, complicated shenanigans, or DM fiat.

-0* shouldn't be an argument this time around.

Even assuming this happens and allows you to have feats (and a tiny number of skill points, I guess), this ooze doesn't get enough to really warrant LA. Splitting is technically uncapped spawning (exponentially spreading, even, since the spawns can themselves spawn more), but you're talking about splitting every time you deal 65 Con damage to targets, which is dealt 1d4 at a time. We're talking an average of 26 successful attacks. And unlike say "split whenever you take slashing damage", this isn't something you can trigger by attacking yourself, since Blood Amniote isn't subject to Con damage.

Everything else just really can't make up for the downsides. DR 10/-, Fast Healing 5, Blindsight 60 ft, normal speed (better than most oozes get), NA +13, splitting mechanics, con damage on natural attack, decent Dex for Touch AC/Init? Sorry my dude, you have awful Fort/Will, mediocre Ref for your level, medium BAB, and no skill points even if the DM gives you the above freebie. It's got slightly better BAB and slightly better defenses than Bleakborn for the most part (except for how Bleakborn is immune to dying), but it's in the same situation as Bleakborn when it comes to losing BAB and HP. And that's not even touching casting: Bleakborn might have had a pile of crappy HD getting in the way of their spell level access, but at least they were literally capable of casting spells ever. If you roll/purchase an 18 in your casting stat, you'll be casting cantrips and nothing else at ECL 16.

[Thurbane]

Can't get enthused to do a detailed breakdown of this one; lets just say I agree with LA -0*.

[Debatra]

The only thing about Self Spawn is that the spawn aren't explicitly stated to be under the blood amniote's control, so I'm not sure the asterisk is warranted for this. I'm still going to include it in my vote, but I wouldn't flinch if others choose not to include it.

Yeah, if any uncapped spawn ability is ever going to dodge an asterisk, this would probably be it. It's extremely slow, and you'll never be able to control them without either a friendly necromancer or dedicating/wasting your entire build for it. I guess you could raid a peasant village, but it's not exactly a Wightocalypse. Heck, just find a high-Con ally and someone who can spam-cast Restoration.

But still, even uncontrolled spawn are worth the asterisk. Especially since you're duplicating a PC. No idea if the Self-Spawn also has any class levels the original had, but it's still a bit of a can of worms.

[AvatarVecna]

Since they're mindless, when a blood amniote spawns a new one, without explicit loyalty or control, they two will probably fight by default. But they're immune to each other's Con damage, so they can't actually feed off each other. +9 vs AC 26 means missing 4/5 and hitting 1/5 (since oozes and undead are both immune to crits). 2d6+6 vs DR 10/- is 3 damage-per-round on average, and they each have fast healing 5. So unless you're both non-mindless, splitting traps you in an eternal loop of endless combat with your own child, unless there's additional potential victims pretty nearby. And even then, once you run out of potential victims who are closer than other blood amniotes, you and those BAs become trapped again.

[GreatWyrmGold]

HD: 26 - That's right folks, we're already starting off Epic. Need I say more? Well let's keep going anyway.
I'd appreciate if you reiterated this point at the end. One nice thing about Inevitability's ratings that I didn't appreciate until now is that he always concluded with the conclusion. Even if it was obvious, even if there was an interesting lengthy digression about the creature's abilities or place in the game or whatever, he wrapped the piece up by pointing out that it isn't up to snuff with what an epic-level T3 character can do. When it was worth +0 or positive LA, he summarized why. It was a good way to wrap up each post.
It doesn't affect the final rating, but most of us are here for fun more than because we desperately want better LAs for the 3.5 games we're running. Presentation matters.



Our LA: +1* (uncapped Spawn ability)
Specifying the ability dropped by the asterisk, even if it's obvious, is a nice touch. Maybe it will help people remember what the asterisk is specifically supposed to be used for.



So let me get this straight: any humanoid slain by a bleakborn become zombies under its control. Sometimes, though, they become bleakborn instead. And a humanoid slain by the heat draining aura rises as a "bleakborn spawn" (whatever that is), but not under its control?

Also, how exactly do you permanently destroy them, since they can be healed from 0hp or below. Does destruction of the body stop this happening? Does it have to be destroyed in some manner not involving loss of HP?

The more I hear about and re-read this monster entry, the more questions I have. This thing needed some serious editing before being published.
Agreed. But it sounds neat.



I have a feeling this was at least partly designed as a "gotcha!"
Considering that the result of its spawn-creating ability is essentially arbitrary, it also functions as a gacha.



Once again, you're interpreting the asterisk in the harshest manner possible. It's pointless even pretending to rate these creatures if we keep stripping out their unique abilities because they're difficult to handle.

Without listing every single monster, the given reasons for an asterisk so far are:


Being able to increase HD with an ability (Barghests, etc)
Wish (various demons)
Certain problematic spells at-will (Mind-Flayers)
Spawn/Split/Merge abilities (many and various)
Abilities that we can't even figure out what they do (Formian Taskmaster)
Inability to go places (Dryads)
A unique potential abuse with making a coven to get high-level SLAs at ECL4 (Sea Hags)
Infinite or NI Stat boosting (Shambling Mounds)
Abilities that vary wildly depending on unpredictable circumstances (Unholy Scion)
Going permanently insane after a few rounds of combat (Alchemical Golem)
...Being able to spam save-or-loses that don't work on things with 7 or more HD? (Lurking Strangler, which to be fair, Inevitability also disagreed with that asterisk)
Being vulnerable to remote-Domination (among other things) by unknown NPCs (Voidmind)
Not being able to transfer away from or survive the death of your host (Fiendish Familiar - To be clear, just needing the host didn't get the asterisk)

(numbering mine)
Breaking these down, we have:
1, 2, 8: Abilities which, if left untouched, let the PC increase their power to arbitrary levels
3, 4, 7, "11": Abilities which can be abused to slightly less ridiculous levels, where at best you would need to rate someone abusing them like that separately (and several levels apart from) someone not doing so
4 (sometimes), 6, 10, 12, 13: Abilities which can destroy a character's viability as a PC, either by restricting heavily or potentially destroying them as a being with agency
5: Abilities that just don't work
9: Abilities which work, but where the effects vary too wildly to rate
Aside from Category B and maybe C, you can't really rate these abilities; B and C, on the other hand, would require you to center the rating around something that most players and DMs wouldn't actually play with. In practice, a DM would have to either nerf/excise these abilities for a PC to be viable, or use their own judgement on what it's worth.

