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

[danielxcutter]

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

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

Incidentally, I believe the Necromancer Handbook might help put things into perspective.

[Thurbane]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Debatra]

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

[Thurbane]

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

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

[InvisibleBison]

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

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

[Debatra]

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

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

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

[liquidformat]

Yeah I think it deserves an asterisk seems reasonable

[Remuko]

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

[Falontani]

Gah the dreaded Asterisk. I was afraid of this.

LA +2, or +0*

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

[Caelestion]

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

[Thurbane]

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

^^ Agreed.

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

[Blue Jay]

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

[Morphic tide]

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

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

[liquidformat]

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

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

[Caelestion]

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

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

[danielxcutter]

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

Or maybe having the aura suppressible? That might help.

[liquidformat]

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

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

[Thurbane]

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

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

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

[Debatra]

From Inevitability himself in the last thread:

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

[AvatarVecna]

LA +2/-0*

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

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

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

[Thurbane]

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

[PoeticallyPsyco]

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

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

[Blue Jay]

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

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

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

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

[Debatra]

So far we have:

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

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

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

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

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

[Blue Jay]

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

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

[danielxcutter]

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

[Debatra]

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

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

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

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

[danielxcutter]

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

[Debatra]

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

[AvatarVecna]

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