The LA-assignment Thread IV: Live Free or Hit Die Hard

[Covenant12]

Concur, Bloodstriker -0.




Concur, Fleshraker +0. Better as a wildshape/polymorph form, though. Oooh ... Were-Fleshrakers.

Seconded on both. Really think Fleshraker does fine not just at T4, but T3 as well. Bit limited out of the gate, but when its shtick does well it really does well. Can take something to dex 0 in a charge, or just pin the thing. Psychic warrior (expansion) or ToB classes both are solid progression if you can get around the sub-3 int issue. 4 bad rhd aren't fun, but 3/4 BAB that isn't crippling and the stats make up for it.

[javcs]

Oddities in the fleshraker's mechanics:

• In Leaping Pounce, it says the Trip attempt doesn't provoke AoOs, but it doesn't say that about the Grapple check. It also doesn't exempt you from having to make a touch attack before the Grapple.
• I've usually interpreted the rules for rake attacks during a Pounce as still requiring you to establish a grapple during your Pounce attack, which means you need Improved Grab. The fleshraker is one of the few creatures (along the griffin and the sphinxes) that gets Pounce+Rake without Improved Grab, which is really confusing to me.
• Also, the fleshraker (like the tiger) seems to have gotten approval to waive the BAB requirement for Improved Natural Attack. This is funny, because there is an errata entry for Improved Natural Attack (not related to this issue), and immediately after it, there is an entry about correcting monsters that don't meet the BAB requirement for Weapon Finesse.

Honestly, I'm not sure why any stock monster statblock would have Improved Natural Attack in the first place - just give it the damage, and use the feat slot for something else - that way, INA is still available as an option for advancement/improvement.


Rake attacks are only useable during a Pounce-granted full-attack that allows one or more rakes as part of it or during a grapple. Though, normally, rakes get a description, and you get two rakes during a Pounce (unlike the Fleshraker's one rake); and, usually, during a Pounce you'll get attacks that trigger Improved Grab.


It's possible that somebody dropped the ball and Fleshrakers were supposed to have Improved Grab, or somebody screwed up and omitted details on their bonus grapple attempt.

[Blue Jay]

Honestly, I'm not sure why any stock monster statblock would have Improved Natural Attack in the first place - just give it the damage, and use the feat slot for something else - that way, INA is still available as an option for advancement/improvement.


Rake attacks are only useable during a Pounce-granted full-attack that allows one or more rakes as part of it or during a grapple. Though, normally, rakes get a description, and you get two rakes during a Pounce (unlike the Fleshraker's one rake); and, usually, during a Pounce you'll get attacks that trigger Improved Grab.


It's possible that somebody dropped the ball and Fleshrakers were supposed to have Improved Grab, or somebody screwed up and omitted details on their bonus grapple attempt.

Yeah, the natural attack rules could have been clarified a lot more. I thought I finally understood it all, but it seems there are always monsters that don't follow whatever rules I thought I'd figured out.

Rakes without grappling seems sketchy to me. Mechanically speaking, if you were allowed to ignore the usual grapple requirement for a rake attack when pouncing, I would have expected some language explicitly stating the exemption, because that's how the "exception-based" rules are supposed to work. Since there isn't a specific exception stated, I'd concluded that the grapple step was still required.

But then, flying pouncers seem to generally lack Improved Grab, yet they still can make rake attacks while pouncing, so that really strains my interpretation of the rules.

I think I would have preferred it if the Pounce concept had been designed as more of a "Tackle" mechanic: a mechanic that fits somewhere between Bull Rush, Trip and Grapple (which is guess is what they're trying to do with the fleshraker's Leaping Pounce). I also feel like they could have ignored the whole "rake" thing for griffins and sphinxes, and just said those creatures can make four claw attacks in an airborne full attack.

