Support the GITP forums on Patreon
Help support GITP's forums (and ongoing server maintenance) via Patreon
Page 43 of 51 FirstFirst ... 1833343536373839404142434445464748495051 LastLast
Results 1,261 to 1,290 of 1503
  1. - Top - End - #1261
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    OrcBarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able

    Quote Originally Posted by lord_khaine View Post
    I am with Ex on this one. It seems pretty clear thats how it works.
    What exactly is clear about that interpretation that literally requires ignoring parts of sentences and entire sections such as 'Creatures With Psi-Like Abilities'?

  2. - Top - End - #1262
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GreatWyrmGold's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    In a castle under the sea
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able

    Quote Originally Posted by ExLibrisMortis View Post
    The second half of the sentence doesn't change the first. You're reading it wrong .

    It's not a restriction. Augmentation may do that, or it may do other things. That's all.
    By extending that logic, you can augment expansion to summon a hot pink invisible unicorn. The rules don't explicitly say you can't! They just tell you something you can augment the power for, they don't explicitly say you can't augment it any other way!

    If the writers meant what you think they do, they'd have written either "When a creature uses a psi-like ability, the power is manifested as if the creature had spent a number of power points equal to its manifester level, which may augment the power" or "When a creature uses a psi-like ability, the power is manifested as if the creature had spent a number of power points equal to its manifester level, which may augment the power (such as to improve its damage or save DC)." You're arguing that the writer, for some reason known only to you, chose the one way to phrase that sentence that clearly went against their intent.
    I'm the GWG from Bay12 and a bunch of other places.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Blade Wolf View Post
    Ah, thank you very much GreatWyrmGold, you obviously live up to that name with your intelligence and wisdom with that post.
    Quotes, more

    Negative LA Assignment Thread
    The Tale of Demman, Second King of Ireland, a CKII AAR, won a WritAAR of the Week award. Winner of Villainous Competition 8
    Fanfic

    Avatar by Recaiden.

  3. - Top - End - #1263
    Troll in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGirl

    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able

    Quote Originally Posted by liquidformat View Post
    By that logic I could walk into a car dealership and after they say 'you may have a free shirt' I am can take a free car because they 'may' isn't a restriction.
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatWyrmGold View Post
    By extending that logic, you can augment expansion to summon a hot pink invisible unicorn.
    ...

    Not every "it's not a restriction" argument is immediately an argument that anything goes. Your examples make you look ridiculous.


    D&D operates on an exception-based rule system. If the general rule says something is allowable, then it is (note that the most general rule is "you can do anything"); if a more specific rule disallows it, it isn't, unless an even more specific rule allows it again, and so on.

    A power can be augmented using the augmentation rules in its description. This is the general rule, and it is what PLAs inherit the ability to be augmented from, just like SLAs inherit the ability to scale with caster level.

    A more specific rule then says that a PLA is manifested as if the maximum number of power points (i.e. equal to ML) had been spent on it. Unlike powers, PLAs must have ML = pp cost, which usually doesn't matter, but could theoretically become relevant if you want a small amount of damage (low pp investment) with a high ML check versus SR/PR.

    The comment that augmentation may change the power's damage or save DC merely clarifies and reminds the reader that numbers need to be updated. It can't be an exception, as Lord Khaine notes, because it's not actually forbidding anything (it's allowing damage/DC to change), and it's not allowing anything that was previously forbidden (damage/DC were already able to change).

    In short: It is not a restriction to the rule that PLAs can be augmented, nor enabling specific augmentations that were unavailable to PLAs.
    Last edited by ExLibrisMortis; 2019-06-13 at 02:23 PM.
    Spoiler: Collectible nice things
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Faily View Post
    Read ExLibrisMortis' post...

    WHY IS THERE NO LIKE BUTTON?!
    Quote Originally Posted by Keledrath View Post
    Libris: look at your allowed sources. I don't think any of your options were from those.
    My incarnate/crusader. A self-healing crowd-control melee build (ECL 8).
    My Ruby Knight Vindicator barsader. A party-buffing melee build (ECL 14).

  4. - Top - End - #1264
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    OrcBarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatWyrmGold View Post
    By extending that logic, you can augment expansion to summon a hot pink invisible unicorn. The rules don't explicitly say you can't! They just tell you something you can augment the power for, they don't explicitly say you can't augment it any other way!

