The LA-assignment thread V: Escape from LA

[TiaC]

I think the lack of hands and difficulty interacting in a lot of settings makes this -0 for me.

[javcs]

I think you two may have a valid point, but I can't bring myself to change from -0 to +0 without something more concrete... and I can't think of a build off the top of my head which would justify +0.

Four decent natural attacks seems like a Pounce build might be worthwhile? But just dropping one level of Barbarian didn't get to Uber-Charger damage levels, so far as I could see.

Would anyone be willing to build something to justify the idea of +0 for this thing?

The bite isn't terrible either.

I think a Pounce/Charger or a Tripmaster are the only options. Maybe a grappler, but you can't use a lot of the humanoid specific tricks that boost grapple builds.
And at level 9+ the utility of tripping and grappling is falling between flying enemies and ever-larger enemies. Oh, and since they're opposed rolls, enemies with HD and/or stat bloat make it difficult to succeed without heavy optimization towards your specific trick.


I think that if it's heavily optimized it might be able to be comparable to lower optimization, lower end T4 builds. But that's more or less the definition of not enough to make it to +0. Or at least, one of the definitions.

It might also be okay at +0 in a super low optimization game - like what the WotC playtest environment was supposedly like. Though, in that kind of environment, the ability to compensate for the lack of hands might not be there.
Or a jokey/comedic game. Maybe.


I'm sticking the Lifeleech Otyugh as LA -0.
It works well as a monster or minion, though.

[TiaC]

It might also be okay at +0 in a super low optimization game - like what the WotC playtest environment was supposedly like. Though, in that kind of environment, the ability to compensate for the lack of hands might not be there.
Or a jokey/comedic game. Maybe.

That's a good way of saying it. You could make something out of a lifeleech otyugh, but if you put the same amount of effort into a tier 3, or even a tier 4 class, it would almost certainly be better.

[Nifft]

The bite isn't terrible either.

I think a Pounce/Charger or a Tripmaster are the only options. Maybe a grappler, but you can't use a lot of the humanoid specific tricks that boost grapple builds.
And at level 9+ the utility of tripping and grappling is falling between flying enemies and ever-larger enemies. Oh, and since they're opposed rolls, enemies with HD and/or stat bloat make it difficult to succeed without heavy optimization towards your specific trick.


I think that if it's heavily optimized it might be able to be comparable to lower optimization, lower end T4 builds. But that's more or less the definition of not enough to make it to +0. Or at least, one of the definitions.

Yeah from what I can see the +16 Str / Large size gives you +12 to trip etc., but the lost BAB imposes a -3 relative to what a full-BAB character would have had, and 15 ft. reach x4 tentacles isn't special enough at ECL 10+ to compensate.

Their grapple bonus is nice vs. humanoids, but humanoids are a minority antagonist across most games.

I can't see any obvious T3 builds outside of obvious cheese like Ur-Priest.

[lord_khaine]

Yeah from what I can see the +16 Str / Large size gives you +12 to trip etc., but the lost BAB imposes a -3 relative to what a full-BAB character would have had, and 15 ft. reach x4 tentacles isn't special enough at ECL 10+ to compensate.

Trip does not involve BAB, so 15 reach and combat reflexes would give a massive degree of zone control.
I could see it with a single level Swordsage/Crusader. Perhaps Thicket of Blades stance.

And then we are suddenly looking at a level 10 char that can likely trip anyone humanoid up to size huge.
I mean just with basic investment, 16 str, +4 item, +16 racial, and we got a +13 str bonus. Then with improved trip, and size large that becomes +21 on the opposed trip roll.

Thats already so high that the gm needs to adjust your encounters, because a large part of them will newer be allowed to do anything as soon as they enters the zone of landing on your ass while getting tentacle whipped.

Edit.
Oh, and while humanoids are actually the majority opponent in all the games i have taken part in myself, then this can also likely grapple a lot of non-humanoid opponents.
There are a lot of things in the 8-12 range with less than 28 in grapple score.

[Inevitability]

With the recent influx of -0 votes, the otyugh will stay at -0 LA.

Next creature will be up shortly.

[Inevitability]

Petal

Can it be? A MM3 monster that's actually playable?

Petals are in a weird place where they officially aren't playable, but do have a cohort LA that not infrequently has the (cohort) bit waived. It's not hard to see why: Petals are arguably more playable than a number of creatures that did receive official LAs (krenshars, anyone?).

A petal's chassis is pretty awesome. +10 dexterity, +8 charisma, +4 intelligence and +4 constitution are adjustments many casters and skillmonkeys would kill to have. 60 ft. (good) fly speed doesn't just offer incredible mobility, it also outspeeds most PCs and monsters by a significant amount. Free Weapon Finesse and DR 5/cold iron only sweeten the deal (thought exercise: what's the last time you faced a foe with cold iron weaponry in D&D?).