-----

I don't really build uber-chargers, so I'm not all that familiar with all the options; but how does a fleshraker actually stack up against a good charger, like a centaur or minotaur? Pounce with three natural attacks, a rake, poison and the Trip/Grapple combo is pretty nice, but they're Medium size and don't get the damage multipliers you get with a lance or a minotaur's gore. They can still take all the feats and get some Skirmish damage, though. Does the "claw-claw-bite" restriction set the fleshraker back significantly as a charger?

[ExLibrisMortis]

Rakes without grappling seems sketchy to me.

Default rule (Monster Manual glossary) says that Pounce lets you make Rake attacks. That's under Pounce, not under Rake, so it's stupidly organized, but the rule is pretty clear.

Incidentally, the Rake rules say you can't start a grapple and Rake on the same turn.

Concur with +0 for the fleshraker, by the way.

[Blue Jay]

Default rule (Monster Manual glossary) says that Pounce lets you make Rake attacks.

I'm aware of that, but it still doesn't have any language exempting the rake attacks from their normal rules. Compare to things like Improved Grab, where the text explicitly lays out the exceptions to the normal grapple rules: "as a free action," and "without provoking attacks of opportunity," and "no initial touch attack is required." Other examples are the Trip ability (hyenas and wolves) and the Push ability (earth elementals). There's no comparable language in the Pounce text that lays out exceptions to the normal rake rules (except, of course, for the explicit exception to the "must begin your turn grappling" rule).

Note that the Rules Compendium update does explicitly say that raking on a Pounce attack still requires a grapple.

But obviously, the existence of monsters like the fleshraker hint at either a RAI exception that didn't make it into RAW, or a disparity in design assumptions of some kind. Or, it could be that the pouncers that lack Improved Grab were intended to make their normal natural attacks, then use their BAB iterative(s) to make grapple attempts to unlock rake attacks. This logic works for griffins and sphinxes, which have high enough BAB to make an extra iterative attack, but it doesn't make sense for the fleshraker, whose BAB is only +3.

Personally, I'd just give the fleshraker Improved Grab, just because it makes more sense that way (Leaping Pounce is basically similar to Improved Grab, except that it uses a special Trip attempt instead of a natural attack to unlock the free grapple).

[GreatWyrmGold]

I mean, it's D&D. They've got dinosaurs walking around in the present day: if anything neanderthals and dinosaurs together would be more historically accurate.

1. Neanderthals are less than a million years closer to dinosaurs. We're basically equidistant for all practical purposes.
2. Dungeons and Dragons has dragons. That historical inaccuracy alone outweighs dinosaurs by a large margin; at least some roughly-human-sized theropods lived alongside early humans (even if they're ostriches). And don't get me started on the abundance of nigh-untouched ancient ruins still full of treasure...though I guess the abundance of undead and other monsters probably dissuades most grave-robbers.
3. Fun fact, T. rex and H. sapiens together is more historically accurate than T. rex and any dinosaur from before the Cretaceous. (Or Berriasian epoch dinosaurs like Siamotyrannus, and yes I looked that up while checking my period boundaries.)

Personally, I'd just give the fleshraker Improved Grab, just because it makes more sense that way (Leaping Pounce is basically similar to Improved Grab, except that it uses a special Trip attempt instead of a natural attack to unlock the free grapple).

And the full-attack-on-charge thing.

[javcs]

Yeah, the natural attack rules could have been clarified a lot more. I thought I finally understood it all, but it seems there are always monsters that don't follow whatever rules I thought I'd figured out.

Rakes without grappling seems sketchy to me. Mechanically speaking, if you were allowed to ignore the usual grapple requirement for a rake attack when pouncing, I would have expected some language explicitly stating the exemption, because that's how the "exception-based" rules are supposed to work. Since there isn't a specific exception stated, I'd concluded that the grapple step was still required.

But then, flying pouncers seem to generally lack Improved Grab, yet they still can make rake attacks while pouncing, so that really strains my interpretation of the rules.