Also, asterisks have been assigned to ~50 out of several hundred* monsters. Even if asterisks ruin the integrity of any monster they're applied to, it's ridiculous to say that the whole endeavor is ruined because only seventeen out of eighteen monsters are "properly" rated.

control-F says there are 444 plus signs and 531 -0's. Manually looking through the page, I spy 38 false positives—some entries with multiple level adjustments for different circumstances (e.g. the skeleton template, which gets +1 if you can avoid RHD and ±0 otherwise), the -0's in the dates, and the "+ Reply to Thread" that must never be used. If I didn't miss anything, that's 937 monsters rated over the ~5 years of this project, only 53 (~5.7%) of which have asterisks. Granted, these numbers treat every draconic age category and monstrous vermin size category as a separate creature, but still.

Though I note that Debatra's run has a much higher proportion of asterisks. Five isn't a great sample size, but two of them already have asterisks. If you hate them, you may have some reason to be concerned about his run...




Would you believe we're currently at a three-way tie? Four votes each for -0*, +0*, and +1*.
I believe Inevitability ran things on somewhere between FPTP and a mathematical mean. I don't remember him ever detailing his exact procedures, but in this kind of situation I think he'd give +0*. Which sounds about to me, given the votes.



[CENTER]So there are various flavors of zombie, which are more-or-less intact corpses. There are various skeletal undead, which are reanimated bones. A Blood Amniote is reanimated blood.
Until we have reanimated skin, Dwarf Fortress still has the wackiest reanimated body part.


It is literally a blood ooze. It even has Ooze traits on top of Undead traits. For its numbers, it retains the D12 Undead hit dice, but gets the 3/4 BAB and all poor saves from the Ooze. It's mindless, so I have no idea how many skill points it would get if it weren't. It has 60' darkvision despite being blind and having blindsight out to the same range. Its creature type is still Undead.
That sounds like a mess. But at least this time it was probably intentional.



The only thing about Self Spawn is that the spawn aren't explicitly stated to be under the blood amniote's control, so I'm not sure the asterisk is warranted for this. I'm still going to include it in my vote, but I wouldn't flinch if others choose not to include it.
I'm voting for the asterisk (and the -0). Creating spawn is a problematic ability to begin with, all the more so when the results are described as "identical". Either you're destroying the PC, or you're creating a new blood amniote with class levels and whatnot. I don't know if the latter would be more disruptive if the PC-tier character worked for the party or against it (ie, immediately draining the other PCs of blood), but both would be pretty bad. The most reasonable and least disruptive result would be the new amniote wandering off and doing its own thing, which is functionally pretty similar to just excising the ability.
Also, there's the bookkeeping. You'd need to keep track of the total blood you've drained over the course of your career, resetting every so often and releasing a blood ooze that may or may not be meaningful.


As an aside, while a blood amniote's mindlessness makes it a pretty lousy BBEG, it could make a moderately cool boss fight. You're fighting a big blood monster, supported by its necromancer creator; partway through the fight, it splits into two blood monsters, each restored to full HP by RAW. It's nothing on a typical JRPG multi-stage boss battle, but it's more dynamic than a standard D&D boss fight. Most of those are pretty monotonous, as far as the boss's abilities go; maybe a magical monster spends a couple turns buffing itself or summoning allies, but otherwise it generally either stays at about the same level or exhausts its best abilities and slowly peters out.


Anyways. Doubt there'll be much argument here; aside from odd concepts, a weird hybrid type, and the most limited unlimited spawn ability in history, the blood amniote is just a big bruiser with a bit of ability damage, a couple defensive abilities, and too many crappy hit dice.

[Blue Jay]

But still, even uncontrolled spawn are worth the asterisk. Especially since you're duplicating a PC. No idea if the Self-Spawn also has any class levels the original had, but it's still a bit of a can of worms.

Oh, I didn't consider that. So... yeah, with the uncertainties hanging over that, the asterisk is definitely necessary.

[No brains]

Doesn't the fact that the con drain applies to creatures mean that blobbing over animals in the forest could earn a spawn? It's reasonable for a DM to call that a creature needs to have a stat block to qualify, but a school of fish, a pond full of toads, or a burrow of rabbits could have ~66 constitution worth of living creatures within. A swarm of flies likely won't count as even 10 con, but in the right biomes, it's easy to find a constitution score worth of hp to drain.

I think it's still worth a -0* because having something impotently attacking you forever is technically a means of controlling it. You can kite your spawn until you can circle around some other creature that it could attack on its way to you. If you get two, they may battle each other forever, but having one 'easily' created backup is abusable and tedious.

As funny as it is to think about, it's reasonable to assume that a mindless creature would have some instinct not to attack a creature of its own kind. Unless there's written ecology fluff about oozes consuming each other until there's only a single ooze left in a dungeon.

Thank you for letting me think of something silly today.

[AvatarVecna]

Though I note that Debatra's run has a much higher proportion of asterisks. Five isn't a great sample size, but two of them already have asterisks. If you hate them, you may have some reason to be concerned about his run...

I don't think this is specific to Debatra necessarily. The two so far that have asterisks both had uncapped spawn abilities, which always warrant one, and the book we're covering is all about undead, which tend to have spawn abilities. If Inevitability had continued on to do Libris Mortis, their "asterisk percentage" would've likely shot up. I took a glance through the book, and 9 of the remaining 41 have a spawn ability. So just on that merit alone, we'd be looking at 12/47, or just over 25% of this book getting an asterisk (assuming there's no others that deserve one for separate reasons). That's not a result of who's running the thread, that's just an inevitable result of giving asterisk'd LA for spawn abilities.

[Blue Jay]

Adding my voice to AvatarVecna's: Libris Mortis seems like an unusually error-prone source, and it will have lots of spawn abilities, so let's brace ourselves for a relatively high number of asterisk discussions in the near future.


