Results 151 to 180 of 1455
-
2021-01-14, 03:35 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
Re: LA Assignment Thread X: New Year, New Management, Same Old Unplayable Monsters
Is it not just as much house rules to fix the aura creating bleakborn spawn, a creature that doesn't exist. To have it create a bleakborn and therefore bleakborn needs an asterisk? My vote assumes it creates a zombie, which I'll edit to make clear. Poorly written monster is poorly written and causing disagreements isn't an uncommon occurrence in these threads.
-
2021-01-14, 05:00 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
Re: LA Assignment Thread X: New Year, New Management, Same Old Unplayable Monsters
You only see a distinction between the two monsters because of contrasting formatting decisions made by the writers; not because of actual differences in the way they operate in the game. Mechanically, they work in more-or-less the same way: the vampire's energy drain and blood drain abilities have the same relationship with its spawn creation ability as the bleakborn's heat-draining aura has with its spawn creation ability.
I don't think "bleakborn spawn" is meant to be the name of a unique creature: I think it's referring back to the Create Spawn ability, where it says, "Sometimes a newly created spawn becomes a bleakborn instead of a mere zombie..." So, it's saying the slain humanoid becomes a spawn, and the type of spawn it becomes is a bleakborn. Very poorly written, but if there is a valid reading of the text that yields a functional result, I feel like it's only fair to reject any alternative readings that yield non-functional results.
--
But, my personal opinion is that everyone has given their votes at this point, and it doesn't look like many votes are likely to change.
-
2021-01-14, 05:49 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2007
- Location
- Terra Australis
- Gender
Re: LA Assignment Thread X: New Year, New Management, Same Old Unplayable Monsters
If I was going to re-edit this creature for publication myself, these are probably the changes I would make (rough draft):
Contingent Healing: When a bleakborn is reduced to 0 hit points or less by damage, it is not truly destroyed, but enters a state of torpor indistinguishable from death/destruction.
A bleakborn gains fast healing 10 while a living creature that it can effect with it's heat draining aura is within range. As soon as it reaches a positive hit point total, it is re-animated and springs back into action on its turn. This happens regardless of how long the bleakborn has been in its torpor state, even after years of inactivity. As long as affected creatures are within its heat-draining aura, a bleakborn’s contingent healing remains active.
If its body is completely destroyed, such as by a disintegrate spell, or a destruction result from a turn undead attempt, the bleakborn is forever destroyed, and cannot use this ability.
A bleakborn does not have immunity to cold. While a bleakborn doesn’t take cold damage from its own abilities, it can take cold damage from another of its kind.
Heat-Draining Aura (Su): All living creatures (except those immune to cold damage) that approach within 30 feet of a bleakborn are subject to its heat-draining aura. Victims must make a DC 16 Fortitude save. If they fail, they take 2d6 hit points of cold damage per round as their living heat is sucked away, but if they succeed, they lose only 1d6 hit points per round that they remain in the radius. Any humanoid slain by this aura rises as an undead in 1d4 rounds (see create spawn above). The save DC is Charisma-based.Last edited by Thurbane; 2021-01-14 at 05:50 PM.
My winning competition entries: Kinvig Arrumskor | The Great Pumpkinhead | Wynfrith d'Acker
Torn-City - Massively multiplayer online browser based crime RPG
-
2021-01-14, 07:59 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2005
- Location
- Baator (aka Britain)
- Gender
Re: LA Assignment Thread X: New Year, New Management, Same Old Unplayable Monsters
This thread is about making monsters playable as much as possible. That should be our guiding principle, not creating semantic issues over formatting that was never intended to be subjected to such scrutiny.
-
2021-01-15, 03:34 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
Re: LA Assignment Thread X: New Year, New Management, Same Old Unplayable Monsters
If people can't agree what the asterisk means, this thread isn't doing a good job of making monsters playable. If I have a player who wants to play a bleakborn and I check the index and see "+0*", then I have to look at the thread to see what the asterisk is talking about. If some people are saying the asterisk is for its entire aura, some are saying the asterisk is just for spawning Bleakborn, and some are saying it's just for spawning zombies, that's really going to affect what LA they give it, and means that averaging the votes isn't reflecting any sort of consensus. I think that if there's contention over what an asterisk means, we should first nail that down, then say "given that the asterisk means this, what LA should this have?"
-
2021-01-15, 08:55 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2018
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
Re: LA Assignment Thread X: New Year, New Management, Same Old Unplayable Monsters
This is the point I was trying to make but more eloquent, I am not bothered by changing what the asterisk means, and I also don't have anything against Bleakborn, I just think it is important that we be consistent with our rating system in order for it to be useful. If we change what an asterisk means every time it is assigned we are not being consistent and that makes the asterisk less useful. I believe Inevitable and our community decided the asterisk meant getting rid of the whole offending ability because that is the only way to rate things fairly and consistently across the board. Sure removing Heat-Draining Aura guts Bleakborn but arguing that its ok just to change the ability is unfair to all other monsters we have rated with an asterisk.
If the consensus is we are not removing the ability when giving an asterisk but adjusting it to be playable then we need to go back and re-evaluate all monsters given an asterisk.
-
2021-01-15, 08:57 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
- Location
- Kaeda
- Gender
Re: LA Assignment Thread X: New Year, New Management, Same Old Unplayable Monsters
I would like to point out that most creatures with Wish have that ability listed with the rest of their SLAs. Were those creatures rated as if they had no SLAs at all? Did Efreeti lose Detect Magic? Were wish-capable demons/devils rated as if they also couldn't teleport?Stupid comparison. Please ignore me being stupid for a moment.
They have an ability called "Spell-Like Abilities". Within that is listed Wish. We took out only that part and those directly related to it (can only grant wishes to non-genies, etc) instead of removing the entire thing.
Agreed.
Assuming the asterisk applies only to the spawn creation, and not to Heat-Draining Aura or the monster being poorly-written in general, how do you vote?Last edited by Debatra; 2021-01-15 at 01:17 PM.
Kaedanis Pyran, tai faernae.
The LA Assignment Threads: Attempting to Make Monsters Playable Since 2016
My Homebrewer's Extended Signature
-
2021-01-15, 09:57 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2020
- Location
- Jerusalem
- Gender
-
2021-01-15, 10:36 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2014
Re: LA Assignment Thread X: New Year, New Management, Same Old Unplayable Monsters
I also assumed the aura was in play, and voted assuming the damage was allowed. I also provided my experience of real play playing an uncapped-spawner monster: in a game where such an ability actually exists (not only as a racial feature, but as a class feature - folks slain by a Yathrinshee are animated for free), the abilities that actually create spawn are allowed (as in, the damaging things that result in minions), but the actual generated minions themselves are being treated as background fluff that lets me circumvent the face role to a degree in our party. At best, I am allowed one particularly powerful minion in a fight, and despite a couple level-ups I've yet to find an enemy really worth fully vampirizing to bring into a fight like that. This is to avoid slowing combat down drastically, and to avoid severely unbalancing fights in what is already a difficult-to-balance game when we "just" have four characters who are monster//class gestalts. And that's fine, because even though I made somebody with severe minionmancy abilities, most of those minions wouldn't be useful in a straight fight, and it's more useful to know how many of them there are so that we know the requirements for keeping them fed, and we know about how big our armies are for vague story reasons.
As it stands, as far as this thread is concerned: we are currently having a "I will die on this hill" argument over whether Bleakborn has a 30 ft aura dealing (at most) 2d6 cold damage per round. If we say "it doesn't have the aura", it's LA is probably +0. If we say "it has the aura", it's LA is probably still +0 because Bleakborn may get quite a bit, but 8 levels would give quite a bit of stuff even to a noncaster, and a 2d6 cold damage aura doesn't really change that.
...although...
...if we wanna get technical about the kind of things we've given an asterisk for: earlier in this exact same thread, we gave Atropal Scion an asterisk not just on the spawn abilities, but on the damaging aura that made interacting with NPCs difficult by virtue of murdering them. Yes, 60 ft radius no-save dealing 2 negative levels is a good deal worse than 30 ft radius Fort save dealing 2d6 cold damage, but the 2 negative levels were just a maximum that auto-applied to all living creatures, while the cold damage will keep getting dealt with over time. One immediately kills ~90% of NPCs that get too close, and the other will eventually kill any NPC who doesn't have enough fast healing, regeneration, or cold resistance/immunity to overcome the minimum 1d6 per round. Let's be real: An atropal scion coming to town auto-murders anybody with 2 HD or less that gets too close, but there's going to be a lot of NPCs with more than 2 HD. But a Bleakborn just keeps dealing damage while you're within the aura. It's not quite as bad for that first round, but it's not that difficult to argue that Bleakborn will have an even harder time just going to town and doing some shopping.
Currently Recruiting WW/Mafia: Logic's Deathloop Mafia and Cazero's Graduates Of Hope's Peak - Danganronpa Mafia
Avatar by AsteriskAmp
My Homebrew
-
2021-01-15, 11:01 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
- Location
- Kaeda
- Gender
Re: LA Assignment Thread X: New Year, New Management, Same Old Unplayable Monsters
Kaedanis Pyran, tai faernae.
The LA Assignment Threads: Attempting to Make Monsters Playable Since 2016
My Homebrewer's Extended Signature
-
2021-01-15, 11:09 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2018
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
Re: LA Assignment Thread X: New Year, New Management, Same Old Unplayable Monsters
-
2021-01-15, 12:17 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2014
Re: LA Assignment Thread X: New Year, New Management, Same Old Unplayable Monsters
Spoiler: Aura discussionYes for asterisk.
Yes for asterisk.
Yes for asterisk.
Yes for asterisk.
Yes for asterisk, neutral for removal. This is the point in the conversation where removal became a point of discussion.
Yes for asterisk, Yes for removal. Or at least, is voting +0* on the basis that asterisk is removing the whole ability, not just the problematic parts (with the commoner-slaying aura being included among the "problematic parts").
Yes for asterisk, No for removal, yes for special handling.
Yes for asterisk, No for removal, yes for special handling.
Yes for asterisk, No for removal.
Yes for asterisk, Yes for removal.
Yes for asterisk, No for removal, yes for houseruling.
Yes for asterisk, No for removal, yes for houseruling.
Yes for asterisk, Yes for removal.
Yes for asterisk, Yes for removal, but this time not from Debatra, but from Inevitability (in spirit).
Yes for asterisk, Yes for removal (and this is why Thurbane's earlier comment was stricken).
Yes for asterisk, No to removal, yes to nuanced removal.
Yes for asterisk, Yes to removal.
No to removal or asterisk, on the grounds that a creature incapable of talking intelligibly and a creature that auto-kills any 1 or 2 HD creatures that get close to it are on the same level of "unable to interact with NPCs".
Yes for asterisk, No to removal, yes to nuanced removal...I think. This sounds like what Blue Jay was talking earlier, about removing just the parts of the ability that are problematic. Of course, Blue Jay's opinion on whether the commoner-killing aura is problematic enough to warrant an asterisk at all shifted over the course of the conversation, so...eh.
Maybe to removal. Additionally, in this context I'll say that the Atropal aura (and the Bleakborn aura as well), by virtue of not being able to be turned off, aren't quite anywhere near as problematic as the "literally can't leave a particular place" issue that Dryad has, but they're moving in the same direction, as far as "able to interact with NPCs" goes.
Maybe to removal.
No to removal or asterisk.
Final tally: no to asterisk or removal or alteration for the death aura???
Conclusion: One person argued many things, among them being that an inability to interact with NPCs doesn't warrant an asterisk (which disagrees with some of the other arguments that same person made). One other person argued that the ability to create intelligent minions allows for normal interaction. Everybody else agreed it was a problematic ability that should on its own deserve an asterisk, with the debate being on whether the entire aura got removed, or just the "can't not kill NPCs" and the "uncapped spawning" parts of the aura. I have no idea why reading through that would give anybody the impression that the group consensus was "this ability isn't a problem".Last edited by AvatarVecna; 2021-01-15 at 12:23 PM.
Currently Recruiting WW/Mafia: Logic's Deathloop Mafia and Cazero's Graduates Of Hope's Peak - Danganronpa Mafia
Avatar by AsteriskAmp
My Homebrew
-
2021-01-15, 12:52 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2016
- Location
- New York
- Gender
Re: LA Assignment Thread X: New Year, New Management, Same Old Unplayable Monsters
This is NOT the same at all. Spell-Like Abilities (bolding mine) are multiple different things. The header is a list of separate abilities, Wish being one of them. That is absolutely in no way the same as an aura that has multiple effects. Its one ability with multiple effects. Wish is also one ability with multiple effects. The comparison youre trying to make would be like the * meaning "they keep wish but can use the teleportation ability of it".
I'd have rather this series died with Inevitability's retirement than see the rules he set up massively altered especially so soon after he's gone.
-
2021-01-15, 01:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
- Location
- Kaeda
- Gender
Re: LA Assignment Thread X: New Year, New Management, Same Old Unplayable Monsters
No, no. You're right. Stupid comparison. Sorry. (Though I will still argue that removing only the problematic part of the ability is better than the entire thing.)
While some of the comments you mark as being in favor seem neutral at best, I am certainly not going to claim infallibility. I evidently should have been a bit more thorough. If we want to reopen Atropal Scion, I'll be happy to do that.
---
Okay, so I have clearly made some mistakes along the way. Here's my attempt to fix them and make sure we're on the same page. On the plus side, I now have a handle on what I did wrong and I will not repeat those mistakes.
Spoiler: A few questions1. How do you feel about an asterisk only removing the problematic parts of an ability when feasible?
For example, let's pretend for a moment the spawn creation is the only issue with Heat-Draining Aura. The uncapped spawn would still give it an asterisk. Do you feel this should mean we remove the entire aura, or just the spawn creation?
2. Do you think the Atropal Scion's asterisk should include the Negative Energy Aura?
3. If it does, do you still agree with the original rating of +1*? If not, how would you now rate it?
4. Do you believe the Bleakborn's asterisk should include its Heat-Draining Aura? (Note that this also effectively nerfs Contingent Healing, as only the "doesn't get destroyed at 0 HP" part will be able to function without the aura.)
5. If it does, what rating would you give it? (Note that this also effectively nerfs Contingent Healing, as only the "doesn't get destroyed at 0 HP" part will be able to function without the aura.)
6. If the Bleakborn's asterisk does not include its Heat-Draining Aura, how would you rate it?
Once again, I am sorry. But I'm not giving up yet.Kaedanis Pyran, tai faernae.
The LA Assignment Threads: Attempting to Make Monsters Playable Since 2016
My Homebrewer's Extended Signature
-
2021-01-15, 02:41 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2016
Re: LA Assignment Thread X: New Year, New Management, Same Old Unplayable Monsters
So, first thing:
Having the series die seems a bit much don't you think? I skim this series most of the time, but I still immensely enjoy it and want it to keep going. Correct me if I'm wrong but no one has brought up a situation like the Bleakborn before, with it's abilities tying into each other. With new (complicated) scenarios we sometimes have to adapt, no rules are perfect from the start and just giving up instead of adapting would be a massive disappointment imo.
Second thing:
So, I understand what point you're making, but this is just the way I view it. Let's say for a second we change the asterisk ruling from removing the problematic ability to removing the problematic part of the ability.
If, like you said, most or all of the previously asterisked abilities are stand alone, then it shouldn't matter if the asterisk was changed to only be problematic parts, because that entire ability is the problematic part. However it would prevent cases like the Bleakborn from losing more than they should. Now, I don't know how many abilities are asterisked and not stand alone, but so what if we had to go back and change those? Isn't the entire point of this thread to make interesting monsters playable? I happen to be in software engineering, and there are next to 0 times where we get something right on the first try and don't have to go back. If the definition of the asterisk changed and we had to adjust some things, I don't see that as a huge problem, especially since it sounds like most asterisked abilities are actually stand alone anyways (which again, wouldn't change).
As for the discussion about the Heat-Draining Aura making NPC interaction impossible and it should be removed because of that, imo this thread shouldn't mess with that. Yes it could be a problem in game, but it could also be part of your game, like say if you're playing an Evil campaign and actually want to kill the peasants. If the DM deals with it themselves there's a lot of ways that could be done, each of which would affect the balance of the LA. For all we know they're playing in a campaign where everything has the Cold subtype, and it wouldn't hurt the general population at all. Or the DM could let you turn it on and off, or they might remove it altogether, regardless those are all different in terms of power. I say just remove the problematic parts that are simple to remove and obviously aren't right for a player to have. Get the base LA and leave the no interaction with NPCs abilities up to the DM. Worst case scenario the player might have to social distance, which could be some interesting roleplaying imo. If they don't want that they can always work it out with the DM or play something else.
(I typed the above before I saw Debatra's latest post, so sorry if some things seem repeated)
Honestly you're doing fairly good so far imo, and owning up to mistakes is a good thing. Thank you for not giving up, I'm sure I'm not the only person who really wants this thread to continue.
Most of my answers should be obvious from the rest of my post but if not I'll reiterate them.
1. I definitely believe asterisk should only remove the problematic parts, not entire abilities, if it can be helped.
2. No, I think it should keep the aura. As I said above there's a lot of different ways the DM and/or player could deal with this without completely removing it. Even if they keep it in, maybe they like the idea of massive social distancing. I think a baseline for the more problematic abilities is the way to go and let individual DMs handle stuff like this.
3. Not sure, but if I get some time to think about it I'll let you know.
4. No, again keep the aura.
5. N/A
6. I'd probably say +0*
-
2021-01-15, 03:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2018
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
Re: LA Assignment Thread X: New Year, New Management, Same Old Unplayable Monsters
No I agree you are doing a good job, I just want to make sure we are being consistent and fair across the board, it is similar to our conversations of what we should be using as a comparison point that we have had multiple times or to a lesser extent body slots.
1. I think that should be fine though we might want to go back and take a look at some of the old asterisk'ed monsters to see if this change would apply to any. (I will skim through them this weekend to see if any might need re evaluation).
2. After thinking about this more and rereading some of the previous monsters we do already have a number of monsters with aura abilities that weren't given * for being walking death to NPCs so I will get behind not removing the whole ability because you are killing most npcs you come across.
3. I think +1* would work for keeping Negative Energy Aura without infinite spawning
4. As said above I can get behind not removing the aura
5. & 6. +0* for Heat-Draining Aura without spawn
-
2021-01-15, 04:42 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
- Location
- Kaeda
- Gender
Re: LA Assignment Thread X: New Year, New Management, Same Old Unplayable Monsters
The auras are an inconvenience to be sure, but unless you also insist on being the party face, you could normally just stay away from people.
Kaedanis Pyran, tai faernae.
The LA Assignment Threads: Attempting to Make Monsters Playable Since 2016
My Homebrewer's Extended Signature
-
2021-01-15, 04:56 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2007
- Location
- Terra Australis
- Gender
Re: LA Assignment Thread X: New Year, New Management, Same Old Unplayable Monsters
Rating the Bleakborn with all abilities other than creating spawn with the aura? I still say +1*.
Removing Heat-draining Aura, which as a knock on effect removes Contingent Healing, might bring it down to +0.My winning competition entries: Kinvig Arrumskor | The Great Pumpkinhead | Wynfrith d'Acker
Torn-City - Massively multiplayer online browser based crime RPG
-
2021-01-15, 07:18 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2020
- Location
- Jerusalem
- Gender
Re: LA Assignment Thread X: New Year, New Management, Same Old Unplayable Monsters
1. Yes, when feasible, only problematic aspects should be removed.
2. For the reason stated above, I think only the problematic stuff should be included an the Scion's asterisk.
3. Not sure.
4. No, it should only include actual problems.
5. Probably -0*.
6. As I've said, +0*.
By the way, I'm new to the thread (though I've been lurking for some time), but I think you're doing a fine job. There will always be issues when taking on such a responsibility, but I think you've dealt with those with much reason, calm and maturity.