I think I would have preferred it if the Pounce concept had been designed as more of a "Tackle" mechanic: a mechanic that fits somewhere between Bull Rush, Trip and Grapple (which is guess is what they're trying to do with the fleshraker's Leaping Pounce). I also feel like they could have ignored the whole "rake" thing for griffins and sphinxes, and just said those creatures can make four claw attacks in an airborne full attack.

-----

I don't really build uber-chargers, so I'm not all that familiar with all the options; but how does a fleshraker actually stack up against a good charger, like a centaur or minotaur? Pounce with three natural attacks, a rake, poison and the Trip/Grapple combo is pretty nice, but they're Medium size and don't get the damage multipliers you get with a lance or a minotaur's gore. They can still take all the feats and get some Skirmish damage, though. Does the "claw-claw-bite" restriction set the fleshraker back significantly as a charger?

Pounce and Rake is normally phrased as:
"When making a charge attack, you may instead take a full attack action, including two rake attacks."
As part of the description for Pounce.

Or something along those lines, IIRC.




As for how the fleshraker compares ... it doesn't scale as well as the weapon users, but it does have a reasonably strong starting point - better, in some ways than the weapon users. It is also significantly better against targets it can poison than those it cannot.
As for the Trip/Grapple combo bonus ... it's likely wasted on a proper ubercharger - my understanding is that an ubercharger worth the name should be one rounding pretty much anything it charges, and anything it can't take out in the Pounce is probably going to be able to ignore the Trip and Grapple combo.

[Blue Jay]

And the full-attack-on-charge thing.

Oh yeah, that too.

I was trying to use "just" to mean "simply" (as in "just use the basic rule, instead of quibbling niche rules like I've been doing"), and not to mean "only" (as in "just give them Improved Grab, and nothing else").

But, sorry: I always cause tangents when I post on this thread.

Fleshraker, LA +0. Done.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I'm aware of that, but it still doesn't have any language exempting the rake attacks from their normal rules. [...]

Note that the Rules Compendium update does explicitly say that raking on a Pounce attack still requires a grapple.

I'd say the Pounce glossary entry is an exception in itself. Likewise, Leaping Pounce is an exception in itself. It tells you what checks you have to make, in order, and what that results in. There's nothing to be confused by.

The Rules Compendium, however, I hadn't looked at, and the change from MM rules is confusing, because the original rules worked just fine, and it does make sphinxes and griffins weird. My first instinct is to trash the RC change and just run the MM, which is the easiest fix, and you can argue that the specific monster abilities aren't overwritten by the generic RC version anyway (a stupid argument to make, but not wrong). But, if you have to use the RC version, it's still clear what happens. Sphinxes and griffins have to spend an attack to gain two attacks. Apparently, they're good at mauling things once they have a hold, but their way of getting a hold isn't especially damaging (as it is for creatures with Improved Grab).

Personally, I'd just give the fleshraker Improved Grab, just because it makes more sense that way (Leaping Pounce is basically similar to Improved Grab, except that it uses a special Trip attempt instead of a natural attack to unlock the free grapple).

I wouldn't give fleshrakers Improved Grab. First, it's not needed, because Leaping Pounce isn't confusing. Second, Improved Grab lets you start a grapple, even with an attack of opportunity while prone; Leaping Pounce requires a charge plus arguably a high ceiling and results in a pin, which is totally different.

[Blue Jay]

I'd say the Pounce glossary entry is an exception in itself. Likewise, Leaping Pounce is an exception in itself. It tells you what checks you have to make, in order, and what that results in. There's nothing to be confused by.

I don't understand your perspective on this. It sounds like you're making a RAW argument, but it's pretty clear that it's not actually written the way you say it works: you have to infer designer intent from context, rather then from the actual wording. Specific exceptions are always explicitly stated. But, in the case of Pounce, they are not stated: it doesn't say, "including two rake attacks (no initial grapple check is required)": it just says "including two rake attacks." The exception simply is not stated, so you have to assume that the usual rules for rake attacks still apply in this context.