I took a glance through the book, and 9 of the remaining 41 have a spawn ability. So just on that merit alone, we'd be looking at 12/47, or just over 25% of this book getting an asterisk (assuming there's no others that deserve one for separate reasons). That's not a result of who's running the thread, that's just an inevitable result of giving asterisk'd LA for spawn abilities.

Don't forget the variant undead in Chapter 7: I think there are about 20 modified templates there, and I for one would really like to see ratings on those. Most of them are pretty minor variants on already-rated templates, so they should be pretty easy to rate.

[Thurbane]

Adding my voice to AvatarVecna's: Libris Mortis seems like an unusually error-prone source, and it will have lots of spawn abilities, so let's brace ourselves for a relatively high number of asterisk discussions in the near future.

Very true.


Don't forget the variant undead in Chapter 7: I think there are about 20 modified templates there, and I for one would really like to see ratings on those. Most of them are pretty minor variants on already-rated templates, so they should be pretty easy to rate.

Good call - I'd forgotten about them.

[Efrate]

-0* Uncapped if uncontrolled spawn, oozepocalaypse not as bad as some but still bad. Also lack of limbs, speech, manipulators, body slots mental scores...its a combination of all the negative stuff generally.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Until we have reanimated skin, Dwarf Fortress still has the wackiest reanimated body part.
Came across the Forsaken Shell while flipping through the Died Book. So yeah.



I don't think this is specific to Debatra necessarily. The two so far that have asterisks both had uncapped spawn abilities, which always warrant one, and the book we're covering is all about undead, which tend to have spawn abilities.
True, there's more than just statistical noise to consider.

[Caelestion]

DR 10/- is excellent and Fast Heal 5 is always nice, but it's a mindless undead ooze with Wis 1 and Cha 1. I don't think any number of RHD could be removed to be appropriate for this sort of monster. LA -0.

[danielxcutter]

So I guess it’s less the Book of Bad Latin and more the Book of Bad Publishing I guess.

[GreatWyrmGold]

So I guess it’s less the Book of Bad Latin and more the Book of Bad Publishing I guess.
The Latin is more unique to Libris Mortis. If I had to pick the book of bad publishing, I'd probably go with the Tome of Magic—Truenaming's infamous broken-ness and shadow magic's mediocrity balances out the binders and vestiges.

Though for all the crap we give WotC, as far as I know they've never stiffed their freelancer writers, which I've heard certain other publishers in this industry have.

[Debatra]

Yeah, a fairly easy -0*. Bloodmote Cloud is next.

[Debatra]

Bloodmote Cloud
https://i.imgur.com/YUDIO2f.jpg

Size & Type: Fine Undead (Swarm)
HD: 10
Speed: Fly 20'
Ability Scores: Str -6, Dex +2, Con -, Int -, Wis +0, Cha -10 - Net -14, Two big penalties
Natural Armor: 0
Natural Weapons: Swarm (1d4)
Skill List: -
Body Shape: Insect Swarm
Speech (Languages): No
CR: 6
WotC LA: -
Our LA: -0

It's a swarm of undead mosquitoes. And you thought the regular ones were bad.

In addition to the 1d4 damage it does just as a swarm, its Blood Drain deals an additional 1d3, as well as 1d2 Con damage to any living creature. This is also how it feeds its Diet Dependency of blood. Unlike the Blood Amniote before it, the errata does not exclude any creature types this time. It also has the Distraction ability that all swarms have, and it specifically says it's Con-based (and accordingly lists the DC as 15), so the normal rule that would allow it to be Cha-based because of its lack of a Con score is presumably irrelevant in this case. The errata is silent on the matter.

...That's it. Ten HD for a little Con damage on an otherwise unimpressive swarm.

[AvatarVecna]

A Fine swarm is immune to weapon damage by default, but honestly we've had a diminuitive swarm with just 2 HD and that still ended up getting LA +0. Even throwing a pile of undead immunities on top of swarm stuff, and giving some Con drain/damage just isn't enough to really make up such a huge level difference. That's not even touching on the mental attribute issues.

LA -0*

[Thurbane]

I don't think there's anythng particularly special here, and it is pretty unplayable. LA -0 from me.

[Lapak]

I don't think there's anythng particularly special here, and it is pretty unplayable. LA -0 from me.
This covers it. LA -0 for the swarm.

[Efrate]

-0 Let's move past this heap quickly.

[Blue Jay]

Bloodmote cloud, LA -0. I don't think it needs any further explanation here.

[Falontani]

Charisma: Use Charisma for anything pitting the creature’s will against an opponent: gaze attacks, charms, compulsions, or energy drain. The creature’s Charisma modifier affects the save DC for any spell-like abilities it has (no matter what form they take). Also use Charisma for any DC that normally would be based on an ability score the creature does not have. For example, undead creatures have no Constitution score, so any poison attacks they have would use Charisma to determine the save DC.

So the swarm does use it's charisma for it's distraction DC.

Does not change the rating at all though. -0

[Debatra]

Normally yes, but the book specifically says it's Con-based this time, and calculates it accordingly. Maybe some editor made a mistake there, but that's what it says and the errata is silent on it.

Edit to avoid triple-posting: And we have an unsurprising -0. See you in a little bit with the Bone Rat Swarm.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Swarms have a bunch of immunities, but also a limited ability to do anything. On the bright side, they don't need to make attack rolls, so you won't waste much of anyone else's time with your turns.

[Debatra]

Bone Rat Swarm
https://i.imgur.com/AD9OEzg.jpg

Size & Type: Tiny Undead (Swarm)
HD: 4
Speed: 15', Climb 15'
Ability Scores: Str -8, Dex +6, Con -, Int -, Wis +0, Cha -10 - Net -12, Two big penalties
Natural Armor: 0
Natural Weapons: Swarm (1d6)
Skill List: -
Body Shape: Rat Swarm
Speech (Languages): No
CR: 3
WotC LA: -
Our LA: -0

On top of half-damage from piercing and slashing that comes from being a swarm of Tiny creatures, these skeletal undead also get DR 5/bludgeoning. They're also immune to cold. Like the Bloodmote Cloud before it, the DC for a Bone Rat Swarm's Distraction ability is explicitly called out as being Con-based. But this case of specific-trumps-general will almost always work in both creatures' favor, as the normal rule Falontani mentioned above would usually backfire given the -10 to Charisma they also have in common.