    If the writers meant what you think they do, they'd have written either "When a creature uses a psi-like ability, the power is manifested as if the creature had spent a number of power points equal to its manifester level, which may augment the power" or "When a creature uses a psi-like ability, the power is manifested as if the creature had spent a number of power points equal to its manifester level, which may augment the power (such as to improve its damage or save DC)." You're arguing that the writer, for some reason known only to you, chose the one way to phrase that sentence that clearly went against their intent.
    Even just leaving the statement ambiguous like ExLibrisMortis first claimed would support the argument better than how things have been written.

    Quote Originally Posted by ExLibrisMortis View Post
    ...

    Not every "it's not a restriction" argument is immediately an argument that anything goes. Your examples make you look ridiculous.


    D&D operates on an exception-based rule system. If the general rule says something is allowable, then it is (note that the most general rule is "you can do anything"); if a more specific rule disallows it, it isn't, unless an even more specific rule allows it again, and so on.

    A power can be augmented using the augmentation rules in its description. This is the general rule, and it is what PLAs inherit the ability to be augmented from, just like SLAs inherit the ability to scale with caster level.

    A more specific rule then says that a PLA is manifested as if the maximum number of power points (i.e. equal to ML) had been spent on it. Unlike powers, PLAs must have ML = pp cost, which usually doesn't matter, but could theoretically become relevant if you want a small amount of damage (low pp investment) with a high ML check versus SR/PR.

    The comment that augmentation may change the power's damage or save DC merely clarifies and reminds the reader that numbers need to be updated. It can't be an exception, as Lord Khaine notes, because it's not actually forbidding anything (it's allowing damage/DC to change), and it's not allowing anything that was previously forbidden (damage/DC were already able to change).

    In short: It is not a restriction to the rule that PLAs can be augmented, nor enabling specific augmentations that were unavailable to PLAs.
    Our examples are as ridiculous as your claims, you have neither RAW nor RAI backing. If what you claim was true then they would use 'for example' not may, in the English language and the rules in general may isn't a synonym of 'for example' as much as you would like to think so.

    Furthermore, there was the second half of my argument which you have chosen to ignore, presumably because it lays bare just how wrong you are and the fact that you have no legs to stand on for your claim. under Creatures With Psi-Like Abilities it says the following:
    Powers that have increased effects due to augmentation include information about the effect. An asterisk indicates that the power has already been augmented by the creature’s innate ability.

    Powers that can’t be augmented, or that are manifested at their normal minimum level, do not contain any special notations. Resolve the effect of manifesting the power without augmentation at the creature’s given manifester level.

    If your claims were true there would be no need for psi-likes to come prebuffed with specific augments, nor would there be language explaining this and stating powers without an asterisk can't be buffed.

    So from the RAW/RAI this is what we know:
    1) all psi-likes have PP equal to ML
    1.1) for all psi-likes these PP can be used for augmenting damage and save DCs
    2)psi-likes with other augmentations are denoted with '*' and a description of said changes
    3)psi-likes without an '*' can't augmented outside of what is stated in 1.1.
    Last edited by liquidformat; 2019-06-13 at 02:47 PM. Reason: ninja'ed

  5. - Top - End - #1265
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Karrnath
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able

    Some psionic powers, like Psionic Dominate, have several ways they may be augmented, and you have to choose which way to augment it, rather than just augment it in every way. Thus Psionic Aboleth already has it augmented to target any one type of creature, and to last 24 hours. However the Psionic Aboleth may not take control of several creatures with a single manifestation of the power. This is because the designers locked in which augmentations the psionic aboleth may use with their Psionic Dominate. Had they not added the asterisk to the Psionic Aboleth's Psionic Dominate pla, then it would have been able to dominate several creatures at once with a single manifestation. This is the reasoning behind the asterisk. Not to make one creature's augmentation special (although they prove that it may do that as well) but to limit specific creature's.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zaq View Post
    I feel like telling the ghost of Gary Gygax to hold your beer is a good way to suddenly stop being the GM, but I have to admit that this would probably be remarkably effective. At what, I dunno, but effective.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zombulian View Post
    I am continually astounded by how new you are here in contrast to how impressive your mind is.