The Rules Compendium, however, I hadn't looked at, and the change from MM rules is confusing, because the original rules worked just fine, and it does make sphinxes and griffins weird.

I believe the RC update is just a clarification of the rules as they were originally intended. But, RC isn't universally regarded as a "primary source," so it's not clear whether it really supports my argument or not. And the existence of counter-examples just makes it a bigger mess for me.

My first instinct is to trash the RC change and just run the MM, which is the easiest fix, and you can argue that the specific monster abilities aren't overwritten by the generic RC version anyway (a stupid argument to make, but not wrong). But, if you have to use the RC version, it's still clear what happens. Sphinxes and griffins have to spend an attack to gain two attacks. Apparently, they're good at mauling things once they have a hold, but their way of getting a hold isn't especially damaging (as it is for creatures with Improved Grab).

I can't really think of a good reason why griffins, sphinxes and fleshrakers don't have Improved Grab, so my fix would be to just give them Improved Grab, for the sake of conformity.

I wouldn't give fleshrakers Improved Grab. First, it's not needed, because Leaping Pounce isn't confusing. Second, Improved Grab lets you start a grapple, even with an attack of opportunity while prone; Leaping Pounce requires a charge plus arguably a high ceiling and results in a pin, which is totally different.

Well, I wouldn't want to take away the Leaping Pounce ability and replace it with Improved Grab: I'd just add Improved Grab into the existing stat block. But I don't really like niche rules like this. I can't think of a good reason why this should be a fleshraker-exclusive ability, or why the fleshraker's special ability should be modeled with its own special rules while monsters like constrictor snakes just use generic rules to model their uniquely specialized abilities.

-----

I'm kind of interested in talking more about the theory behind special-attack mechanics (as well as possible house rules or homebrew fixes/modifications), but we're clearly off-topic here. If I started another thread on this, would you be interested in joining me there?

[Inevitability]

Dinosaur, Swindlespitter

Last of the MM3 dinosaurs is the 2 RHD, small-sized swindlespitter (which by the way is a very overlooked druid companion that is definitely interesting at low levels).

The chassis is pretty okay. 2 RHD aren't that bad, 20 dexterity sure is nice, the mental stats are surprisingly high, and the two bonus feats (Mobility and Weapon Finesse) don't hurt either. The special qualities are Uncanny Dodge, Darkvision, and Scent, which all have their uses. The dinosaur also gets small racial bonuses to Spot and Listen, as well as Hide and Move Silently while in a forest.

The swindlespitter has one natural weapon, a beak (which isn't the same as a bite and doesn't benefit from the same support). Furthermore, swindlespitters have the ability to breathe a sizeable cone of poison mist once per 1d4 rounds, which causes blindness for several minutes (the secondary effect being minor constitution damage).

Given that a fair argument can be made for swindlespitters having functional hands, I'll assign +0 LA. Progressing this creature may be a bit tricky, but it's got a fairly good early-game ability and leaves a lot of room for class levels: something functional can be made out of it.

[DeTess]

I'm hardly and expert, but that poison mist ability looks pretty nasty for only 2HD, especially since it's almost at-will. Lack of ways to hold weapons hurt this guy, and apparently mouth-pick weapons are only for creatures with a bite attack, which this guy seemingly doesn't have.

In a low-level campaign (till about level 5-6), this guy would be pretty great I think, and definitely +0, but after that the fact that he can't get easy iteratives and stuff justify a -0.

[Nifft]

Dinosaur, Swindlespitter

Last of the MM3 dinosaurs is the 2 RHD, small-sized swindlespitter (which by the way is a very overlooked druid companion that is definitely interesting at low levels).