They don't have anything else fancy going for them. On one hand, that's a lot more reasonable for four RHD than ten. On the other, it's probably still not worth it for a swarm that can't fly.

Compared to the normal rat swarm (which we gave -0 (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?532012-The-LA-assignment-thread-III-Now-in-HD!&p=22363894&viewfull=1#post22363894)), you get +2 Dex, -2 Wis, -1 Cha (which is effectively -2 Cha because of how the racial modifiers are calculated) change your Type from Animal to Undead (better HD, worse BAB, completely flip your saves), lose low-light vision, gain 60' Darkvision, lose your Con and filth fever, gain DR 5/B and cold immunity. Apparently all that is worth +1 CR, but is it worth getting to +0?

[Blue Jay]

When I compare the bone rat swarm to the living rat swarm, I think the biggest thing the bone rats get is the new pile of immunities for being undead. But swarm immunities already cover a lot of ground in a way that's not easy to wrap my brain around, so I'm not sure I can adequately judge how big of a difference the undead immunities will make.

The biggest thing you give up, I think, is probably Scent. The disease isn't a very effective contribution to the living swarm's toolkit, low-light vision helps in the types of situations that most DMs will probably just gloss over anyway, and Weapon Finesse is a neat bonus feat, but swarms can't really use it anyway.

The bone rat swarm is definitely a bit of an upgrade (in general) from the living rat swarm, but I still don't think it makes it to break-even territory.

I vote LA -0 for the bone rat swarm.

[Thurbane]

When I compare the bone rat swarm to the living rat swarm, I think the biggest thing the bone rats get is the new pile of immunities for being undead. But swarm immunities already cover a lot of ground in a way that's not easy to wrap my brain around, so I'm not sure I can adequately judge how big of a difference the undead immunities will make.

The biggest thing you give up, I think, is probably Scent. The disease isn't a very effective contribution to the living swarm's toolkit, low-light vision helps in the types of situations that most DMs will probably just gloss over anyway, and Weapon Finesse is a neat bonus feat, but swarms can't really use it anyway.

The bone rat swarm is definitely a bit of an upgrade (in general) from the living rat swarm, but I still don't think it makes it to break-even territory.

I vote LA -0 for the bone rat swarm.

Agreed, with all points. LA -0 from me as well.

[H_H_F_F]

It definitely deserves the CR increase, but +0 still seems farfetched. My vote is for -0.

[Caelestion]

Size & Type: Tiny Udnead (Swarm)

You have a typo in your stat-block.

As for the creature(s), it has two non-abilities, two massive penalties and it's mindless. I'm not sure that even 2 RHD would be sufficient to avoid LA -0.

[GreatWyrmGold]

On top of half-damage from piercing and slashing that comes from being a swarm of Tiny creatures, these skeletal undead also get DR 5/bludgeoning.
Out of curiosity, is there RAW for what order that goes in? If someone stabs a bone rat swarm for 10 damage, do they take two damage ([10-5]/2) or zero ([10/2]-5)?



When I compare the bone rat swarm to the living rat swarm, I think the biggest thing the bone rats get is the new pile of immunities for being undead. But swarm immunities already cover a lot of ground in a way that's not easy to wrap my brain around, so I'm not sure I can adequately judge how big of a difference the undead immunities will make.
The two sets of immunities don't overlap that much. There is some overlap—mind-affecting effects that target a single creature, for instance—but they mostly defend against different things.
But a big pile of immunities is only worthwhile if enemies have a reason to target you. Bone rats are tough, but they don't have much they can do and I'm not sure how you can advance one. A swarm's innate abilities need to be something special (or tacked onto few enough RHD that their swarm damage is still meaningful) to convince me it isn't -0.

[Debatra]

Out of curiosity, is there RAW for what order that goes in? If someone stabs a bone rat swarm for 10 damage, do they take two damage ([10-5]/2) or zero ([10/2]-5)?

Unless otherwise specified, you apply effects in whatever order is most beneficial to you. So an attack that would normally deal ten slashing and/or piercing damage does zero to a BRS.

What I'm less certain of is a mixed-damage weapon like a morningstar. For DR, the rule is clear. If the attack deals bludgeoning damage, it goes through. But the swarm trait is "half damage from slashing and piercing weapons", not "half damage except from bludgeoning weapons".

[danielxcutter]

I think I'd be okay with morningstars going through the swarm resistance, but that's not necessarily RAW I think.

[liquidformat]

Unless otherwise specified, you apply effects in whatever order is most beneficial to you. So an attack that would normally deal ten slashing and/or piercing damage does zero to a BRS.

What I'm less certain of is a mixed-damage weapon like a morningstar. For DR, the rule is clear. If the attack deals bludgeoning damage, it goes through. But the swarm trait is "half damage from slashing and piercing weapons", not "half damage except from bludgeoning weapons".

It does have damage from the piercing but full damage from the bludgeoning so it would still be full damage...

Anyways BRS might be nigh unkillable but they are also nighunusably useless so -0 LA seems fine here.

[Caelestion]

Unless otherwise specified, you apply effects in whatever order is most beneficial to you.

Really? Could you say where that principle is established?

[Debatra]

Really? Could you say where that principle is established?

I would love to... But I can't seem to find it. I'm fairly confident I didn't just make that up one day, but now I guess I can't be sure.

I've asked the Simple RAW thread. Though I don't think either answer would save this thing from the -0 pile, it's still good to know in case it matters for some future monster. (Or you know... just in general.)

[Thurbane]

I would love to... But I can't seem to find it. I'm fairly confident I didn't just make that up one day, but now I guess I can't be sure.

Yeah, I have seen this too.

I think it's something like "Apply modifiers in whichever order is most beneficial for the player" or something like that...