Finally there's the petal's signature ability: Sleep Songs. The single-singer variant is pretty weak and amounts to at-will supernatural Lullaby. However, multiple petals working together can instead produce Sleep effects.

I think the current LA of +2 works fine for petals, though I could see arguments for +3. They are mobile and make for a good caster chassis, but their frailty (especially versus AoE effects or strong ranged attacks) means they go down easily. A party with two petals gains a rather potent save-or-lose, but the overlap of having two petals in the same party means +2 LA is justified even then, in my opinion.

Very interested on hearing what people have to say on this one.

[Nifft]

I've seen them used with LA +2 and I saw no issues in that game.

Verdict: LA +2 seems quite reasonable, good work on that one WotC.

[Efrate]

I have used petals as npcs before and they are nasty. Toss good class levels on there and they are very threatening. +2 is reasonable, +3 is arguable especially in groups at lower levels. I would say plus 2 is fine as a pc over the life of the career.

[OgresAreCute]

I don't like giving the "cute little caster" types more than +1 LA since it makes them really squishy, but those stat boosts are a little too juicy for +1.

+2.

[ExLibrisMortis]

They're not the best full casters, unless at LA +1 (because casting stat returns are crazy like that), but they're very good "caster and somethings"--I'm thinking of Unseen Seer, for example. LA +2 seems fine to me.

[javcs]

Did they ever get tagged as some sort of improved Familiar option? I feel like that might have happened too.


Nobody's ever going to turn down free Weapon Finesse, but with -8 Strength and being Tiny (and thus having a 0 ft. reach), it's basically wasted on a Petal.

In combat, they basically need magic.
And LA on a caster is bad. On the other hand ... they've got a really nice spread of racial ability modifiers for a caster who isn't going to be diving into melee.

You can advance their RHD and get some really nice racial skills as class skills.

I don't have a case for anything other than LA +2. They're too good at +1, but they're way too squishy and behind on class features at +3.
That's if you didn't advance their RHD; if you did, I think they go down to +0 at 3 RHD, and I'm not sure if 2 RHD would be a +1 or a +0.


Huh. It seems we agree with WotC on an assigned LA. That's uncommon - especially for something where they have an assigned LA to a nonstandard race.

[ViperMagnum357]

I am going to stick with LA +2: looking at some sort of caster or possibly ranged/precision damage attacker, definitely not melee without changing shape.

Another concern is weight-with average strength -8 at Tiny, you are looking at a maximum of 6-10 pounds before you are encumbered with a medium load, and 5 of those are likely to be assigned to a haversack. Your equipment will weigh less but still something, so you will need to be extremely careful about picking equipment for combat, because you will have very little capacity to work with; entirely separate from the usual PC baggage train on their mount/beast of burden.

[liquidformat]

I can't see Lifeleech Otyugh as anything above -0 between the lack of hands, issues with general rp interactions with anything, and being pigeonholed into some sort of pouncing tripper. The main issue I see is at level 9 or 10 they suck as trippers compared to a fighter/barb tripper build at the same level which is a glaring sign they should be -0. Especially considering most games don't last until level 10+ if you start at level 1 and if your game starts at 10+ there are much better options even if you want to go monster. I would hands down take wyvern over this thing for example.

On to Petal, I love these little things they are great. I once had a Petal bard/dread witch as the big bad of a game and it was ridiculous, I believe +2 is fine and great if there is la buy off in play.

[javcs]

I am going to stick with LA +2: looking at some sort of caster or possibly ranged/precision damage attacker, definitely not melee without changing shape.

Another concern is weight-with average strength -8 at Tiny, you are looking at a maximum of 6-10 pounds before you are encumbered with a medium load, and 5 of those are likely to be assigned to a haversack. Your equipment will weigh less but still something, so you will need to be extremely careful about picking equipment for combat, because you will have very little capacity to work with; entirely separate from the usual PC baggage train on their mount/beast of burden.

And casters and precision damage skill monkeys often use strength as a dump stat. A petal PC literally can't afford to dump strength if they want to be able to have a useable light load at all.
Sure, you get some points back from your racial ability bonuses, but it all has to go to strength instead of boosting your actual primary or secondary stats. You basically have to treat strength as a primary stat to not be screwed on carrying capacity and load limits.

[liquidformat]

I am going to stick with LA +2: looking at some sort of caster or possibly ranged/precision damage attacker, definitely not melee without changing shape.

Another concern is weight-with average strength -8 at Tiny, you are looking at a maximum of 6-10 pounds before you are encumbered with a medium load, and 5 of those are likely to be assigned to a haversack. Your equipment will weigh less but still something, so you will need to be extremely careful about picking equipment for combat, because you will have very little capacity to work with; entirely separate from the usual PC baggage train on their mount/beast of burden.

Shouldn't your haversack sized for a tiny character be like 1.25lb and not 5lb?

[javcs]

Shouldn't your haversack sized for a tiny character be like 1.25lb and not 5lb?

I'm not sure that there's rules that are explicitly applicable.

Armor for a Tiny or smaller character weighs 1/10th that of a size Medium (and has half the AC bonus, not that a Petal is going to get much mileage from armor anyways). Small armor weighs half as much of Medium armor.

Small general equipment weighs one quarter that of Medium sized equipment.

[Inevitability]

seems quite reasonable, good work on that one WotC.

Who dares utter... the forbidden words?

[ViperMagnum357]

Shouldn't your haversack sized for a tiny character be like 1.25lb and not 5lb?

Weapons and Armor weigh less for smaller characters, but all other magic items are noted to simply be adjustable/self adjusting at the DM's discretion so they can be used by PC's of any size. Nothing in there about altering the weight; and you still have more mundane problems, like a spell component pouch weighing 2 lbs whether you are a Petal or Huge sized.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I'm not sure that there's rules that are explicitly applicable.

Small armor weighs half as much of Medium armor. Small general equipment weighs one quarter that of Medium sized equipment.

I'm pretty sure this is good evidence that there aren't general rules.
I mean, if it ever came up I'd rule that the magic-item-resizing rules also affected weight and say that Tiny equipment was 1/10th of the default weight or something.

[Thurbane]

Borderline LA +3 for me, but I can live with LA +2.

Nobody's ever going to turn down free Weapon Finesse, but with -8 Strength and being Tiny (and thus having a 0 ft. reach), it's basically wasted on a Petal.

Still somewhat handy for touch spells/attacks, but yes, reach is definitely an issue.

[Nifft]

Who dares utter... the forbidden words?

I dare!

Nothing shall stand in the way of giving fair credit where it is due!

I shall hear the warning and yet utter the forbidden words disirregardlesslyishly!

[javcs]

Borderline LA +3 for me, but I can live with LA +2.



Still somewhat handy for touch spells/attacks, but yes, reach is definitely an issue.

Ehhhh, you're probably going to want to stick to ranged touch attacks/spells as much as possible, which already use Dex.
Or you're using a touch spell on an ally, in which case you can freely move into their space, and the attack bonus is irrelevant, anyways.

No point giving the enemy any more AoOs than you need to, after all.

Point is, as a petal, you're probably going to want to avoid using Weapon Finesse as much as you can, so while it is a nice bonus feat, it's mostly irrelevant except possibly as a PRC prereq.

[liquidformat]

and has half the AC bonus

Can I get a site on this I have never heard of this before and am not seeing it in a cursory search of the SRDs.

Armor for a Tiny or smaller character weighs 1/10th that of a size Medium

I have always applied that across all magic items...

[javcs]

Can I get a site on this I have never heard of this before and am not seeing it in a cursory search of the SRDs.

Footnote on the table for Armor For Unusual Creatures.

I have always applied that across all magic items...

Ah, but the Small modifier for Armor is x1/2 weight. Snack weapons are also x1/2 weight.
The Small modifier for applicable miscellaneous general equipment and clothing is x1/4 weight.

[Nifft]

Ah, but the Small modifier for Armor is x1/2 weight. Snack weapons are also x1/2 weight.

Does that mean all small quarterstaves are pixie sticks?

[javcs]

Does that mean all small quarterstaves are pixie sticks?

Autocorrect strikes again!

Sure, why not?

[No brains]

To oozes, all weapons are snack weapons! When you dip arrows into one it's like that snack pack with the cheese and pretzel rods!

[Elkad]

Petals can threaten. Just give them a reach weapon. (DMG p29)
Spiked Chain has reach and finesse, I'm sure there are probably others. Go swordsage, grab a spiked chain and the Shadow Blade feat and you'll do fine other than missing a few hitpoints.

They can also just move into the enemy square if it's Large or larger, attack all they want without reach, give flanking to the entire party, and get flanking from anyone in the party (threatening of course). With that dexmod, making the Tumble check won't be hard. Again you'll want to pick up dex-to-damage, but you'd want that on something like a rogue anyway.

Melee isn't their forte, but they can be effective with it. And all their other benefits stack up to amazing. I'm for +3 here. The +8 Cha is what pushes me over the line from +2.

[Covenant12]

Also going +2.

I'd like to argue +1 but I can't say it with a straight face. +10 dex, +8 cha, +4 int, +4 con. Even before the other goodies (60' good flight) that's too much for +1. Tiny has significant advantages and disadvantages, but I think those can be overcome with moderate effort. With reasonable point buy I'd put 14 in str to end with 6, and as said a reach weapon can be used for 5' reach/threatening. Weapon finesse free is nice, avoids that annoying +1 BAB requirement for a lot of builds. Not sure its an amazing +2, but I think a lot of builds would do well enough, and at +1 would be op for skill monkey types.