The chassis is pretty okay. 2 RHD aren't that bad, 20 dexterity sure is nice, the mental stats are surprisingly high, and the two bonus feats (Mobility and Weapon Finesse) don't hurt either. The special qualities are Uncanny Dodge, Darkvision, and Scent, which all have their uses. The dinosaur also gets small racial bonuses to Spot and Listen, as well as Hide and Move Silently while in a forest.

The swindlespitter has one natural weapon, a beak (which isn't the same as a bite and doesn't benefit from the same support). Furthermore, swindlespitters have the ability to breathe a sizeable cone of poison mist once per 1d4 rounds, which causes blindness for several minutes (the secondary effect being minor constitution damage).

To be honest, the swindlespitter seems somewhat underwhelming to me. It eats 2 HD, doesn't have opposable thumbs, and lacks a reliable combat routine. Considering all this, I'll assign it -0 LA for now, though I'm considering +0.

I think it's really weird that you assume mindless creatures will be playable (i.e. the consequences of mindlessness can be ignored), but you take a pessimistic hardline on opposable thumbs.

The flavor text even talks about "a pair of dexterous grasping hands", so you're doing this in active opposition to the text.

What's your justification for that?


Anyway, since it has two hands and a "whip-like tail", it can do all sorts of handsy things, and whips have a range of 15 ft. so clearly it can make melee touch attacks at 15 ft. range which makes it a brilliant spellcaster choice.

Verdict: LA +1, come at me.

[zergling.exe]

I think it's really weird that you assume mindless creatures will be playable (i.e. the consequences of mindlessness can be ignored), but you take a pessimistic hardline on opposable thumbs.

The flavor text even talks about "a pair of dexterous grasping hands", so you're doing this in active opposition to the text.

What's your justification for that?


Anyway, since it has two hands and a "whip-like tail", it can do all sorts of handsy things, and whips have a range of 15 ft. so clearly it can make melee touch attacks at 15 ft. range which makes it a brilliant spellcaster choice.

Verdict: LA +1, come at me.

Grasping =/= Manipulating. It can hold, but not use, items.

[Jormengand]

Grasping =/= Manipulating.

Yeah, but "Dextrous" generally refers to having a level of skill with the hands, and if a hand can grasp a longsword, then it can almost certainly manipulate it into someone's face.

Blindness for several minutes is a SoL, and the fact that it automatically gets a feat that rogues will quite want (especially with that +10 dex) makes me inclined to agree with +1, especially if the swindlespitter uses its three sneak attacks to good effect ("beak attack, bitch!").

[Inevitability]

I think it's really weird that you assume mindless creatures will be playable (i.e. the consequences of mindlessness can be ignored), but you take a pessimistic hardline on opposable thumbs.

The flavor text even talks about "a pair of dexterous grasping hands", so you're doing this in active opposition to the text.

What's your justification for that?

Intelligence is relatively easy to 'fix'. Non-animals with 2 intelligence can just put a 11 in the stat and end up with sapience, while animals just have to use one of the various type-changing templates, rituals, or other features. Truly mindless creatures are worse off, but can still be made playable with just one small addition (Fiendish/Celestial).

However, gaining new limbs, or substantially altering their function, is quite difficult. There's grafts, but those are expensive, rare, and sometimes alignment-impacting. Other than that, I'm not sure of any ways to get opposable thumbs.

And as someone already mentioned, grasping and carrying does not equal 'being able to use'.

[ViperMagnum357]

Swindlespitter: 2 RHD, 30ft speed at Small, +2 Natural AC, net +12 abilities, good senses (Darkvision, Low-Light Vision, Scent), +4-8 skills, 2 bonus feats (mediocre but common prereqs), Uncanny Dodge, 1 natural attack and 1 special attack which is rather solid-small cone every 1d4 rounds, and Blindness for 2d4 minutes/1d4 Con damage is no joke.