FAQ has some some relevant entries, FWIW (underlining mine):


When do “add-on” effects such as poison occur? For example, if an assassin delivers a death attack with a weapon bearing wyvern poison, does the poison take effect first, thus potentially reducing the target’s Fortitude save against the death attack?
As a general guideline, whenever the rules don’t stipulate an order of operations for special effects (such as spells or special abilities), you should apply them in the order that’s most beneficial to the “controller” of the effect. In this case, the assassin is the “controller” of both the poison and the death attack, so he’d most likely choose for the poison to take effect first, and then the death attack.


If a monster has resistance and vulnerability to the same kind of damage (such as fire), which effect is applied first? And when does the saving throw come in?
Always roll a saving throw before applying any effects that would increase or reduce the damage dealt. For example, if a frost giant is struck by a fireball that would deal 35 points of damage, it would roll its Reflex save, then apply its vulnerability to fire after determining how much damage the fireball would normally deal. If the save failed, the frost giant would take 52 points of damage: 35 + one-half of 35 (17.5, rounded down to 17). A successful save would mean the frost giant suffered only 25 points of damage: one-half of 35 rounded down (17), plus one-half of 17 rounded down (8).
If the creature has both resistance and vulnerability to the same kind of damage, apply the resistance (which reduces the damage dealt by the effect) before applying the vulnerability(which increases the damage taken by the creature). For example, imagine our frost giant wore a ring of minor fire resistance (granting resistance to fire 10). If the save failed, the frost giant would take 37 points of fire damage: 35 (fireball) –10 (resistance to fire 10) = 25, plus one-half of 25 (12.5, rounded down to 12). If the save succeeded, the frost giant would take only 10 points of damage: 17 (half damage from the fireball, rounded down) – 10 (resistance to fire 10) = 7, plus one-half of 7 (3.5, rounded down to 3).
As a general guideline, whenever the rules don’t stipulate an order of operations for special effects (such as spells or special abilities), you should apply them in the order that’s most beneficial to the creature. In the case of damage, this typically means applying any damage-reducing effects first, before applying any effects that would increase damage.

So going by that second entry, you would halve the damage first, then apply the DR. As usual, FAQ is generally not considered RAW, but the second, in relation to damage, tends to make sense to me.

[GreatWyrmGold]

The two FAQs quoted seem to contradict each other.

In the first, the attacker (the assassin) gets to choose whichever order is most beneficial—first poison (to weaken Fort save), then death (to murder). The victim doesn't get a choice; it would be better for them if the death effect was applied first (oddly enough), but it isn't.
In the second, the target (the frost giant) gets to choose whichever order is most beneficial—first resistance then vulnerability (which reduces the total damage taken). The caster doesn't get a choice; it would be better for them if the fire vulnerability was applied first, but it isn't.

It's hard to see how these fit into a single general rule. Either there's some distinction between "direct" effects which the attacker gets to determine activation order and indirect ones where they don't (shanking vs. fireballing); whoever has the "most special" ability chooses how it's applied (death effect trumps Fort save, fire vulnerability trumps spellcasting); or the FAQs are the result of individual people answering individual questions to fill in the gaps where centralized direction was lacking.

TL;DR: I'm not sure what, exactly, Thurbane thinks makes sense.

[TiaC]

The two FAQs quoted seem to contradict each other.

In the first, the attacker (the assassin) gets to choose whichever order is most beneficial—first poison (to weaken Fort save), then death (to murder). The victim doesn't get a choice; it would be better for them if the death effect was applied first (oddly enough), but it isn't.
In the second, the target (the frost giant) gets to choose whichever order is most beneficial—first resistance then vulnerability (which reduces the total damage taken). The caster doesn't get a choice; it would be better for them if the fire vulnerability was applied first, but it isn't.

It's hard to see how these fit into a single general rule. Either there's some distinction between "direct" effects which the attacker gets to determine activation order and indirect ones where they don't (shanking vs. fireballing); whoever has the "most special" ability chooses how it's applied (death effect trumps Fort save, fire vulnerability trumps spellcasting); or the FAQs are the result of individual people answering individual questions to fill in the gaps where centralized direction was lacking.

TL;DR: I'm not sure what, exactly, Thurbane thinks makes sense.

I think the rule that can be applied there is that each creature can apply their own abilities in whatever order works best. In the first case, it's the assassin's poison and the assassin's death attack, in the second, all the abilities belong to the frost giant, so the giant applies them in the order that's best for the giant.

[Thurbane]

TL;DR: I'm not sure what, exactly, Thurbane thinks makes sense.

Ah, I've missed our sparkling repartee...

Yes, I was unclear, I should have said I agree with the second example, which more directly relates to damage. I found that example after I'd posted the first, and should have edited better.

Also do note that it refers to "special effects (such as spells or special abilities)": I'm not sure melee damage inflicted counts as such.


I think the rule that can be applied there is that each creature can apply their own abilities in whatever order works best. In the first case, it's the assassin's poison and the assassin's death attack, in the second, all the abilities belong to the frost giant, so the giant applies them in the order that's best for the giant.

Indeed.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I think the rule that can be applied there is that each creature can apply their own abilities in whatever order works best. In the first case, it's the assassin's poison and the assassin's death attack, in the second, all the abilities belong to the frost giant, so the giant applies them in the order that's best for the giant.
Alright, that makes sense.

Let's hope we never encounter an edge case where both parties have special abilities where the order of application is relevant...

[Debatra]

Well presumably they would just control the order of their own abilities.

And either way, the Bone Rat Swarm gets another fairly easy-0. Boneyard is next up.

[danielxcutter]

Oh boy, the ginormous undead slinky. Let's see how high an LA it's going to get.

[Debatra]

Boneyard
https://i.imgur.com/gBuycYf.jpg

Size & Type: Huge Undead
HD: 17
Speed: 20', fly 60' (Good)
Ability Scores: Str +20, Dex +4, Con -, Int +8, Wis +10, Cha +8 - Net +50, no penalties
Natural Armor: 20
Natural Weapons: One Primary Bite (2d8)
Skill List: Balance, Climb, Hide, Jump, Listen, Move Silently, Search, Spot
Body Shape: Various (see below)
Speech (Languages): Yes (Common, Terran, Abyssal)
CR: 14
WotC LA: -
Our LA: +0

It can arrange the mass of bones that make up its body into just about any shape, from a harmless pile of debris to a large skeletal serpent "or some other form of its choice". Body slots, manipulative digits, etc. shouldn't be an issue. EDIT: I suppose I should have been clearer that this is not some special ability, but just the description of what it can look like. It has zero mechanical impact.