  6. - Top - End - #1266
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Dimers's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able

    I know that there are very few actually correct WotC statblocks, but ... it'd be really weird to limit PLAs to augmenting only DC and damage when so many augmented powers in statblocks don't change DC or damage. On the psi-aboleth alone, there's false sensory input, mindlink and thought shield. Can we chalk this up to "WotC writers don't create their work as carefully as thousands of readers later analyze it"?

    I vote LA +1 for the psi-duergar. It's not a +1 I'd want to play, but immunity to poison is a strong argument that they're better than +0.

    EDIT: Crap, I never realized -- that's a dwarf that can't get drunk! That's just wrong!
    Last edited by Dimers; 2019-06-13 at 05:40 PM.
    Avatar by Meltheim: Eveve, dwarven battlemind, 4e Dark Sun

    Current games list

  7. - Top - End - #1267
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2013

    Default Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able

    LA +1 on the Psi-Duergar. Not something I am interested in, but a little too much for a level playing field against standard races.

  8. - Top - End - #1268
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    ElfPirate

    Join Date
    Sep 2018

    Default Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able

    Seems like the problem is that "may" has two relevant definitions here. It could be interpreted as 'permissible actions include the following' or as 'only the following is what is permissible'.
    Quote Originally Posted by Darths & Droids
    When you combine the two most devious, sneaky, manipulative, underhanded, cunning, and diabolical forces in the known universe, the consequences can be world-shattering. Those forces are, of course, players and GMs.
    Quote Originally Posted by OgresAreCute View Post
    Realism, the natural predator of D&D mechanics.

  9. - Top - End - #1269
    Troll in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGirl

    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able

    Quote Originally Posted by PoeticallyPsyco View Post
    Seems like the problem is that "may" has two relevant definitions here. It could be interpreted as 'permissible actions include the following' or as 'only the following is what is permissible'.
    You may (sorry) have a point there; "may" can express "it is allowed" or "it is possible", and though either can be read to allow full augmentation of PLAs, "it is allowed" can support an additional reading--the one you identified--in which "may" means "only these things are allowed". This is based on the assumption that "may" would not be used in a context where it is superfluous, and, since the ability to augment have already been given, "may" must be used to restrict it.

    I personally don't think that "only this is allowed" is meant, and that it's likely just an explanation of the rules (which WotC is known to do, and cause problems with), but it is technically up for debate. Regardless, though: in RAW debate we don't go and add additional assumptions, especially if they add restrictions like "only"; the remaining readings ("it is allowed" and "it is possible") concur with the general rule that PLAs can be augmented in any way.

    @liquidformat: The second half of your argument only applies to the presentation of monster stats in the EPH, not to psionic creatures in general. That's why I haven't discussed it further; rules that only apply to the presentation of official stat blocks don't interest me as much. In any case, just because powers that aren't augmented contain no special notation, doesn't mean they can't be augmented later on (for example, if the DM advances a creature and adds additional manifester levels). WotC stat block guidelines can never replace your own application of the rules.

    I'm done with liquidformat's rudeness, so unless someone else wants to discuss PLA augmentation (exciting topic of the week! ), let's return to business as usual.
    Last edited by ExLibrisMortis; 2019-06-13 at 05:30 PM.
    Spoiler: Collectible nice things
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Faily View Post
    Read ExLibrisMortis' post...

    WHY IS THERE NO LIKE BUTTON?!
    Quote Originally Posted by Keledrath View Post
    Libris: look at your allowed sources. I don't think any of your options were from those.
    My incarnate/crusader. A self-healing crowd-control melee build (ECL 8).
    My Ruby Knight Vindicator barsader. A party-buffing melee build (ECL 14).

  10. - Top - End - #1270
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Avernus

    Default Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able

    Quote Originally Posted by OgresAreCute View Post
    They're slightly better since psi-likes actually scale with ML. I'd say the difference is enough that I'll always pick psionic over normal, but not enough that it actually changes the LA. Not sure if I'd actually play a Duergar at +1 though... stability is alright, huge darkvision is ok, the psi-likes aren't terrible, but there's nothing here that really sells me on losing a class level the way a huge strength bonus and powerful build might.
    Quote Originally Posted by ExLibrisMortis View Post
    CL/ML 3 or HD for expansion and invisibility... that's not bad. It's too strong for LA +0, but I don't think I'd play one at +1... that's just personal preference, though.