On the other hand, -8 Int, no hands, and even no bite attack make this a very steep incline to a playable character, and the RHD being Animal are a hindrance. Kind of torn-picking one of a couple of select templates can mostly fix the Int issue, and the actual chassis is pretty solid for only 2 RHD. That said, no hands + no bite attack leave me wondering where you are supposed to go from here-there are magical workarounds for manipulation, but the benefits are slanted towards a physical build with no good attack routine to speak of.

I will assign an LA of -0 primarily for lack of options-if someone can come up with a decent way to gain a respectable attack routine, I would consider LA +0, based on the decent chassis.

[Nifft]

Grasping =/= Manipulating. It can hold, but not use, items.

Grasping is a behavioral note, just as dexterous is a generalization. If you take 20 points of dexterity damage, you cannot flavor-lawyer that block to mean you're still dexterous. Until the Dex damage gets healed, you are not currently dexterous.

Likewise, it's invalid to think that "grasping" is the limit to the utility of the hands. Grasping is just the usual behavior. It's not required to only ever grasp.

The one takeaway which we cannot deny as pure flavor is that it has hands.


I mean, unless you can come up with a citation that all humanoids / giants / tool-using monsters have hands which are explicitly described as "manipulating"? Can you? I suspect you cannot.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Swindlespitters are hard to hit, but don't exactly deal a lot of damage. Poison Spray is nice, but I'm not sure you can make it stick at high levels. I do think 'hands' is enough of a qualification for them to use items--most creatures are described as having claws or paws, this is something more.

Early in the game, I'd say they're about even with a 2nd-level t4 class. Later in the game, I think they're going to be starved for skill points (-8 INT can kill your hopes of entering many PrCs), and the benefits of Poison Spray are going to be played out. At that point, I'd sooner award them -0, just for being way more trouble than +10 DEX is worth.

[...] you have to infer designer intent from context, rather then from the actual wording.

Designer intent is always from context. Very few rules have an explanation of just why the rule is the way it is (and when there is, it's nonsense as often as not); you just need to know how to play it.

I'm kind of interested in talking more about the theory behind special-attack mechanics (as well as possible house rules or homebrew fixes/modifications), but we're clearly off-topic here. If I started another thread on this, would you be interested in joining me there?

Sure.

[Celestia]

I think the mention of having hands is enough to declare that they do. Any DM willing to let you play a dinosaur is almost certainly lenient enough to let you play a dinosaur with hands when it says they have hands.

Regardless, I don't think that is near enough to make them +1. Dex is nice, but not nice enough. (Autocorrect changed 'dex' to 'sex,' and I was so tempted to keep it for the lulz.)

Final verdict: +0 with hands, -0 without hands

[Nifft]

("beak attack, bitch!").

I'm envious of your wit.

Also, good point (the snipped part).

Intelligence is relatively easy to 'fix'. Non-animals with 2 intelligence can just put a 11 in the stat and end up with sapience, while animals just have to use one of the various type-changing templates, rituals, or other features. Truly mindless creatures are worse off, but can still be made playable with just one small addition (Fiendish/Celestial).

However, gaining new limbs, or substantially altering their function, is quite difficult. There's grafts, but those are expensive, rare, and sometimes alignment-impacting. Other than that, I'm not sure of any ways to get opposable thumbs.

Celestial and Fiendish both also have alignment impact, and are far more expensive than a graft or item at LA +2. But if you think LA +2 is cheap, then the Obah-Blessed template grants 2 arms for that same price (plus other perks).

Type-changing rituals are way more expensive & rare than grafts, since those rituals are from one obscure and disliked book from 3.0e, while grafts span several books are have significantly more support across 3.5e. You're assuming that a rare and weird thing is common, and a common thing is rare.

Grafts are a cheap way for a handless monster to get hands, but magic items do exist (including Arms of the Naga, Hands of Man, and Spare Hand).


The Swindlespitter already has hands so she doesn't need any such grafting, but in general your stance is self-contradictory, and your strange bias against assuming that thumbs exist has a noticeable and negative impact on the quality of LAs.