DR 10/- and fast healing 10 make for some decent durability against anything that manages to hit past its massive 20 natural armor. Cold immunity is always nice, and SR 24 is still relevant at this level, though not exactly reliable. It also has Improved Grab for Large or smaller creatures.

It's Bone Subsumption forces any creature with a skeletal structure that it bites to make a Cha-based Fortitude save or take 2d4 damage to Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution as some of its bones are pulled from its body to merge with the Boneyard. This even explicitly works on undead (which make will saves instead of Fortitude). This also feeds its Inescapable Craving for bones. Once per day it can use bones from its own mass to summon either 3-6 Troll skeletons or 2-4 Adult Red Dragon skeletons. They take 1d10 rounds to form and last an hour.

And now for the big one. Its "Utter Subsumption" ability. With three successful Grapple checks (one to establish the grapple, one to pin, and a final one to use the ability), it can instantly kill its target with no save. While one may reason that it works on undead and only creatures with a skeletal system because of Bone Subsumption, neither of those two points are made explicit in the ability's description. (Though the text does reference ripping every bone from the target's body, so you could interpret having them as a requirement.) On one hand, a no-save-just-die ability is a bit more reasonable at 17th-level than anywhere else, and Mind Flayers weren't given the asterisk for their similar Extract ability. On the other hand, Illithids seem to have dodged the asterisk (for that specific ability anyway) mainly because they aren't amazing grapplers right out of the box, and a Huge creature with +20 Str that deals Str damage does a bit better in that area than a Medium creature with +2 Str.

[danielxcutter]

Okay, this isn't actually as horrible as I imagined, but Wizard-level hit points and arguably even less utility than a Barbarian doesn't exactly sound promising. At least you're not murdering commoners by literally existing like some of the past few.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Well presumably they would just control the order of their own abilities.
No, I mean the order of abilities of different people.

Like, to pick an example that's easy to come up with and explain, a snark's acid breath deals double damage against humanoids of the (grumpkin) subtype, but the target grumpkin has a ring of acid resistance. Does the doubling apply before or after the resistance? Does the grumpkin get to decide the order, or the snark?



And now for the big one. Its "Utter Subsumption" ability. With three successful Grapple checks (one to establish the grapple, one to pin, and a final one to use the ability), it can instantly kill its target with no save. [...] On one hand, a no-save-just-die ability is a bit more reasonable at 17th-level than anywhere else, and Mind Flayers weren't given the asterisk for their similar Extract ability. On the other hand, Illithids seem to have dodged the asterisk (for that specific ability anyway) mainly because they aren't amazing grapplers right out of the box, and a Huge creature with +20 Str that deals Str damage does a bit better in that area than a Medium creature with +2 Str.
At best, you're spending three rounds to kill one target. That's not terrible, but what could a 17th-level martial character accomplish with three whole rounds? I imagine they could kill multiple smaller targets, or at least put a significant dent in a boss with three full attacks. (Not to mention that important high-level enemies can probably do something to respond to being grappled.)

I'm not sure whether the boneyard deserves a level adjustment or not. However, I can be fairly certain of two things:
1. Utter Subsumption isn't enough to be worth an asterisk at this level.
2. Utter Subsumption is probably enough to avoid a -0. Maybe not by much, but it's something distinct and useful when compared to fellow martial characters. (Obviously it sucks compared to 9th-level spells, but we only compare a 17 HD monster to that when it casts high-level spells.)

[Luccan]

I like that they speak Terran for some reason. Is it because bones are buried in a boneyard? Thus dirt, thus Earth, thus you can talk to outsiders from the Elemental Plane of Earth? IDK if 17 Undead RHD for a grappler (admittedly a decent one with a no-save kill) is worth LA. +0

[danielxcutter]

I like that they speak Terran for some reason. Is it because bones are buried in a boneyard? Thus dirt, thus Earth, thus you can talk to outsiders from the Elemental Plane of Earth? IDK if 17 Undead RHD for a grappler (admittedly a decent one with a no-save kill) is worth LA.

Frankly, if you wanted to give them a non-outsider language I can hardly think of a better one aside from maybe Draconic.

[Thurbane]

OK, lets look at this sucker:

Boneyard


Huge Undead (10 ft reach)
17 RHD (d12hp, poor BAB, 1 good save, 4 skill points/"level")
20 ft speed, fly 60 ft (good): flight is always nice.
+20 natural AC: decent.
Bite 2d8 (+ bone subsumption)
Bone subsumption: On a bite, Fort save (or will save for undead) or take 2d4 Con, Dex and Str damage. Decent rider effect. Only works on creatures with skeletal structure, but that will be a large majority of foes.
Improved grab: usual fare for large melee monsters.
Summon skeletons: once/day, create 3-6 troll skeletons, or 2-4 young adult red dragon skeletons. Takes 1d10 rounds, and they last for 1 hour. Not terrible, but also not amazing for minionmancy at this level.
Utter subsumption: auto kill enemies after a couple of grapple checks. Nice, if you can pull it off.
DR 10/-: not bad.
Darkvision 6o ft.
Fast healing 10: decent.
Immunity to cold.
Inescapable craving: for bones, satisfied by bone subsumption. You could always bite your own created skeletons, if you needed to.
SR 24: a little low for you level, and doesn't scale.
Undead traits.
Str +20, Dex +4, Con --, Int +8, Wis +10, Cha +8: net +50, one non-ability. Not bad.
Small-ish, but generally useful, skill list.

Weird, huge, body type (I'm going to slightly disagree with the chair here: the text is a bit quiet on how far their form shifting goes, and I still think you'll run into item slot issues, and possibly issues manipulating items). Can speak, which is always a plus.