    I don't think that's right. "When a creature uses a psi-like ability, the power is manifested as if the creature had spent a number of power points equal to its manifester level" is pretty definitive. Whether it's mentioned in the stat block is just bookkeeping--I wouldn't like the "reading psionic creature entries" text to override the general rule on PLAs.

    For invisibility, the EPH (and SRD) has got you covered: "In some cases, a creature’s psi-like abilities may include an effect that does not duplicate any power in this book. For such abilities, treat the creature’s manifester level as the caster level for the spell" (paraphrased). Duergar are mentioned as example.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dimers View Post
    I know that there are very few actually correct WotC statblocks, but ... it'd be really weird to limit PLAs to augmenting only DC and damage when so many augmented powers in statblocks don't change DC or damage. On the psi-aboleth alone, there's false sensory input, mindlink and thought shield. Can we chalk this up to "WotC writers don't create their work as carefully as thousands of readers later analyze it"?

    I vote LA +1 for the psi-duergar. It's not a +1 I'd want to play, but immunity to poison is a strong argument that they're better than +0.
    Quote Originally Posted by ViperMagnum357 View Post
    LA +1 on the Psi-Duergar. Not something I am interested in, but a little too much for a level playing field against standard races.
    I'm very amused by a lot of this. I see a lot of +1 LA votes, with the caveat that the person wouldn't play it. That strikes me as worrying, because the race gets too much, but not enough to make it worth taking the level hit.

    I love dwarves, and duergar are probably my favorite 'almost' standard race. It's a whole race of angrier than normal dwarves, that can ALL turn invisible, and ALL hulk out in giant mode. I can't see them losing a traditional war against any other standard race. Even Drow would struggle with that, I feel.

    As for an LA... I'm torn. In my home games, they don't get a LA. But we've done that for a lot of LA +1 races, and bumped up LA 0 races, so it's hard to make that call.

    The stats are fine (don't play anything needing Charisma), the psi-likes are fun, but nothing special. Stability is fine, super darkvision good. Light Blindness can kinda hurt in most games, but it's fine when you hit the dungeon. The immunities are where this guy shines. The phantasms one is neat, but I don't think it's going to be super relevant in most games. Immunity to poison will probably find a decent use, honestly, in a lot of encounters. It's hard to rate this, but most games will probably place a stigma on your character choice, and you may not be welcome in most civilized towns, so that could be a con to the race as well.

    Is this enough to warrant the level hit? Would a level in a class be better? Is this worth it?

    In the end, I think I'm going to buck the trend and go with +0. If LA Buyoff is allowed (and I know that's not assumed), I like making these guys +1, but I don't feel like their abilities warrant losing a class level. Some neat 1/day tricks are cool, and that poison immunity is super amazing when you play with Drow as neighbors.

    I don't think the people who voted +1 are wrong, but when everyone's saying "+1, but I'd never play one.", it sounds like it may not be worth +1.

  11. - Top - End - #1271
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Caelestion's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Baator (aka Britain)
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able

    Psionic duergar are like normal duergar, in that they're dwarves, but simply better. Dwarves are hardly known for being one of the weaker PHB races and duergar get all that and more besides. They're obviously LA +1.

  12. - Top - End - #1272
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Thurbane's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able

    Quote Originally Posted by Caelestion View Post
    Psionic duergar are like normal duergar, in that they're dwarves, but simply better. Dwarves are hardly known for being one of the weaker PHB races and duergar get all that and more besides. They're obviously LA +1.
    I'm not expert in psionics, but I'm going to agree with this: LA +1.

  13. - Top - End - #1273
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2017

    Default Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able

    I vote +0. I think they are a strong +0, but I think what makes them potentially a +1 drops away fast enough that it isn't worth it. If there was LA buyoff, I would be fine with +1. Basically, I agree with Grey Guard's assessment.
    3.5 Cast - A GitP member made, third edition podcast
    D&D 3.5 Discord Chat, Come one come all
    The Master Specialist Handbook
    Truly Complete List of 3.5e Base Classes
    Spoiler: quotes
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Venger View Post
    are you asking us to do research into a setting you wrote yourself?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ashtagon View Post
    DMG 3.5e page 41:
    "If a player behaves in a way you don't want them to behave, talk to them about it. If they continue, stop playing with them. "
    By RAW, you have to stop playing with the guy.