Let the clever girls be clever.

I think the mention of having hands is enough to declare that they do. Any DM willing to let you play a dinosaur is almost certainly lenient enough to let you play a dinosaur with hands when it says they have hands.

Regardless, I don't think that is near enough to make them +1. Dex is nice, but not nice enough. (Autocorrect changed 'dex' to 'sex,' and I was so tempted to keep it for the lulz.)

+10 Dex might not be enough, but they also get +2 Natural Armor (meh), Scent, Uncanny Dodge (uncapped, which is better than what a Rogue or Barbarian get), a save-or-lose area attack, darkvision & low-light vision, and two bonus feats.

They get class features which are comparable to what 2 levels of a real class could get.

[Dimers]

I realize the vote is irrelevant at this point, but I'd have to say +1 for fleshraker. That creature would be wrecking face compared to many 5th-level characters.

+0 for the swindlespitter.

[Zaq]

I'm pretty much on board with fleshrakers being +0, though I'm never entirely comfortable with INT -8. Still, they have enough tricks packed into a small enough package of RHD that I'm willing to buy them as nontraditional brawlers of some stripe. Just hope you don't need more than 1 skill to get into whatever PrC you want.

Swindlespitters don't impress me that much. If it were just the RHD, I'd call them underwhelming but give an overall +0, because 2 RHD, while pretty bad compared to actual class levels, isn't as bad as some of the other stuff we've seen. But 2 RHD and -8 INT is a pretty nasty cost for the return on investment. Uncanny Dodge is a surprisingly nice touch, but the poison cone doesn't seem like it has the potential to scale very well (your CON will increase slower than enemy saves will). I guess the two bonus feats are kind of interesting? Weapon Finesse is just a tax, but it is indeed a tax for a high-DEX low-STR character, so that's better than nothing. Most of the stuff that requires Mobility as a prereq spells out that it also needs Dodge as a prereq, so at best you're really only saving one feat there; this isn't the absolute worst cookie that can be thrown to you, but I'm still not really impressed.

Maybe I just need to see more dumb Rogues, but normally I think of small and dodgy characters as being just as interested in skills as in attacks, so I think that's why I'm being so pessimistic about the swindlespitter. It's weird for me to think of a small DEX-heavy character as being significantly slower at learning than an ogre, so I have a hard time seeing what you could really do with your swindlespitter character. I don't see the non-INT mental stats as castery enough to make up for the loss of 2 CL, so I'm kind of defaulting to non-caster classes, but again, small and DEX-heavy usually defaults to skillmonkey. So maybe I'm just a victim of my own preconceived notions, but I don't see what you'd really do with the character. I usually am all about playing against type when you've got an interesting character in mind, but playing against type is a spectrum, and losing 4 skill points per level is a massive hit to optimization if you're making something that cares at all about skills.

I guess you could do an Incarnate-style skillmonkey, since they rely almost entirely on their melds rather than on their actual skill ranks? I could see a swindlespitter Incarnate being weird enough to be interesting. And I suppose that DEX-based Fighter-types or even Barbarian-types are kind of a thing, even if they aren't usually my jam. Swordsages have enough combat mojo that, while hampered by the loss of INT and loss of skills, they aren't losing what feels like half the character. So I suppose that there are still some options out there for a swindlespitter. I guess I can accept a +0. I don't really like it much and I don't think you're likely to come out ahead for your investment, but it's probably not bad enough to be put in the same box as, well, all the other -0s out there.

[No brains]

I'm aware this is not a fun part of this thread, but the precise motor movements of hands shouldn't be an issue. Technically anything without a human's shoulders can't throw weapon as well even if they have similar hands and it takes far different levels of manipulation to wield a sword/ shoot a crossbow. Even humans with less than five fingers can't use a katana perfectly. How close do we have to call this?