It's basically bite/grapple/kill chassis. No Con to hp hurts, but DR and FH offset this a little. What really hurts is 17HD worth of poor BAB - but again, this is offset somewhat by good Str and your huge size. You are pretty much going to be a one trick pony, so maybe Swordage (or other initiator) would be your best progression. Your aiblity to "summon" skeletons is handy, but a little underpowered at your level of play.

At this point I'll vote a tentative LA +0, but I can also see -0 being more appropriate.

[danielxcutter]

Oh right, they have impenetrable DR(aside from bypassing it entirely, which isn't unheard of but not terribly common either unless your DM frequently uses ToB) and Fast Healing. I guess that's better than nothing.

Incidentally it's easy to think that these things would be mindless or at least not that smart, but they actually have good mental stats. Not like they'd be much for social interaction for the most part, but they're not dumb brutes. Smart brutes, maybe, but still.

[Blue Jay]

I'm kind of a fan of the boneyard as a creature concept, but I'm not sure the mechanics get there. The numbers aren't far off the expected (I "expect" ~+3.5 in ability boosts and +1 natural armor / level for a melee brute monster), but one melee attack is pretty bad for this level, even with the ability-damage rider effect. The skeleton summoning is kind of neat, but it's not very versatile. It grapples okay, and can grapple opponents to death (literally); but the 17 undead hit dice with poor BAB are a handicap for a grappler. It was the same problem with the hullathoin from Fiend Folio. In fact, the hullathoin and boneyard make for a very interesting comparison, because these two monsters are built with very similar premises, and have quite similar numbers. I think the hullathoin comes out on top, because it has a wider range of options, and its minionmancy is more diverse and more extensive; but the boneyard could probably hold its own in a one-on-one.

In the end, if the hullathoin couldn't make it to LA +0, I just don't think the boneyard has enough to get there either, so I'm voting LA -0 for the boneyard.

Incidentally, I have a remake of the boneyard ready, but I haven't posted it in my homebrew Bestiary thread yet, because I'm not totally satisfied with it, and I want to tinker some more. Maybe I'll get to that soon, now that we're covering it here.

[danielxcutter]

I'm kind of a fan of the boneyard as a creature concept, but I'm not sure the mechanics get there. The numbers aren't far off the expected (I "expect" ~+3.5 in ability boosts and +1 natural armor / level for a melee brute monster), but one melee attack is pretty bad for this level, even with the ability-damage rider effect. The skeleton summoning is kind of neat, but it's not very versatile. It grapples okay, and can grapple opponents to death (literally); but the 17 undead hit dice with poor BAB are a handicap for a grappler. It was the same problem with the hullathoin from Fiend Folio. In fact, the hullathoin and boneyard make for a very interesting comparison, because these two monsters are built with very similar premises, and have quite similar numbers. I think the hullathoin comes out on top, because it has a wider range of options, and its minionmancy is more diverse and more extensive; but the boneyard could probably hold its own in a one-on-one.

In the end, if the hullathoin couldn't make it to LA +0, I just don't think the boneyard has enough to get there either, so I'm voting LA -0 for the boneyard.

Incidentally, I have a remake of the boneyard ready, but I haven't posted it in my homebrew Bestiary thread yet, because I'm not totally satisfied with it, and I want to tinker some more. Maybe I'll get to that soon, now that we're covering it here.

To be fair, it only has one attack so it gets 1.5 Str on the bite and I think I remember hearing something about double PA bonuses in that case as well, although I could very well be wrong about that.

By "this level" I presume you mean the CR?

[Thurbane]

Incidentally it's easy to think that these things would be mindless or at least not that smart, but they actually have good mental stats. Not like they'd be much for social interaction for the most part, but they're not dumb brutes. Smart brutes, maybe, but still.

Yeah, I was actually quite surprised by those mental stats. This monster has "mindless brute" written all over it, from the description and fluff.

[AvatarVecna]

I don't particularly see a need for an asterisk. If we squint at existing asterisk reasons, we get two issues: one, there isn't a way in the rules to play it without immediately running into problems with the simple act of playing (like the dryad, who is hardlocked to a specific location), or there are abilities that are so powerful that them being allowed breaks campaigns while them being ignored gives up a ton of utility of the monster (anything that can grant wishes frequently enough, like efreeti). A number of monsters we've talked about so far have been the latter, where uncapped-spawning was maybe cool enough to warrant some more serious LA, but the loss of it significantly reduced the monster's appeal. The aura stuff on a few previous creatures was threatening to be the former, where it would take serious workarounds for certain common aspects of play to not be instantly rendered viable.

This bite attack isn't the former by any stretch of the imagination, and if we're being honest, it's nowhere near cool enough to count for the latter either. It's like assassins' death attack, but it can't be set-up in advance, it can't be set up from ranged, and you have to interact with the grappling rules. And Boneyard isn't good at grappling, they're just slightly better than a full BAB Medium character. But FoM doesn't care how big your bonus is, and frankly it's not even that big a bonus compared to the more serious beatstick monsters you'd be facing at lvl 17.

EDIT: Oh yeah, +0. Doesn't need an asterisk, substantially (theoretically infinitely) worse than 9th lvl casting. On the martial side...

Pros: Flight 60 (good), DR 10/-, Fast Healing 10, NA +20, big attributes across the board, undead immunities, physical ability damage on bite.

Cons: Slightly worse HP, muuuuch worse BAB. You have to either hardfocus the bite attack and hope that single attack per round is worthwhile, or you have to accept that your iteratives and damage will forever be behind. I think with the big mental attributes, and the fact that it can take feats, I could be happy-ish building this instead of a Fighter 17 but that's at least as much to do with how much I don't like building a Fighter 17.

[danielxcutter]

Yeah, one way or another I don't think that's worth an asterisk.

[Lapak]

I think I can be okay with a +0 on the Boneyard. The massive Strength bonus offsets the terrible BAB somewhat, the NA and DR and Fast Heal and Undead immunities offset the lack of CON somewhat, and the bone-eating abilities (while not amazing) are both very relevant even at high level - taking ~5 ability damage to three stats at the same time is a pretty substantial rider effect on attacks, and for once a creature whose primary ability relies on grappling has the size and strength to potentially do something with it.

It's not great, but it would be playable as the melee component of a high-level party. It squeaks over the line for me, which shocks me for something melee-based with this many Undead HD.