  14. - Top - End - #1274
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able

    I straight up would not play one at +1. +1 is overpriced.

    I agree that they're a wee bit stronger than I'm comfortable with at +0, but I would not ever take one at +1. Ever. The benefit does not match the cost. What they get is straight up not worth a class level. It's not worth forever being behind on BAB, saves, skill ranks, HP, caster/manifester/class level progression, feat progression, and anything else that happens to be based on HD.

    Honestly, +0 is fine. Hell, I forgot that you only get expansion and invisibility 1/day each until you start blowing feats, so by the time you've got them a noticeable number of times per day, you've paid a more than fair price.

    In fact, I'ma go back and strike out what I said about them being stronger than I like at +0. They're fine at +0.
    In the Beginning Was the Word, and the Word Was Suck: A Guide to Truenamers

    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Roc View Post
    Gentlefolk, learn from Zaq's example, and his suffering. Remember, seven out of eleven players who use truenamer lose their ability to taste ice cream.
    Come join the Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground E6 Appetizer Edition! We're currently cooking for round 27. Everyone is welcome!

    My compiled Iron Chef stuff!

    Queer pride isn't limited to one month!

  15. - Top - End - #1275
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Remuko's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    New York
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able

    given recent comments i want to clarify that my previous comment on this entry was a vote for +0.

  16. - Top - End - #1276
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Prime32's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ireland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able

    Both kinds of duergar are on the weaker side of LA +1, but also a significant upgrade to standard dwarves.

    The standard duergar can pull off some cheese with its inflated racial CL. Psionic duergar's ML isn't quite as high, but it's still the best any psionic race has access to without feats. The only uses I can think of for this right now are... item creation feats, and easy access to Thrallherd (which you could dip for 1 level even if you don't have any manifesting to progress).

    Complete Psionic has feats which let them use their racial PLAs +2/day. Champions of Valor has feats which allow a duergar to spend 5pp to fuel one of their SLAs, and under a generous reading could be used by psionic duergar to access standard duergar SLAs (though it's still easier to just be a standard duergar with psion levels, unless your DM doesn't allow that combination or something).
    Last edited by Prime32; 2019-06-14 at 07:55 PM.

  17. - Top - End - #1277
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    OrcBarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able

    Quote Originally Posted by ExLibrisMortis View Post
    You may (sorry) have a point there; "may" can express "it is allowed" or "it is possible", and though either can be read to allow full augmentation of PLAs, "it is allowed" can support an additional reading--the one you identified--in which "may" means "only these things are allowed". This is based on the assumption that "may" would not be used in a context where it is superfluous, and, since the ability to augment have already been given, "may" must be used to restrict it.

    I personally don't think that "only this is allowed" is meant, and that it's likely just an explanation of the rules (which WotC is known to do, and cause problems with), but it is technically up for debate. Regardless, though: in RAW debate we don't go and add additional assumptions, especially if they add restrictions like "only"; the remaining readings ("it is allowed" and "it is possible") concur with the general rule that PLAs can be augmented in any way.

    @liquidformat: The second half of your argument only applies to the presentation of monster stats in the EPH, not to psionic creatures in general. That's why I haven't discussed it further; rules that only apply to the presentation of official stat blocks don't interest me as much. In any case, just because powers that aren't augmented contain no special notation, doesn't mean they can't be augmented later on (for example, if the DM advances a creature and adds additional manifester levels). WotC stat block guidelines can never replace your own application of the rules.

    I'm done with liquidformat's rudeness, so unless someone else wants to discuss PLA augmentation (exciting topic of the week! ), let's return to business as usual.
    What are you talking about, individual powers aren't even presented in the stat block. The second half of the argument is talking about the creature entry, specifically the psi-like abilities in the creature entry not the stat block. The fact that psi-likes are pre augmented and the sentence 'Powers that can’t be augmented, or that are manifested at their normal minimum level, do not contain any special notations.' seems to strongly contradict your inclusive interpretation of 'may' and support the exclusive meaning.

    Also it isn't rude to point out you are miss quoting things to support your argument, if anything your behavior throughout this debate has been quite questionable and insulting.