Not to mention, swindlespitters are not real. We don't have fossil evidence to say what their hands can do one way or another. We have tons of historical evidence that baboons did not take up arms, become a great power, and conquer Germany, but if we let one use a sword in a children's board game, that's funny and awesome. Likewise, being a little swashbucking barf raptor makes a session fun just by existing. If a crunchy-handed thri-kreen can wield weapons, I say let the dinosaur try!

Of course, this could be grounds for an asterisk or something similar, given that it's gonna be up to individual DMs whether the dino can use a given implement.

[Efrate]

Maybe swindlespitter can be a setting sun swordsage? Unarmed of course. All that dex and the dex over strength hrows and bonuses for small size is nice. You can reasonably start with 26 dex in standard point buy, which is great. Skills mean you won't likely prc out but tob classes are very playable 1 to 20.

I agree on plus 0, a first level swordsage one of these I think fits in fine with a party of lvl3s. Damage won't be insane but the huge to hit means you will be very consistent for quite a while until maneuvers pick up slack for damage, and despite the lack of skillpoints, scent and plus 8 hide and ms from just dex does alright as a sneak at 3.

[Nifft]

I'm aware this is not a fun part of this thread, but the precise motor movements of hands shouldn't be an issue. Technically anything without a human's shoulders can't throw weapon as well even if they have similar hands and it takes far different levels of manipulation to wield a sword/ shoot a crossbow. Even humans with less than five fingers can't use a katana perfectly. How close do we have to call this?

Not to mention, swindlespitters are not real. We don't have fossil evidence to say what their hands can do one way or another. We have tons of historical evidence that baboons did not take up arms, become a great power, and conquer Germany but if we let one use a sword in a children's board game, that's funny and awesome. Likewise, being a little swashbucking barf raptor makes a session fun just by existing. If a crunchy-handed thri-kreen can wield weapons, I say let the dinosaur try!

Just as a reference point, this is the level of physiological accuracy that I expect to see in D&D:



So far I have not been disappointed.

[liquidformat]

Honestly given the description of having dexterous grasping hands and having slight of hands as a skill for its RHD, I think we can safely assume this little guy has 'functional hands'.(that is more than the monkies, apes, and baboons had and we said they have hands...) Just based on the description of slight of hands in the PHB and other books we should be making the conclusion that anything capable of doing disappearing coil tricks and other such things with its 'hands' should be able to use wands, swords, and other such equipment just fine.

Also this little guy makes an interesting druid or cleric with its +6 wis and +4 cha, heck as long as it gets decent rolls on awakening it would even make an interesting cha based caster too. If serpent kingdom is allowed this little guy pretty much has an acid breath weapon usable every 1-4 rounds that can be used most of the day just off of a single casting. They also seem like they would be a nice swordsage. Once you get over the hump of gaining sentience and especially if you gain it through awaken Swindlespitters are quite an interesting to work with.

+0 LA

[javcs]

They're the Kender of Dinosaurs.

The Swindlespitter also has an unexplained +4 to Hide, presuming its 5 skill points went into Sleight of Hand.


I'm going to go with +0* - for the cone of Fort or Blindness.

[Lapak]

Sleight of Hand convinces me that they have functional hands, and that is enough for me to vote +0 considering I was already on the fence and thinking about viable handless builds using Totemist or Unarmed Swordsage.

[Inevitability]

Celestial and Fiendish both also have alignment impact, and are far more expensive than a graft or item at LA +2. But if you think LA +2 is cheap, then the Obah-Blessed template grants 2 arms for that same price (plus other perks).

To focus on this part: Fiendish and Celestial are both +1 LA in any game that uses this thread's ratings (and if it doesn't, chances are you can't play a swindlespitter). Furthermore, Obah-Blessed is Dungeon magazine, and therefore very commonly not allowed.

That said, having read some of the arguments in this thread I now agree with the notion that swindlespitters have hands. +0 LA, which hopefully should satisfy most people.