Also, I'm realizing that if you can give it some ability to deal with spells for a round or two (maybe even just drop Silence on it), this thing could be a hilarious way to off a demi-lich. It's undead, so no soul-trapping or paralysis will stop it from slurping up an evil skull (and the grapple check is not going to be much of a contest either.)

[danielxcutter]

I think I can be okay with a +0 on the Boneyard. The massive Strength bonus offsets the terrible BAB somewhat, the NA and DR and Fast Heal and Undead immunities offset the lack of CON somewhat, and the bone-eating abilities (while not amazing) are both very relevant even at high level - taking ~5 ability damage to three stats at the same time is a pretty substantial rider effect on attacks, and for once a creature whose primary ability relies on grappling has the size and strength to potentially do something with it.

It's not great, but it would be playable as the melee component of a high-level party. It squeaks over the line for me, which shocks me for something melee-based with this many Undead HD.

The problems are a) many monsters have even more substantial numbers in that department and b) I'm not seeing any actual numbers to back up "can keep up in melee". Remember, martial initiators have access to maneuvers like Mountain Tombstone Attack, Feral Death Blow, and War Master's Charge, let alone Time Stands Still.


Also, I'm realizing that if you can give it some ability to deal with spells for a round or two (maybe even just drop Silence on it), this thing could be a hilarious way to off a demi-lich. It's undead, so no soul-trapping or paralysis will stop it from slurping up an evil skull (and the grapple check is not going to be much of a contest either.)

Aren't demiliches immune to virtually every spell that's SR: Yes? I suppose you could use the area version... still doesn't help with the phylactery, though. If we're talking about humiliating and surprisingly effective ways, of course... just trap it in an AMF. Demilich flight is (Su), so it literally won't be able to do anything without specifically preparing against that.

[liquidformat]

Ugh I really wish WotC actually gave it a concrete shape change ability rather than just toss it into the text and let us do what we want with it. The power of this creature swings wildly as to how much stock you put into the line 'a boneyard’s form is fluid in the sense that it can appear merely as a pile of bones, or as a serpent composed of bones, or some other form of its choice.' At the very least boneyard should be getting a decent hide bonus while it is a pile of bones, also can it move or do anything as said pile of bones? How much can it change its shape are we talking any creature you can imagine it can become, any monster in the game with bones is a valid choice? Something else?

If I am getting 'the form of my choice' I choose a monster with 12 hydra heads on a body similar to a Marilith but with, how about 20 arms? Yeah that sounds reasonable....

So the real question here is how much weight should be put into 'form of its choice' that theoretically gives freedom to having an infinite number of natural weapons. If I am allowed to change my form into anything that has bones I am choosing hydra to maximize my Bone subsumption ability and probably arms for doors and iteratives too.

I personally think that this thing is on the level of Formian Taskmaster and should probably have an asterisk because the way you decide to handle its 'fluid form' can have a massive swing on its power level. If we completely ignore the 'fluid form' ability as just fluff text I think boneyard is -0 and doesn't quite make it to par for 17 rhd since you are missing a lot of item slots, the ability to do things that require manipulators like open doors, undead are a crappy base for melee beat sticks, and this thing has no turn res which makes it extra squishy to enemy turning and rebuking which is a huge concern. From there it really depends on how much power and versatility you allow the form changing ability to have. I will go with -0* LA I can see an argument for +0* but I don't think it gets there.

Utter subsumption doesn't seem like an issue to me, its going to take three rounds minimum to use Utter subsumption which in and of itself is a long time to be focused on one enemy in combat. Most other builds even beat sticks at this level should be able to take one enemy out of play per round at this level of play. Furthermore, anyone with freedom of movement is not a valid target which is pretty common at this level. Also with boneyards crappy bab the only reason grappling is a valid option is one it has an ok str bonus/size and two Bone subsumption is helping you bump up from a ok grappler to good grappler.

[InvisibleBison]

I'm not seeing any actual numbers to back up "can keep up in melee". Remember, martial initiators have access to maneuvers like Mountain Tombstone Attack, Feral Death Blow, and War Master's Charge, let alone Time Stands Still.

Ok, let's run some numbers.

A PC boneyard can be reasonably assumed to have a base Strength of 16, and a belt of giant strength +6, for a total Strength of 42. With its base bite, it's doing 2d8+24 damage; with a mouthpick greatsword, it's doing 4d6+25, and can make two attacks on a full attack.

An orc warblade is going to have 31 Strength (16 base + 4 racial + 5 levels + 6 enhancement). He's got a permanent enlarge person effect, and attacks for 3d6+16 with a +1 greatsword (he could have a more powerful weapon, but so could the boneyard). Alternatively, he can perform strikes; as a standard action he's got greater insightful strike, or as a full-round action he's got time stands still (he can only know one 9th level maneuver).

The warblade clearly has a higher maximum damage, but a lot of that is locked behind lower iteratives. How would the two compare to CR 17 enemies? The highest AC of a non-true dragon CR 17 creature in the Monster Manual is 29. The boneyard has an attack of +24 with its bite or +25/+20 with its mouthpick greatsword; the warblade has an attack bonus of +28/+23/+18/+13 and a Concentration bonus of at least +28. We can now compute the average damage:




Standard action
Full-round action


Boneyard (bite)
26.4
26.4


Boneyard (mouthpick)
33.15
33.15


Warblade
100.7
129.85



In short, the warblade has way better damage, even before we consider how he's better equipped to use Power Atttack, or how higher levels of optimization favor the guy who can take prestige classes over the guy with 17 RHD. So I think the boneyard merits LA -0.

[danielxcutter]

Does upgrading the weapon to +5 favor the boneyard or the warblade? Also, not entirely sure about the permanent Enlarge Person thing. Is Mind Blank common enough at that level for mind-affecting buffs to not really be used? There are some nice undead-specific buffs, but I doubt they're good enough to tip the balance in the boneyard's favor.

[H_H_F_F]

I feel like saying +0, but I think that might just be bias from so many terrible ones in a row, so something that even approaches being capable at its own ECL seems enticing. Will have to think on that one.