  18. - Top - End - #1278
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Otyugh Hole
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able

    Psionic Druergar is a tricky one, but that kind of case seems to be common around here. He has two strong immunities and good, well balanced ability score adjustments. Taking that into consideration, I don't think he deserves the +1, for he is quite similar to the Warforged. Then we get to their Psi-Like Abilities. Both are good ones, but both are limited. I didn't read all that bull**** about it being able to augment its PLAs or not (sorry), but if they can, using Expansion to get huge at ECL 8 is more than enough for me to use the race regardless of LA. If it isn't possible, maybe having Invisibily at ECL 1 would still be a bit too strong. With that said, I vote for +1 as well, but I would probably allow LA buyoff or/and maybe give it some kind of savage progression for Invisibility.
    Last edited by Windcaller; 2019-06-17 at 02:40 PM.

  19. - Top - End - #1279
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GreatWyrmGold's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    In a castle under the sea
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able

    Quote Originally Posted by ExLibrisMortis View Post
    ...

    Not every "it's not a restriction" argument is immediately an argument that anything goes. Your examples make you look ridiculous.
    Of course it does when you remove the part where I justify my example.


    Quote Originally Posted by Grey Guard View Post
    I'm very amused by a lot of this. I see a lot of +1 LA votes, with the caveat that the person wouldn't play it. That strikes me as worrying, because the race gets too much, but not enough to make it worth taking the level hit.

    ...

    I don't think the people who voted +1 are wrong, but when everyone's saying "+1, but I'd never play one.", it sounds like it may not be worth +1.
    That's a core problem with the graininess of level adjustment. There's not really a good box to put a race like the duergar who are obviously too much for +1 and not enough for +0. There's not enough to justify losing a level, but there's too much to justify taking most standard races instead if your party role could benefit from the duergar's racial abilities (and most melee classes would qualify). If this was a proper homebrew thread where we rebuilt monsters to be good PC races, we could give them some buffs (maybe more daily uses of their powers?), but it isn't, so...
    I'm the GWG from Bay12 and a bunch of other places.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Blade Wolf View Post
    Ah, thank you very much GreatWyrmGold, you obviously live up to that name with your intelligence and wisdom with that post.
    Quotes, more

    Negative LA Assignment Thread
    The Tale of Demman, Second King of Ireland, a CKII AAR, won a WritAAR of the Week award. Winner of Villainous Competition 8
    Fanfic

    Avatar by Recaiden.

  20. - Top - End - #1280
    Titan in the Playground
     
    lord_khaine's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2006

    Default Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able

    I think Psionic RA debate might as well die her.
    The wording of it is apperently sufficienly unclear that you can read it in more than one way if you want to.
    And at this stage both sides have likely dug themselves to far in to budge a centimeter.
    thnx to Starwoof for the fine avatar

  21. - Top - End - #1281
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Avernus

    Default Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatWyrmGold View Post
    That's a core problem with the graininess of level adjustment. There's not really a good box to put a race like the duergar who are obviously too much for +1 and not enough for +0. There's not enough to justify losing a level, but there's too much to justify taking most standard races instead if your party role could benefit from the duergar's racial abilities (and most melee classes would qualify). If this was a proper homebrew thread where we rebuilt monsters to be good PC races, we could give them some buffs (maybe more daily uses of their powers?), but it isn't, so...
    Yeah. This is why in my home games these guys don't even get a LA. To be fair, they ARE Dwarf+, but not enough + to have an LA IMHO. They'll never be worth taking a level hit with what they have. Even if they had more uses of their Psi-Likes, Invisibility and Expansion are COOL, don't get me wrong, and even quite powerful in the early game. Eventually their usefulness will peter out though, as you get to the higher levels.

    Besides, there are feats that give you more uses of their powers from Complete Psionic. I feel like if you're spending feats on getting more uses of those, instead of going with whatever build you're doing, that seems like a more than fair trade to me. I agree with Zaq on that one.
    Last edited by Grey Guard; 2019-06-18 at 08:31 AM.

  22. - Top - End - #1282
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Inevitability's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Planes of Law

    Default Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able

    Sorry for the missed update: life's still a bit busy but updates should be back to normal now.

    Anyway, the duergar got +1 pretty consistently, with a minority voting +0 instead. Time for elans!
    Have you had enough of unreasonably high LA's and unplayable monsters in 3.5? Then check out the LA-assignment thread! Don't hesitate to give feedback!