-
2021-01-15, 07:39 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2005
- Location
- Baator (aka Britain)
- Gender
-
2021-01-16, 12:59 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2016
- Location
- New York
- Gender
Re: LA Assignment Thread X: New Year, New Management, Same Old Unplayable Monsters
{Scrubbed}
If an ability can cause a problem, just remove it. No thinking, not cutting out just small parts, thats homebrew levels of work for individual tables. its outside the scope of the thread, just mark the LA, rate as if it doesnt have the ability, and move on. Plus a lot of monsters have huge LA because of their abilities, some might still need too much LA even with problematic parts removed. Removing the whole thing is MORE likely to make something playable than not, which seems in-line with the purpose of these threads.
I've been around since the first LA thread iirc and it means a lot to me, and I'd be really upset to see the whole way its run changed now that its under new management. If everythings changed, then it might as well be dead yes. Someone else can do their own thing unrelated, but this is currently set as a "sequel series under a new author" rather than something else. Its like a 3rd party 3.5 book vs a pathfinder 1e book.
hopefully some of my rambling here made sense.Last edited by Pirate ninja; 2021-01-16 at 07:01 AM.
-
2021-01-16, 01:38 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2016
Re: LA Assignment Thread X: New Year, New Management, Same Old Unplayable Monsters
Currently Playing: Aire Romaris Chaotic Good Male Half Celestial Gray Elf Duskblade 13 / Swiftblade 7 /// Elven Generallist Wizard 20
-
2021-01-16, 04:47 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2020
- Location
- Jerusalem
- Gender
Re: LA Assignment Thread X: New Year, New Management, Same Old Unplayable Monsters
I really don't think "it's LA +X, except there's no heat draining aura" is in any way simpler to understand than "it's LA +X, except there's no spawning Bleakborn."
I agree that we shouldn't start homebrewing alternatives to things, but in cases in which the problem is a distinct ability of the creature (not "a listed ability", a distinct ability), I don't see why that shouldn't be the only ability addressed. Banning the issue doesn't require any more thought than identifying it as the issue. We're not trying to program AI here, this thread is for human use.
If someone sees an asterisk on an entry saying "No spawning" or "No immunity to conjuration spells" they will immediately understand and address the issue. They won't be confused, or have to think about it, based on whether or not that specific, concrete, and simply put problematic ability is listed by itself or jumbled together with another ability (for a fictional example, "magic resistance" giving +4 to saving throws against spells and immunity to conjuration).
-
2021-01-16, 06:46 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2005
- Location
- Baator (aka Britain)
- Gender
Re: LA Assignment Thread X: New Year, New Management, Same Old Unplayable Monsters
Just on a social interaction viewpoint, given that Debatra is only running the thread because no one else wanted to, blasting him about how he's doing it wrongly is hardly par for the course. If he wasn't doing it all, we wouldn't even be rating monsters any more!
-
2021-01-16, 03:08 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2016
- Location
- New York
- Gender
-
2021-01-16, 03:49 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2005
- Location
- Baator (aka Britain)
- Gender
Re: LA Assignment Thread X: New Year, New Management, Same Old Unplayable Monsters
Well, I wouldn't and I imagine that I'm not the only one.
-
2021-01-16, 05:05 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2019
- Gender
Re: LA Assignment Thread X: New Year, New Management, Same Old Unplayable Monsters
What the discussion here aims to accomplish is to rate playability and aid those who wanna play or allow their table to play something out of the box. It's about flexibility and an open mind, by default. Pedantic arguments over semantics aren't flexible, nor are open-minded. Arguments about complete removal of abilities aren't flexible or open-minded. Lobotomizing what makes a monster interesting isn't flexible or open-minded, and it doesn't aid anyone who might think of playing or allowing one in any way.
What's the point of a monster whose schtick is draining the heat out of everything around it if that monster can't drain the heat of everything around it? Why would anyone play it at any LA, when it's not doing what its whole point of existence and flavor is about?
How is it following the spirit of the thread to do so? How is it respectful to the work of Inevitability, and everyone who has participated over time, to say that it's better to not have a discussion at all?
And what's so difficult or inconsistent in removing the actual thing that everyone agrees is problematic - namely the bleakborn spawning? Yes, if you wanna be extremely pedantic for no real reason, it's not an ability in and of itself, but part of an ability. Yet it's certainly obvious and distinct. Nobody who reads this is going to find it strange, or inconsistent, or difficult to understand. "If included, don't allow it to spawn bleakborn" is pretty clear.
The asterisk is removal of abilities that, for whatever reason, make the monster broken or unplayable. It's not for stripping the monster of everything that makes it a possibly interesting PC option because a problem it has happens to be in a paragraph without a heading.
I believe this answers Debatra's questions regarding my opinion on what the asterisk should do. In that vein, I'll also cast my first vote and say LA +0* for the bleakborn. It can't die (well, not by most conventional means anyway), it has good stats and a number of other perks, but it's kinda hard to advance it, either because it has too many HD to get far as a caster or too low a BAB for a martial. Still, what it has is decent, and I wouldn't call it unplayable, far from it. But certainly not much gain either.Last edited by Chaos Jackal; 2021-01-16 at 05:17 PM.
-
2021-01-16, 05:29 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2007
- Location
- Terra Australis
- Gender
Re: LA Assignment Thread X: New Year, New Management, Same Old Unplayable Monsters
My winning competition entries: Kinvig Arrumskor | The Great Pumpkinhead | Wynfrith d'Acker
Torn-City - Massively multiplayer online browser based crime RPG
-
2021-01-17, 12:28 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
Re: LA Assignment Thread X: New Year, New Management, Same Old Unplayable Monsters
Guys, I'm sorry for the role my comments have played in prolonging a heated debate.
For my two cents, there is a wide range of variation in the power level of monsters, and in how the monsters were written. So, any attempt by us to consistently apply the same standard to all monsters we come across is going to be imperfect and sloppy. Frankly, I think it's absurd to believe that this project has ever been (or will ever be) consistent by any metric. But in my mind, the inconsistency is not necessarily a bad thing: with the material we're using, inconsistency was always unavoidable, and there was never any chance that our "final product" would be neat and tidy and devoid of substantial glitches.
I think the best solution for a disagreement like this is for everyone to "vote their conscience," and depend on the law of averages to work it out in a favorable way. I don't think it was ever our job to come up with definitive answers to questions like this: our job has always been to provide advice and perspectives for DMs and players to use at their tables, so we can frankly leave all the decision-making to them.
This kind of nuts-&-bolts disagreement has happened a lot of times during the course of this project. But in reality, the great majority of monsters go by without sparking any debates like this. So, I think we can rest assured that our methodological disagreements are pretty minor in the long run, and the project can continue just fine even if we disagree on this particular point. At worst, the methodological disagreement here is going to swing this monster's rating by a fraction of a point of LA, and 99% of the monsters we rate in the future will be unaffected by our disagreement.
So, let's not get too hung up on these disagreements: they're just a drop in the bucket.
Debatra, my opinion is that you should just tally up the votes now, take an average, add an asterisk, and move on. And for what it's worth, I think you're doing a great job trying to fill some big shoes.Last edited by Blue Jay; 2021-01-17 at 12:29 AM.
-
2021-01-17, 12:31 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
- Location
- Kaeda
- Gender
Re: LA Assignment Thread X: New Year, New Management, Same Old Unplayable Monsters
While I appreciate the show of support, that also doesn't shield me from criticism. By all means, call me on it when you feel I make a mistake. I not only welcome but encourage it.
---
I've gone through the archive, looking at every creature that's been given an asterisk so far. And we actually have only partly removed a problematic ability before! Only once I'll admit, but it's been done. The Shambling Mound - Unaltered, it has immunity to electricity. In that same ability, still listed under "Immunity to Electricity", it says that any electric attack temporarily increases its Constitution (to potentially infinite levels). The Con-boosting was asterisked, but nobody even mentioned the idea of making them not immune to electricity. All of the others had their problematic abilities removed completely, though that doesn't say much considering none of the rest of those abilities were rider effects attached to other abilities.
I also found several discussions where having a non-suppressible unfriendly aura had specifically been rejected as a reason for an asterisk.Last edited by Debatra; 2021-01-17 at 12:51 AM.
Kaedanis Pyran, tai faernae.
The LA Assignment Threads: Attempting to Make Monsters Playable Since 2016
My Homebrewer's Extended Signature