The LA Assignment Thread XI: Better LA'd Than Never

[ciopo]

my 2 coppers : there is the negative LA thread for adjusting things that are umplayable even at LA 0

I find myself mostly in agreements with Troacctid here, in that a "positive gains" template needs to have *some* kind of cost. If templates are at LA +0 then the base creature might as well not exists at all. let's bundle all of them up in a single package without any variation. from a playability point of view no one should have to decide between taking or not taking a purely positive LA 0 template.

That from a "let's use it in a competition" point of view, if this here is to be a reference for using those monsters at an actual table, I would be extremely reluctant to ask my GM "can I play a fast-hunting-unkillable zombie?" the same way I will never ever touch unseelie fey with a 10ft pole, or the "lesser" template from PGtF.

If we end up with most of these templates being +0, but the gm would veto/frown on stacking/using them, well then the value of this massive project goes down :(


On the other hand, I do see how these are not enough to flip to +1 individually.

I can't think of a nicely package solution for this, not within the scope of this thread. With the negative LA one, maybe, that la 0- suddenly has an adjusted HD, but if these pseudo templates come with fractional LA and/or attached HD, then there could be some tuning done. if the "cost" of taking the fast zombie template is "+1/2HD", we still have the effect of 1/2 LA, but BAB/saves/skills/feats/HP still advances, essentially trading away class features for the template features without also losing BAB/saves/etc

[liquidformat]

my 2 coppers : there is the negative LA thread for adjusting things that are umplayable even at LA 0

I find myself mostly in agreements with Troacctid here, in that a "positive gains" template needs to have *some* kind of cost. If templates are at LA +0 then the base creature might as well not exists at all. let's bundle all of them up in a single package without any variation. from a playability point of view no one should have to decide between taking or not taking a purely positive LA 0 template.

That from a "let's use it in a competition" point of view, if this here is to be a reference for using those monsters at an actual table, I would be extremely reluctant to ask my GM "can I play a fast-hunting-unkillable zombie?" the same way I will never ever touch unseelie fey with a 10ft pole, or the "lesser" template from PGtF.

If we end up with most of these templates being +0, but the gm would veto/frown on stacking/using them, well then the value of this massive project goes down :(


On the other hand, I do see how these are not enough to flip to +1 individually.

I can't think of a nicely package solution for this, not within the scope of this thread. With the negative LA one, maybe, that la 0- suddenly has an adjusted HD, but if these pseudo templates come with fractional LA and/or attached HD, then there could be some tuning done. if the "cost" of taking the fast zombie template is "+1/2HD", we still have the effect of 1/2 LA, but BAB/saves/skills/feats/HP still advances, essentially trading away class features for the template features without also losing BAB/saves/etc

Honestly I think Zombie is probably the worst choice to use as an example here since It would probably take 4 if not all 5 variants to make a zombie move from -0 to +0 and even then you need an additional template to remove mindlessness and to be a base race with 2 rhd or less. That is a pretty high bar already in place to take zombie out of -0 territory.

You have a similar issue with skeletons, for the most part anything with 3 or more rhd is going to be -0 la even if you stack all the variants. The real issue with skeletons comes with skellies that have no rhd which originally had a +1 la or ones with 2 rhd which would most likely have been +0 or sometimes -0.

For Lich if my understanding is correct I don't think you can stack good lich and lichfiend so those can simply be evaluated individually.

So that really leaves skeletons with low RHD, ghosts, and vampires. In these cases I don't think any one of the variant templates by themselves is enough to bump them up another LA and we already have precedence for giving templates multiple ratings; ghost, skeleton, evolved undead, swarm shifter all already have such functionality. I am not seeing the big deal if we rate these as +0/+1 for every 2 or 3 templates taken. That makes these playable and doesn't rock the boat anymore than we have already done with previous templates.

[Prime32]

In regards to these variants granting free bonuses only to those who know about them... Can we roll the ratings for the base zombie + its variants into a single post, replacing the existing "Zombie" entry in the MM index? That would solve the exposure problem.

[Beni-Kujaku]

Undead can't take Soul Eater PRC since it has the requirement that you are a living nonhumanoid...

That's right, thank you.

I am honestly not seeing a meaningful difference between LA 1- and fractional LAs, except that LA 1- is just making things unplayable out of spite just like Troacctid's comments you are just tanking it because players can't have nice things. In either case we are creating another tool for the tool box in evaluation. And to be honest we should have already probably added fractional LAs for self stacking templates like evolved undead and swarm shifter.