    Extended signature!

  23. - Top - End - #1283
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Inevitability's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Planes of Law

    Default Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able

    Elan


    My apologies to those expecting foolish blonde bards.

    Elan are a fascinating race concept: immortal lifeforms with some unique psychic powers, created for some unknown purpose by a mysterious council. It's a pity no setting I know of actually uses this for anything.

    Anyway, their powers are pretty on-par with those of a +0 LA race. A rather insignificant -2 charisma is compensated for by two free power points (not one: the errata corrects the book on this), as well as the ability to use PP for damage reduction, a saving throw bonus, or nutrition. They also get the aberration type, which opens up some interesting possibilities (alter self shenanigans, rapidstrike).

    Would I play elans over other +0 races? For the right character, I definitely would. Considering their unique blend of up- and downsides, I think it's more than fair to declare them on par with your typical PHB race, so +0 LA it is.
    Have you had enough of unreasonably high LA's and unplayable monsters in 3.5? Then check out the LA-assignment thread! Don't hesitate to give feedback!

    Extended signature!

  24. - Top - End - #1284
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2014

    Default Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able

    Elans are a fun +0. You can get some neat weird stuff but nothing gamebreaking.

  25. - Top - End - #1285
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    OrcBarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able

    Seems lower end of +0 but not bad, aberration makes you immune to charm person which is nice but you are also immune to enlarge person which is lame...

  26. - Top - End - #1286
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2013

    Default Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able

    Quote Originally Posted by Inevitability View Post
    as well as the ability to use PP for damage reduction, a saving throw bonus
    It is important to note those Immediate actions are, respectively, typeless damage mitigation, and a racial bonus on saving throws, which are much more difficult to acquire if you are locked into another race already. Obviously this is a somewhat subpar choice without psionic classes somewhere in the build; but a bipedal aberration with hands and typical slots, and will never starve or die of thirst, is at least something to consider on its own for no RHD. But did they really have to strip the Darkvision? Almost everyone else gets enhanced vision, but this gets stuck in the baseline Human eyesight category.

    Overall, LA +0 from me. Decent though highly specific; if you are not going psionic or intending to take advantage of the type, look elsewhere.
    Last edited by ViperMagnum357; 2019-06-19 at 04:21 PM.

  27. - Top - End - #1287
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    OrcBarbarianGirl

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Why am I here?

    Default Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able

    Quote Originally Posted by liquidformat View Post
    Seems lower end of +0 but not bad, aberration makes you immune to charm person which is nice but you are also immune to enlarge person which is lame...
    Doesn't psionic expansion affect everything though?
    Quote Originally Posted by Petrocorus View Post
    This thread, Questions that can't be answered... Answered by RAW by No brains, is Epic.
    Quote Originally Posted by illyahr View Post
    That is so stupid it's hilarious.
    Quote Originally Posted by georgie_leech View Post
    ...I've clearly been playing D&D for too long, because that made a demented kind of sense.
    Quote Originally Posted by that_one_kobold View Post
    And this is why I love D&D

  28. - Top - End - #1288
    Troll in the Playground
     
    WhiteWizardGirl

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able

    Quote Originally Posted by No brains View Post
    Doesn't psionic expansion affect everything though?
    It always effects yourself regardless of typing. So yes and no.

  29. - Top - End - #1289
    Troll in the Playground
     
    danielxcutter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Seoul
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able

    Quote Originally Posted by Inevitability View Post
    Elan are a fascinating race concept: immortal lifeforms with some unique psychic powers, created for some unknown purpose by a mysterious council. It's a pity no setting I know of actually uses this for anything.
    Eberron has a very interesting twist on them though; in that setting they're basically living Quori prisons. And probably also qualifies them for those sweet Quori shards.
    Cool elan (no not that kind) Illithid Slayer by linkele.


    Editor/co-writer of Magicae Est Potestas, a crossover between Artemis Fowl and Undertale. Archive Of Our Own FanFiction.net DeviantArt
    We also have a TvTropes page!


    Extended signature here.

  30. - Top - End - #1290
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Thurbane's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able

    Again, I have very limited knowledge of psionics, but from what I can see, the Elan are a quite solid LA +0 race. Not quite enough for LA +1, but solid nonetheless.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •