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

[Flickerdart]

Zceryll binders have summons and also an entire class. This thing just has summons. I can't in good conscience rate it as above -0 but I agree that it needs an asterisk since any minion-slinging can get very broken.

[ViperMagnum357]

Practiced Spellcaster only gets you Caster Levels back. It won't do anything for all the lost Spellcaster Levels you've lost that give you access to new spell levels and spells per day. So it can give you some straight numbers back, but none of the fun stuff.

That was my point about ECL 32-in my example, you need twenty levels in the Sorcerer class or full advancement PRCs to gain your total spell allotment, which the Grimweird would not gain until ECL 32: with 12 RHD + 20 levels in caster. Practiced Spellcaster only reduces the gap of caster level from 12 to 8, placing the Grimweird 8 levels behind even in mid-epic when it finishes its allotment. Before that, it is even weaker, missing portions of its spell allotment through the low epic levels where a full caster has already received their full per-day complement.

[Zaq]

It actually takes a shockingly small adjustment to RAW to allow grimweirds to get into Fiendbinder, actually. SLAs can qualify you for PrCs that require you to be able to cast a specific spell, just not for PrCs that require a certain level of spells. Fiendbinder requires the specific spell Summon Monster IV and has no other actual casting-related demands. By the strictest RAW, Summon Monster VI is not Summon Monster IV, but like I said, it's only a very tiny adjustment to allow it to work.

You'd need to take Truename Training to get the requisite ranks in Truespeak, and you don't have casting to directly advance, but you'd get access to various bound fiends that you could order around (sure, it's less action-efficient than traditional summons, but what else is a grimweird spending its standard actions on when it's waiting for its native summon SLA to recharge?). You're still a little bit behind the power curve (and you still have to deal with Truespeak), but it's probably better than just starting with level 1 of Sorcerer or something.

Sure, finding one very specific edge case for a class to take isn't that big of a deal and might not change the rating, but it's worth discussing.

[GreatWyrmGold]

[CENTER]Web Golem
The golem's DR, fast healing, and adhesive ability would all be rather useful... if there was any reason for monsters to attack this thing at all.

If we made a cross between a web golem and Skitter, we'd have something fearsome. After all, Skitter's biggest weakness (aside from a tinker with time to prepare, but everyone's weak to that) is that, behind the bugs, she's just a teenaged girl with a knife-proof suit.

But what about the butter golem?

I'm sure watching someone milk a displacer beast would be quite the show. Does the milk get displaced too? Either the milk appears to come out of thin air or it looks like the milker is doing mime.

What am I reading and why am I still reading it?

Before I say anything about its LA: I want to make it clear that the grimweird is a very interesting monster that I like a lot. The idea of a summon-spamming, hell-annoying, frail corpse is quite neat, if only I say so myself.

Since I was just talking about Skitter in web golem power armor, I realized that the grimweird is essentially Taylor Hebert as a lich. Only instead of having two powerful summons, she'd have loads of weak ones that only get dangerous with numbers and tactics.
...
I just remembered a weird Worm fanfic idea where Taylor gets isekai'd into SilverClawShift's second campaign log. I should look into that again...

[Inevitability]

Grisgol

The grisgol: a high-level construct whose creation requirements include a ton of gold, some XP, a bunch of spells, and a phylactery. That's right, hunting down a lich and their phylactery is a requirement for even starting on the creation of a grisgol. Considering that if your fancy new toy ever ends up being destroyed the lich is free to reform, I'm not sure why someone would ever take the risk of creating one of those.

To be honest, I'm conflicted about the grisgol. It is kind of underwhelming all-around, with incredibly low stats, tons of construct RHD, and weak natural attacks (1d8+1d6+5 base damage with a paralysis rider is nice, but those guys aren't built for melee). Immunity to Magic is the double-edged sword it's always been, Choking Dust means you're a walking party health hazard (also, why are you in melee), and the DR is nothing extraordinary (though DR/piercing is pretty rare).

However, then there's the creatively named 'Spell-Like Abilities', which singlehandedly makes the grisgol interesting. How? By granting it any one wizard/sorcerer or cleric spell of each level, usable as a SLA 1/day. This is an ability so powerful I'd argue it turns a grisgol into a low tier 2 character without much effort. Even when the obviously problematic spells are ignored (Wish, Gate, Miracle, PoA), this ability is still very powerful. Do, however, note that the saving throws are entirely based on the spells' levels, rather than the grisgol's casting ability or HD.

That said, each one of those being 1/day is obviously a drawback, and without them a grisgol only has its awful slams to fall back on. The sole level they can take before going epic isn't much help either. I'm not saying there aren't spells that can't help in multiple encounters per casting (Shapechange, Greater Planar Binding), but being forced to pick those will limit your options.

Aside from abuse of a few choice spells, the grisgol is not competitive at ECL 19, not even when compared to tier 3 classes. -0* LA.

[DeTess]

I'd say its spells are enough to justify a +0.* Its not nearly as good as an actual full caster, but it can cast a 9th level spell, which puts it ahead of most non-magical classes.

[Lapak]

The grisgol: a high-level construct whose creation requirements include a ton of gold, some XP, a bunch of spells, and a phylactery. That's right, hunting down a lich and their phylactery is a requirement for even starting on the creation of a grisgol. Considering that if your fancy new toy ever ends up being destroyed the lich is free to reform, I'm not sure why someone would ever take the risk of creating one of those.

I am guessing you have causation backward - the question is not why someone would build a construct that required a lich as raw material, it may have been 'I have destroyed my archenemy's physical form, but simply smashing his phylactery is insufficient revenge; what can I do to him that is worse than a final death? I will turn him into the power-source for a construct slave, leaving his spirit adrift in the aether while his magical might serves my purposes.'

[ExLibrisMortis]

Grisgol deserve LA -0, because they would be balanced at negative LA. As a creature capable of casting 9ths, they must be balanced against full casters. However, they are clearly worse than any full caster at ECL 19, and two extra class levels (LA -2) wouldn't save them from that, even if they get an epic feat. Hence, LA -0.

[ViperMagnum357]

Grisgol: I am inclined to go with LA -0. This thing is most certainly not balanced against tier 3/4, since once per day 7th, 8th, and 9th spells are better than the aggregate class features of many builds. On the other hand, you have 19 Construct RHD and are a continual hazard to you teammates unless they are Undead, Constructs, or one of a few other critters. Your natural AC is alright, ut you have net +8 abilities at ECL 19. And even with good spell choice, you have frighteningly little combat endurance with no other abilities of note.

Overall, I think this thing is balanced around ECL 16-17 at tier 3, so I will stick with LA -0. There is too little here to recommend it in almost any campaign.

[liquidformat]

Grisgol deserve LA -0, because they would be balanced at negative LA. As a creature capable of casting 9ths, they must be balanced against full casters. However, they are clearly worse than any full caster at ECL 19, and two extra class levels (LA -2) wouldn't save them from that, even if they get an epic feat. Hence, LA -0.

Ya Exlibris is echoing my first thought with these guys, there are easier and cheaper ways to abuse wish. I mean seriously I could cast planar binding or I could go on a quest to catch a lich then pay out the nose to have a relatively useless useless construct that can cast wish once a day, hmm which is an easier choice... Even from a player point of view, the comparison point is tier 1 and tier 2 full casters and I would rather be a favored soul, dread necromancer, beguiler, or even a druid without wild shape than Grisgol. The Grisgol, can't compete with any of tier 2 classes, even if we move it down to tier 3 and compare it to gishes like say dusk blade, it still needs to abuse its spell list and at the very least have shapechange to even begin to compete. I would imagine any dm that lets you play a Grisgol would have you pay for making yourself be subtracted from your WBL and at that point you honestly should pickup and use wish or limited wish just so you are actually able to compete with other ecl 18 characters.

Also you have to hope you don't have a dm who although they let you be a Grisgol they are going to make sure you wish you hadn't by demanding they get to choose your spells, since that would be outside your control.

Altogether I think LA -0 is the balance point here, I don't think * is necessary here since most of the abuse we are talking about is abuse that wizards are fully capable of.

[javcs]

I would say a DM caution is warranted for sure.

Also, I would say that they are more likely to be -0 than +0.
Without SLAs, they are clearly -0. And merit a DM caution because of SLAs and the extremely swingy nature of the ability.
For SLAs to not suck, you need to optimize the hell out of it, mostly with downtime abilities, which are so very easy to abuse to the point of drawing DM ire.

Sure, there's potential for Wish abuse, possibly for Binding abuse, ... but at level 19, it's so very much easier to use one of the other options for Wish exploitation. And you can still do all kinds of other stuff if you use an alternative.
Hell, if you're Evil, or otherwise willing to dabble in ritual sacrifice, you can kick off an infinite Wish loop through a relatively modest skill check (ie, technically reachable at one HD) - and as likely as that is to get smote by the DM, you're more likely to get away with that than shenanigans with the SLAs ability. IMO.



In short, -0*, in my opinion.

[Nifft]

I feel like the only way to make this thing viable is to make it broken, and that's not a good sign.

If the target tier is T3, this guy will tend to over-shoot or under-shoot.

Verdict: LA ±?* -- the only thing I'm sure about is the DM warning.

[OgresAreCute]

With some good-but-not-crazy spell picks I think this guy should be able to meaningfully contribute to at least 2-3 encounters per day. Might not be as good as a fixed list caster, but it's probably alright compared to some tier 4 guys. I'll say +0.

[No brains]

I think if one 9th level spell a day warrants an asterisk, the whole game we're playing warrants an asterisk. Technically a normal single classed character can only have wish or miracle, but is there really that much of an imbalance to having both either one once a day at ECL 19? I didn't play that much of high-level 3.5, but this guy just looks like a weird gish to me. I think I need some perspective. Unless anything close to a high-level T1 needs an asterisk all on its own.

[OgresAreCute]

I think if one 9th level spell a day warrants an asterisk, the whole game we're playing warrants an asterisk. Technically a normal single classed character can only have wish or miracle, but is there really that much of an imbalance to having both either one once a day at ECL 19? I didn't play that much of high-level 3.5, but this guy just looks like a weird gish to me. I think I need some perspective. Unless anything close to a high-level T1 needs an asterisk all on its own.

I think the idea is that SLAs and (Su) abilities don't need costly material and/or XP components, so you get the most powerful effects for free daily.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I think the idea is that SLAs and (Su) abilities don't need costly material and/or XP components, so you get the most powerful effects for free daily.

That's the long and short of it. It also prevents you from applying metamagic feats, so you won't be seeing the Persistent shapechanges that other casters can cast, but XP-free wish or gate is very powerful. It's slightly compensated by the crushing lack of anything else to do.

In high-OP games, there are multiple methods of getting free wishes, and the grisgol is right at the bottom of the pile.
In low-OP games, the grisgol is a sure source of free wishes, because it's built right into the monster.
Somewhere in between there's the not-technically-free thought bottled wish, which costs only 500 XP, but requires that you have 5500 XP to spare.

I think the grisgol still deserves LA -0. If we're assuming any creature with XP-free wish must get an asterisk (not an unreasonable proposition, depending on optimization level), then LA -0 is inadvertable, because the wish would be left out of consideration, and what remains is far too weak to contribute at ECL 19.

[PunBlake]

I feel like the only way to make this thing viable is to make it broken, and that's not a good sign.

I second that. The problem with this guy is his power is too swingy based on spell choice. It's basically a slightly less restricted Divine Crusader (CDiv), but generally worse chassis- and class-feature-wise.
With bad spell choices (ie. the listed ones), -0 or lower. With good or broken spell choices, +0* in a Tier 3 or lower game; otherwise, -0*.

[Dusk Raven]

The Grisgol is one of those creatures I actually knew about before it got posted here - it shows up in one of the Elder Evils adventures, as I recall. Of course, not surprisingly, it doesn't work well as a PC. To be honest, I have to wonder if it's even worth making as a minion in-setting. Unless its creator gives it Wish and can command it to make exactly the right wish - Grisgols have no INT score so they can't break the game on their own.

[Celestia]

... but this guy just looks like a weird gish to me.

Ditto here. The problem, though, is that the grisgol has a worse chassis and worse spellcasting than a standard gish build. It is remarkable only in its capacity to break the game with sla 9ths, earning its asterisk. As such, I'd definitely call this a -0*. I'd much rather play a warforged sorcadin.

[danielxcutter]

The Grisgol is one of those creatures I actually knew about before it got posted here - it shows up in one of the Elder Evils adventures, as I recall. Of course, not surprisingly, it doesn't work well as a PC. To be honest, I have to wonder if it's even worth making as a minion in-setting. Unless its creator gives it Wish and can command it to make exactly the right wish - Grisgols have no INT score so they can't break the game on their own.

The Pandorym one, I believe.

I don't suppose we're ever going to do that book...?

On that topic - is it too early to talk about what book we should do next?

[liquidformat]

Ditto here. The problem, though, is that the grisgol has a worse chassis and worse spellcasting than a standard gish build. It is remarkable only in its capacity to break the game with sla 9ths, earning its asterisk. As such, I'd definitely call this a -0*. I'd much rather play a warforged sorcadin.

As long as the DM takes the price of creating the Grisgol and making it an intelligent out of the Grisgol's starting wbl most of the wish abuse happening during the campaign would be compensated by the massive wbl hit you are taking...

[Covenant12]

Going to have to go -0*. Abusable yes, but overall worse than your standard sorcerer. Also many gish builds have 9ths at this point.

It would be playable in a party of T3, but only by going fairly cheesy. I don't want to call that +0. I'm comparing to T2, as it feels to match sorcerer more than prepared caster.

[Luccan]

The Pandorym one, I believe.

I don't suppose we're ever going to do that book...?

On that topic - is it too early to talk about what book we should do next?

Probably, we're only on the Gs. But if it isn't, I think we should do the XPH next

[javcs]

I think if one 9th level spell a day warrants an asterisk, the whole game we're playing warrants an asterisk. Technically a normal single classed character can only have wish or miracle, but is there really that much of an imbalance to having both either one once a day at ECL 19? I didn't play that much of high-level 3.5, but this guy just looks like a weird gish to me. I think I need some perspective. Unless anything close to a high-level T1 needs an asterisk all on its own.