If the goal of this exercise is to make things playable which is my understanding, giving out LA 1- or giving unwarranted +1 isn't doing anything to make things more playable as Troacctid's said it is just tanking things to tank them which is counter productive.

I don't think fractional LA is inherently a bad thing, I only described them as "complicated", and that is mostly because of the implications. Only having "LA+1/2" on some template is no real problem. But then what's the difference with a creature? Why not give the skirr LA +1/2? And why not LA +1/4, LA+1/8, or LA+3/4? And why not LA+1.5, +3.75 or +5.15? In the end, fractional LA is, as far as I am concerned, a slippery slope that would increase the pointless discussions here tenfold. I prefer to shun this altogether in this particular thread.
And, even more than that, introducing that would require to re-rate everything from the beginning. And this is just not possible. Most of what we chose was in order to not have to do that (notably the 1 for each odd-numbered iteration thing for evolved undead. This was specifically to avoid fractional LA).

That's not to say that I think that there could be or should be no fractional LA for this kind of template (and only for them), but I believe it should not be in this thread. Maybe in the negative LA thread, or in another thread altogether, but putting it in the main thread has too many implications that just can't be solved without rating everything again.

So that really leaves skeletons with low RHD, ghosts, and vampires.I am not seeing the big deal if we rate these as +0/+1 for every 2 or 3 templates taken. That makes these playable and doesn't rock the boat anymore than we have already done with previous templates.

In my opinion, this is kind of better (notably because it's the same as evolved undead), but it is hard to generalize, because it puts all the variants at the same level, which is just not true at all, contrary to Evolved Undead. And it doesn't solve the other weak templates that we could encounter, like those in the DMG II.

PS: By the way, Liquidformat, you know you can reply to a post without quoting the entire post? In the writing zone, after you click "Reply with quote", the entire text of the post you're replying to appears (between [ QUOTE]. You can then just erase most of it to keep only the part of the post that is relevant to yours. Especially when you're replying to longer posts, it can make the whole thing much more readable.

In regards to these variants granting free bonuses only to those who know about them... Can we roll the ratings for the base zombie + its variants into a single post, replacing the existing "Zombie" entry in the MM index? That would solve the exposure problem.

You can't do that. We could rate a Fast Zombie, an Unkillable Zombie and a Bloodthirsty Zombie, but a Fast Unkillable Zombie also exists. There are 32 different combinations for zombie variants and vampire variants, and 16 for skeleton variants. We're not doing this here (or at least, I personnally am not brave enough for this). And it doesn't solve the other weak pseudotemplates.

[liquidformat]

I don't think fractional LA is inherently a bad thing, I only described them as "complicated", and that is mostly because of the implications.....
In my opinion, this is kind of better (notably because it's the same as evolved undead), but it is hard to generalize, because it puts all the variants at the same level, which is just not true at all, contrary to Evolved Undead. And it doesn't solve the other weak templates that we could encounter, like those in the DMG II.

Again we already use variant LAs for quite a few templates (as well as some monsters such as pixie) and the only difference between variant LA of those templates and fractional is handwaving. Getting +1/2 LA or +1 LA every even number are the same thing.

I really think you are overblowing the complexity aspect of this to be honest.
Zombie: From looking at zombie variants I honestly think it would take adding all 5 to make a +0 zombie, Diseased Zombie specifically has no real PC use.

Skeletons: the variants honestly seem pretty comparable in power to each other and I think saying +1 LA for every 2 or maybe every 3 seems just fine.

Ghosts: I don't think adding both variants would increase ghost LA to +4 but I also don't think it is far off, and if we include the FB variant I in no way think they are worth +5 LA

Again I don't think the Lich variants are stackable...

Vampire: Moonbane is actively making yourself worse and when you add in the sun and water issues I think it is enough to drop an LA; Persuasive and Psychic are sideways moves you are trading one ability for another even if stacking templates these shouldn't change your LA.
The only two that are actually adding anything are Savage and swarmform I think the two together could be worth an LA increase and its easy enough to put in a comment to said effect...

You can't do that. We could rate a Fast Zombie, an Unkillable Zombie and a Bloodthirsty Zombie, but a Fast Unkillable Zombie also exists. There are 32 different combinations for zombie variants and vampire variants, and 16 for skeleton variants. We're not doing this here (or at least, I personnally am not brave enough for this). And it doesn't solve the other weak pseudotemplates.

I mean there is no reason we can't do that it would just take a lot more effort and time...

PS: By the way, Liquidformat, you know you can reply to a post without quoting the entire post? In the writing zone, after you click "Reply with quote", the entire text of the post you're replying to appears (between [ QUOTE]. You can then just erase most of it to keep only the part of the post that is relevant to yours. Especially when you're replying to longer posts, it can make the whole thing much more readable.

yes yes I know just sometimes you want to reply to the whole thing rather than breaking it up or cutting parts out, this isn't my first day of interneting...

[Troacctid]

I am honestly not seeing a meaningful difference between LA 1- and fractional LAs, except that LA 1- is just making things unplayable out of spite just like Troacctid's comments you are just tanking it because players can't have nice things. In either case we are creating another tool for the tool box in evaluation.

So we should give players nice things? Why not just make every template +0 LA then? Throw balance out the window! Stack as many as you want! That's nice, right?

No. The point isn't to give players nice things. It's to rebalance monster LAs to be more usable in real games. "Everything is free" isn't usable. It's a headache for everyone involved.

The zombie and skeleton templates, by the way, are already effectively +1 LA in the book, if I recall. They make the monster count as +1 HD above normal for the purpose of animate dead, right?

[Brackenlord]

It's would be kinda of hassle to reevaluate every +0 template, but they could use a fractional progression like BAB.
As in, these templates are +0 (1/2) or +0 (3/4), meaning if you just add one it doesn't meaningfully change your LA, but beyond that you get +1 or +2 at 3.

[liquidformat]

So we should give players nice things? Why not just make every template +0 LA then? Throw balance out the window! Stack as many as you want! That's nice, right?

No. The point isn't to give players nice things. It's to rebalance monster LAs to be more usable in real games. "Everything is free" isn't usable. It's a headache for everyone involved.

The zombie and skeleton templates, by the way, are already effectively +1 LA in the book, if I recall. They make the monster count as +1 HD above normal for the purpose of animate dead, right?

Again we are trying to make things playable and as I have said repeatedly giving them arbitrarily high LAs is the opposite of that; it's what WotC did to most monsters to begin with. And WotC in effect giving them a +1 LA isn't particularly good support for us doing the same as we have proven over and over at best WotC didn't have a clue what they were doing and at worse purposely gave bloated LA to things to keep them out of the hands of players.

Most of these templates end up being the difference between a goblin and a whisper gnome, yeah the whisper gnome is clearly better but it is not enough to tack on LA. If your concern is focused around variant stacking and you don't like the suggestion I have offered then I invite you to offer your own interpretation of how that should be handled.

[Prime32]

In regards to these variants granting free bonuses only to those who know about them... Can we roll the ratings for the base zombie + its variants into a single post, replacing the existing "Zombie" entry in the MM index? That would solve the exposure problem.

You can't do that. We could rate a Fast Zombie, an Unkillable Zombie and a Bloodthirsty Zombie, but a Fast Unkillable Zombie also exists. There are 32 different combinations for zombie variants and vampire variants, and 16 for skeleton variants. We're not doing this here (or at least, I personnally am not brave enough for this). And it doesn't solve the other weak pseudotemplates.

...okay, we can't do that, but I have no idea how that relates to my post.

[pabelfly]

Weak templates that cost 0 LA are too cheap. If they're scored at 0, there's no reason to take them (outside of roleplay concerns and perhaps scoring penalties in any competitions). There's no reason not to stack as many 0 LA templates as you can, either. Yes, some racial variants are better than others for the same LA cost, but that's not the same as saying you can add every Elf racial feature that isn't a score boost onto a new type of Elf and get all of those bonuses for no extra cost.

0 LA is not a good solution, IMO.

Weak templates that cost 1 LA are too expensive. If they're scored at 1, there's no reason to take them. This is a better solution than scoring them at 0, sure, but if we want to make everything playable, it's not a good solution either. IMO.

Proposed Solution 1: Score weak templates at half LA. You can stack two of them to get a +1 LA. If you take an odd number, you're still at the next level of LA, so make choices in what you're taking. A compromise between 0 and 1, but compromises aren't necessarily bad. We don't have to go into increasingly minute fractions either, 1/2 LA is fine.

Proposed Solution 2: Score weak templates as being the equivalent of a feat instead. A feat is worth less than a lost level, and it seems like the features being offered in these templates are around the value of a feat - they are a boost, but not so dramatic that you would have to take it over every other feat on offer. And if they are dramatically better than a feat, they're worth an LA +1.

I'm inclined to prefer the second option, myself, but I'd like to see what others think.

[Thurbane]

If it's open to a vote, I strongly vote against introducing a new level of rating, regardless of whether it is "-" or fractional. It undermines what has already been voted on, IMHO.

In the past, many, many people having commented that something is a "strong LA +0" or a "weak LA +1". I don't know that we need anything more than that opinion on individual votes. If we start messing with the whole rating system, I can foresee a lot of headaches and heartache.

[Emperor Tippy]

If we were starting from scratch, the entire D&D 3.5 LA, HD, ECL, and CR systems would be drastically redone. Absent that, fractional LA isn't worth the hassle or debates.

Being honest, any game or DM actually using this thread as a resource is already in a position where they (and their players) and unlikely to have any issue with adjusting to their circumstances. "Well these dudes online said this template is +0 so I'm taking all of them and it's all good." is not the situation that we should be caring about.

[Thurbane]

I mean, I can see Troacctid's point: why would anyone take Skeleton, if Skeleton ++ was on the table, with everything the original has, plus extras.

What I disagree on is that this is automatically worth an extra +1 so as not to make it an automatic decision. If the added abilities are powerful enough, then I absolutely endorse increasing the LA. IMHO, most of the modified templates don't have that kind of power increase, though.

On the other hand, I also don't like the idea of adding fractional CRs, or a new notation of "-" or similar (if someone were to twist my arm behind my back, I would prefer fractional over a new notation).

At the end of the day, though, most of the templates being discussion in this section are either bad enough that some upgrades for free really wouldn't cause significant issues, or are already encumbered with a high enough LA that a few extra abilities tacked on is, again, not really going to affect too much.

I guess you could look on the upgrades as "errata", of a sort. It's also possible that some tables wouldn't have LM in play, in which case it would be a non-issue.

Anyhow, it's not like D&D doesn't already come with decisions so obvious that almost everyone doesn't take them. How many Druids don't take Natural Spell as their 6th level feat (apart from new players)? There are examples of this throughout all the books (probably better ones than what I could think of off the top of my head), from core onwards.

End of the day, does it really matter that much if certain upgrades to templates become a no-brainer?

[Emperor Tippy]

Swarm-Shifter is the only one of the templates so far that makes me hesitant. +1 LA for Sand Shifter is a no brainer on basically any PC build that you could put it on, especially a Necropolitian.

Ignoring that it is an out of combat full heal, it gives a 60 ft. perfect fly speed, Fine size, and the other Swarm benefits. Thanks to being Undead, it can run forever which means that its overland movement speed is 240 ft. per round or 24 (D&D) MPH.

On a Psion or Warlock, it gives you a superb casting platform. On a Rogue like character it massively jacks up your infiltration and sneaking potential. The only time that a Sand Shifter Necropolitian (or other actually relevant Undead) really loses out is in a very high level game as a caster or in a decently high optimization build where its abilities aren't relevant. A Sand Shifter Necropolitan Wizard really doesn't start loosing out to a Necro Wizard one level higher until level fifteen or higher really. I mean having Sorcerer spell progression bites but you are still going to get 9ths and the Sand Shifter benefits remain relevant for basically the entire game (they cease to be great after around ECL 10 but they never really become useless or the like). Incidentally, Swarm-Shifter is a template that I would increase to +2 (at least for Sand Shifter) and maybe even +3. At +1 there is basically no reason not to throw it onto basically any undead build.

For the various Variant pseudo-templates, even all of them combined don't really hit the same benefit of what Swarm-Shifter can give you in any build where you would actually select Swarm-Shifter. Of course, if a PC is going to take them then (like basically everything else in this thread) it is going to be done in conversation with the DM and any DM ever likely to approve is going to see the discussion and tailor the LA to the specific situation.

[Troacctid]

End of the day, does it really matter that much if certain upgrades to templates become a no-brainer?

I'll flip that around on you. End of the day, does it really matter if certain upgrades to templates aren't really worth taking even at their revised LA?

My version of the scenario is better. It's more of a drain on both players and DMs to have extra free templates in play than it is to have extra templates that aren't worth it. If we're being real, nobody really cares about these variants anyway. Players aren't going to be upset that they aren't a diseased zombie instead of a regular zombie. It's not a big deal. On the other hand, the existence of obscure templates that give free power upgrades at no cost is always a net negative to the character creation minigame. That's not a fun thing to have exist.

+1 LA is the safer, more conservative route. Nothing can go wrong with it. And the ones that give stuff up to get the benefits can be +0! NBD.

[Thurbane]

My version of the scenario is better.

I respect your right to your opinion, but it doesn't mean I have to agree with it, or acknowledge it as inherently better.

You make some good points, but this will be another agree to disagree scenario for me.

[Beni-Kujaku]

Being honest, any game or DM actually using this thread as a resource is already in a position where they (and their players) and unlikely to have any issue with adjusting to their circumstances. "Well these dudes online said this template is +0 so I'm taking all of them and it's all good." is not the situation that we should be caring about.

The situation has changed a bit recently with the introduction of Monster Mash, which forces us to be a bit more strict/conservative than just "ask your DM".

On a Psion or Warlock, it gives you a superb casting platform. On a Rogue like character it massively jacks up your infiltration and sneaking potential. The only time that a Sand Shifter Necropolitian (or other actually relevant Undead) really loses out is in a very high level game as a caster or in a decently high optimization build where its abilities aren't relevant.

This rating was made mostly with the assumption that "the creature loses all its special attacks while in swarm form" includes its spellcasting/invocations. Which means you'd have to choose between great defensive abilities and actually contributing in combat. And even then it was pretty close between +1 and +2, because of the multiple out-of-combat goodies.

[Remuko]

Being honest, any game or DM actually using this thread as a resource is already in a position where they (and their players) and unlikely to have any issue with adjusting to their circumstances. "Well these dudes online said this template is +0 so I'm taking all of them and it's all good." is not the situation that we should be caring about.

Agreed entirely.

[Emperor Tippy]

The situation has changed a bit recently with the introduction of Monster Mash, which forces us to be a bit more strict/conservative than just "ask your DM".

For that edge case, it seems like something that thread should adjust. Realistically, the variants can't be LA 0 because then (any time their LA would be relevant) you just take all of them and that is plainly worth at least LA +1. On the other hand, none of those variants come even close to being worth LA +1 on their own. Since we aren't really doing factional LA or similar, there really isn't a solution beyond "Ask the DM in that specific use case."

This rating was made mostly with the assumption that "the creature loses all its special attacks while in swarm form" includes its spellcasting/invocations. Which means you'd have to choose between great defensive abilities and actually contributing in combat. And even then it was pretty close between +1 and +2, because of the multiple out-of-combat goodies.

Which is a really stupid assumption that ignores how the rules work. "Class" is not part of "Base Creature". Or to be more precise, the "base creature" of a Necropolitan Grey Elf Psion is a Necropolitan Grey Elf. After Swarm-Shifter is applied it would then be a Swarm-Shifter Necropolitan Grey Elf. Then you add however many levels of Psion on.

Even ignoring the benefits of Swarm-Shifter to Manifesting and Invoking, it is still a huge boon to any kind of stealth focused build. Necropolitan is, on its own, a great pick for any Rogue type that isn't face focused (and still ok on face focused builds depending on the situation); the Undead type is basically all pluses for them. Sand Form Swarm-Shifter Necropolitan though? You pick up +16 to Hide when in Swarm form, gain a 60 ft. Perfect fly speed (which means 240 ft. run speed that you can keep up indefinitely) that works in AMF's*, and get to be Fine sized in most respects. You just made yourself a spectacular scout and infiltrator. That remains the case even in higher level play when you factor in things like Mindblank (to no sell divination). All for LA +1?

Then start looking at potential builds. What Rogue like scout or assassin builds would look askance at loosing a level for Sand Form (and honestly, the same applies to a somewhat lesser extent to all of the other flying swarms). Any build on an undead race that isn't already ECL starved will throw on Swarm-Shifter; not because it makes them better in combat (without Factotum 8 it has minimal in combat utility) but because it provides massive out of combat utility at minimal cost.

Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of Swarm-Shifter (at least Sand form, the others are more meh) and actually think you could brew up a really cool five level PrC around the idea but rating it as LA +1 even if it removed most class features is dubious at best. Hmm, Sand Form, HiPS, and one or two more minor or niche abilities (Death Attack and Sneak Attack progression perhaps, or some kind of non-detection ability?) could make a good Undead Assassin PrC with intended entry around ECL 10 and ending at ECL 15.

[Debatra]

Well we've already given some templates LAs that vary based on how many iterations of it you have, or even based on how many RHD you have (like the Skeleton, which I'm not sure I agree with that specific example, but hey).

Since none of these things, with the possible exception of Fast Zombie and Good Lich, would be enough on their own to warrant a higher LA than the regular template already has, it seems reasonable to just have a general note for most of the variants that they're (for example) +0 if you only have one and then scale it up per variant you take.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Undead can't take Soul Eater PRC since it has the requirement that you are a living nonhumanoid...

Can't eat souls if you don't eat!

I am honestly not seeing a meaningful difference between LA 1- and fractional LAs, except that LA 1- is just making things unplayable out of spite.

Might as well say that -0 level adjustment makes things unplayable out of spite. I mean, there's no way a hill giant is a viable character at 12th level! But there isn't really a good way to make hill giants playable without either making things overcomplicated or opening the door to major shenanigans.
Granted, you can argue that, say, fractional LA is less complicated than reduced RHD or whatever, but that's just a difference in degree, not kind.

I don't think fractional LA is inherently a bad thing, I only described them as "complicated", and that is mostly because of the implications.....
In my opinion, this is kind of better (notably because it's the same as evolved undead), but it is hard to generalize, because it puts all the variants at the same level, which is just not true at all, contrary to Evolved Undead. And it doesn't solve the other weak templates that we could encounter, like those in the DMG II.

I really think you are overblowing the complexity aspect of this to be honest.

The fact that you un-quoted (and then didn't even reference) the reasons Beni thought fractional LA would make things complicated—the fact that there's no reason it shouldn't apply to other monsters if it's an option at all—really rubs me the wrong way. So yeah, screw fractional LAs. They seem like a bad idea to me, and if you can't even argue they aren't without ignoring Beni's arguments, then that feeling is probably right.

The situation has changed a bit recently with the introduction of Monster Mash, which forces us to be a bit more strict/conservative than just "ask your DM".

Sorry.

Well we've already given some templates LAs that vary based on how many iterations of it you have, or even based on how many RHD you have (like the Skeleton, which I'm not sure I agree with that specific example, but hey).

Since none of these things, with the possible exception of Fast Zombie and Good Lich, would be enough on their own to warrant a higher LA than the regular template already has, it seems reasonable to just have a general note for most of the variants that they're (for example) +0 if you only have one and then scale it up per variant you take.

Some version of this is probably the best option we'll come up with, short of turning some of the mid-tier quasi-templates into feats or something. (Which I wouldn't be opposed to, but it seems like a lot of people are.)

[Tzardok]

I think turning a few of the simpler templates into feats is propably the best way.

[pabelfly]

The situation has changed a bit recently with the introduction of Monster Mash, which forces us to be a bit more strict/conservative than just "ask your DM".

I imagine someone judging a monster, seeing an entrant with a bunch of different free templates, will heavily penalize on elegance (lots of templates would be inelegant) and/or originality (this thread has already discussed the cheese of applying a bunch of free templates).

[Thurbane]

I imagine someone judging a monster, seeing an entrant with a bunch of different free templates, will heavily penalize on elegance (lots of templates would be inelegant) and/or originality (this thread has already discussed the cheese of applying a bunch of free templates).

Indeed. And as Tippy suggested, this might be better addressed in the comp thread itself anyway.

[Dalmosh]

Being honest, any game or DM actually using this thread as a resource is already in a position where they (and their players) and unlikely to have any issue with adjusting to their circumstances. "Well these dudes online said this template is +0 so I'm taking all of them and it's all good." is not the situation that we should be caring about.

Any DM that adopts these rules at their table is already going to be doing so sparingly and conservatively, which is how one integrates somebody's homebrew into their game.
Since the Archive links directly to the relevant discussion for each entry, DM's are able to read through your comments and arguments for edge cases like this by themselves and come to their own verdict about how to balance this kind of edge case. You've collectively already given them the tools they need to make that call by laying out your arguments here for people to refer back to.