It's partly that it's entirely free - a free Wish 1/day is the story of thing that can break games. Wish is the sort of spell that you're mostly supposed to use only when you really need it, and mostly as a one or twice an adventure/campaign arc type deal. Popping a wish every day (even ignoring the option to use it to start an infinite wish loop), is very much not as intended.

But also because the options for SLAs are incredibly swingy.
One spell of each level, each 1/day, makes it real easy to not be able to contribute meaningfully outside of maybe 1 encounter a day. Maybe only half an encounter. Yeah, if you're relying on the SLAs to actively contribute, you're only good for half an encounter, at best. Your Save DCs are going to suck since they aren't based on an ability score - just 10+1.5xspell level - which means your 9th level Save DC is only 23. Forever. That's ... just not going to cut it.


The only way to not suck is to intentionally try to optimize your SLA picks to the point of breaking the game.


Also, it basically sucks hard by most of the metrics that matter to gishes.

[Luccan]

The other thing 1 Wish (and 1 Limited Wish) a day give you is access to any spell lower than a certain level. Even if you aren't using shenanigans, not taking it severely limits your potential versatility since you get so few SLAs a day anyway. I think people saying -0* are right. It's potentially incredibly broken, but unless you try to break it, it's not very useful.

[Dusk Raven]

The Pandorym one, I believe.

Yeah - the art at the beginning of the chapter even depicts one, as I recall. Kinda makes sense for that particular location to have a Grisgol, but I'm not sure why you'd make one otherwise.

...Also, that curse ability the Grisgol has is a giant middle finger to players.

[GreatWyrmGold]

The grisgol: a high-level construct whose creation requirements include a ton of gold, some XP, a bunch of spells, and a phylactery. That's right, hunting down a lich and their phylactery is a requirement for even starting on the creation of a grisgol. Considering that if your fancy new toy ever ends up being destroyed the lich is free to reform, I'm not sure why someone would ever take the risk of creating one of those.

You are literally making a magic item golem. How is that concentrated awesome not justification enough?
LA-wise, I agree with the crowd. On one hand, there are too many spells that are potentially broken as SLAs, even just cast 1/day. Permanency is a relatively tame example; team up with any wizard or cleric, and if you can't think of a way to have an army of super-soldiers within weeks, you aren't thinking hard enough. Of course, disregarding those possibilities, it's hard to imagine they could keep up with even a rogue's UMD.
(I'm kind of interested to see people try to figure out the most game-breaking combination of spells to give a grisgol.)
...Back on topic, though, if you don't try to break a grisgol, it's going to be a disappointment. So...can we call it -0*(!) or something? I feel like "This monster is either game-breaking or useless" should be distinct from "This could cause difficulties of some kind".

I am guessing you have causation backward - the question is not why someone would build a construct that required a lich as raw material, it may have been 'I have destroyed my archenemy's physical form, but simply smashing his phylactery is insufficient revenge; what can I do to him that is worse than a final death? I will turn him into the power-source for a construct slave, leaving his spirit adrift in the aether while his magical might serves my purposes.'

That can't end badly.
Though come to think of it, that adds in another fun lore element. Beef up the grisgol to final-boss levels of power (maybe by giving it a list of 12 or 20 high-level spells that it casts randomly alongside slams, and giving it additional support from an invulnerable Actual Big Bad), have the party destroy the grisgol, and then book it while the imprisoned (demi)lich takes its anger out on the moron who didn't kill it when they had the chance.

I think if one 9th level spell a day warrants an asterisk, the whole game we're playing warrants an asterisk.

You're not wrong, but that's neither here nor there. We're tweaking the knobs on this metaphorical radio, we're not taking it apart to fix the insides.

[Dusk Raven]

That can't end badly.
Though come to think of it, that adds in another fun lore element. Beef up the grisgol to final-boss levels of power (maybe by giving it a list of 12 or 20 high-level spells that it casts randomly alongside slams, and giving it additional support from an invulnerable Actual Big Bad), have the party destroy the grisgol, and then book it while the imprisoned (demi)lich takes its anger out on the moron who didn't kill it when they had the chance.

That sounds awesome as an alternate method of taking out the BBEG... I love both the "The Dog Bites Back" trope you linked, and the idea of using one evil entity to defeat another.

Now I actually want to see such a final-boss level Grisgol statted out...

[Inevitability]

Grisgol LA has been reduced to -0*, as the majority of you seem to prefer.

[Lans]

I think the people using the tier 1/2 classes as a comparision point are wrong.

This is closer to the shadow caster, divine crusader, maybe the wilder, or one of those prestige classes that gets a bunch of powers 1/day

As such I think its close, but ultimately a la-0. A few choices will be good, but too few to be reliable