You are probably just overcomplicating things by taking things further than that in this thread.

[Thurbane]

You are probably just overcomplicating things by taking things further than that in this thread.

I think you are basically agreeing with Tippy's point, unless I'm misreading?

[Dalmosh]

Indeed. I am such a DM, and I love what you folks are doing and how you are currently doing it.

While I like the idea of fractional level adjustment and feat/flaw balancing, that's getting a bit too granular and subjective for what this specific thread offers my table.
Not being able to comfortably choose between 0+ and 1 is fine, and 1 is a fine conditional placeholder for that. People can really work the rest out by themselves.

[Debatra]

It's been several days with no activity here. Unless someone has something to add in the next (roughly) day, I'll call it for +1 for each second variant, with exceptions noted for Fast Zombie and Good Lich being +1, and Moonbane Vampire being -0 independent of how many other variants you have.

[Debatra]

That... was a bit longer than a day. Sorry about that.

And now, the last thing to do before we move away from the Book of Bad Latin, as was mentioned a few times in this and the last thread:

The time has finally come to discuss the Lich's phylactery, its cost of creation, and how (if at all) that should factor into the Lich's LA rating.

---

The original Lich discussion, WAY back in the second thread.

And the more recent discussion, in Thread X:

The rating for the lich assumes to get rid of the cost somehow, though.

The same discussion definitely happened for the lich, but it didn't really come to a resolution. I think Inevitability's vote was definitely weighting the LA for the existence of cost reducers, and most posters made their votes contingent on whether or not the costs were enforced per RAW. Ultimately, I think most of the people who voted at that time would not agree that the lich template is worth LA +2 and the full gold cost.

Do people think it would be worth re-evaluating the lich template in light of our discussion here of the necropolitan template? We've re-evaluated monsters before, so maybe it would be worth re-visiting.

I also kind of wonder if it would be a good idea to offer two alternative LAs in situations like this. Obviously, we should stick to RAW; but in cases like this, it wouldn't be too difficult to tack on a rating for a popular house rule (like waiving the non-LA costs of templates), because the house rule has already dominated our discussion and impacted our votes, anyway. We wouldn't even necessarily have to put the alternative LA in the archive: Debatra could just tally it in his wrap-up post for the monster, or something like that.

Again: According to the final rating, the lich template is not worth +2 and the full gold cost. I was just pointing out that the lich is not suited as precedence for "we should change as little as possible".

I wonder whether the inexorably high price of crafting the phylactery was yet another of WotC’s “Well yes, but actually no” minotaur crap things about monstrous PCs.

In the original thread, there was a very short discussion about a lich selling their phylactery to another one. Would that even work? If you have the 120,000 gp phylactery being the unholy artifact of a Nerull-worshipping company, would it be possible to have all of them link their souls to the same object, hence cutting the costs tremendously and creating a pretty good campaign seting?

Lich phylacteries can't be constructed from items that are already magic. Pretty sure the very act of making something into a phylactery makes it a magic item so...

Damn! Foiled by logic and game balance again! (won't prevent me from doing exactly that in my next campaign, though, because I still find it very cool. It will just have to be a custom artifact instead of a RAW phylactery)

Well to be fair there is already RAW support that Lich and Dry Lich are LA +0. For Lich a level 20 Dread Necromancer gets the Template for free and for Dry Lich at level 13 for Cleric 3/Walker in the Waste 10 with the Sand Domain.

A 20th-level character getting a +2 template for "free" is hardly game-breaking, even by WotC's standards, particularly when you factor in all their other similar class features.

[Beni-Kujaku]

That... was a bit longer than a day. Sorry about that.

And now, the last thing to do before we move away from the Book of Bad Latin, as was mentioned a few times in this and the last thread:

The time has finally come to discuss the Lich's phylactery, its cost of creation, and how (if at all) that should factor into the Lich's LA rating.

120‚000gp is a lot. But it does what the lich is intended to be: a super high level caster wanting to be immortal.

At level 15+‚ 120‚000gp is really not that harsh a cost‚ and even less so in epic levels‚ while undead immunities‚ undispellable immortality even in the case of TPK and inherent bonuses to natural armor and casting stats are really hard to come by with items. I don't think the cost should be a factor in this. It's the same as necropolitan: just a way to say "you must be this high level to take the template"‚ but here it's lv15 instead of lv3.