The LA Assignment Thread XII: the LA-bors of Heracles

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Never heard that one before. Do you have a quote for it?

From the Rules Compendium:

An incorporeal creature can occupy the same space as a
corporeal creature, unless the corporeal creature is entirely
surrounded by a force effect. An incorporeal creature enter-
ing a corporeal creature’s space (or vice versa) provokes attacks
of opportunity as normal for moving into another creature’s
space. The entering creature must then succeed on a touch
attack against the target to share the same physical space. If
the target is helpless or doesn’t resist, no attack is necessary.
If the attack succeeds, the entering creature moves into
the target’s space. This attack deals no damage, even if the
entering creature’s touch attack normally deals damage. If
the attack fails, the entering creature returns to the space it
occupied before entering the target’s space.

Apparently a big incorporeal creature can also grant cover to a smaller creature in its space, or vice versa, which I didn't know but makes sense.

[Debatra]

Concealment I would understand, but cover?

[loky1109]

Concealment I would understand, but cover?

I'd say cover if weapon could hit ghosts or concealment if can't.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Concealment I would understand, but cover?

I'd say cover if weapon could hit ghosts or concealment if can't.

Pardon me, looks like I read that section too fast. The incorporeal creature gets cover if it's the same size or smaller, the corporeal one gets concealment if it's the same size or smaller. For both, that increases to total cover/concealment if the size difference is two or more categories. This also affects attacks made by the other creature(s) sharing the space (e.g., if a Shadow attacks a Halfling sharing its space, the Halfling has concealment, but the Halfling wouldn't suffer cover penalties on its own attack since it's smaller than the Shadow). There are also a couple of caveats covering edge cases.

I could totally see that switching to cover for both for an attack that can hit incorporeal creatures.

EDIT: Also, these rules are both on pg. 65 of the Rules Compendium, under the Other Creatures subsection.

EDIT II: Also also, apparently incorporeal creatures are immune to blindsight, blindsense, tremorsense, and Listen checks, unless the creature deliberately chooses to make sound (and even then only if those senses are based on acute hearing rather than smell or something). I didn't know that either, until tonight.

[Tzardok]

After thinking for a bit (and flipping a coin ), I'll go with +0.

[Beni-Kujaku]

We're currently at two for +0 and two for -0. Does anyone else want to vote on the Film of Night?

[loky1109]

Change my - to +

[Beni-Kujaku]

Only now do I notice that the change of ruleset from 3.0 to 3.5 did affect the lore of some monsters. Specifically, the gelatinous cube. Though there are bigger specimens, the standard gelatinous cube is a 10ft cube of jelly, that weighs 10,000lbs. Always have, always will. It's about the epitome of what a simple monster should look like in D&D's cubic honeycombed world. As such, it's Large in 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th edition, since Large is 10x10ft.
Yet, in 3.0, they had this weird idea that they could customize the space taken by a monster, regardless of their size category. The Tarrasque is 40x40, Great Wyrms are 40x80, and the leviathan is 50x200, and are all Colossal. And of course, Huge humanoids like the Titans only took up 10x10ft square. With that, it was logical to have the 10x10 Gelatinous Cube be Huge (after all, it's heavier and bulkier than multiple Huge creatures and it wouldn't make sense that it was worse at grappling than a creature half its volume). But then, with 3.5 and its stupid "standardized creature spaces", a Huge creature couldn't be anything except 15x15ft. Hence, the Cube was now a 15x15 jelly cube and weighed 50,000lbs (of course, the density didn't change much), just to keep the same statblock. And the best part is, they themselves knew this was the worst possible choice, and they changed it back through errata later. So in June 2004 the Gelatinous Cube was put as Large, and lost 4 to its grappling bonus, as well as 5ft of both space and reach, surprisingly without losing CR as well. In the end the Gelatinous Cube is probably the only monster in the history of D&D who suddenly put up 40,000lbs only to lose them less than one year later.

The Film of Night should probably follow the same treatment, by the way, being basically a ghostly gelatinous cube in all but statblock. Would the Film of Night being Large change anything to your assessment of its LA?

[Remuko]

Only now do I notice that the change of ruleset from 3.0 to 3.5 did affect the lore of some monsters. Specifically, the gelatinous cube. Though there are bigger specimens, the standard gelatinous cube is a 10ft cube of jelly, that weighs 10,000lbs. Always have, always will. It's about the epitome of what a simple monster should look like in D&D's cubic honeycombed world. As such, it's Large in 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th edition, since Large is 10x10ft.
Yet, in 3.0, they had this weird idea that they could customize the space taken by a monster, regardless of their size category. The Tarrasque is 40x40, Great Wyrms are 40x80, and the leviathan is 50x200, and are all Colossal. And of course, Huge humanoids like the Titans only took up 10x10ft square. With that, it was logical to have the 10x10 Gelatinous Cube be Huge (after all, it's heavier and bulkier than multiple Huge creatures and it wouldn't make sense that it was worse at grappling than a creature half its volume). But then, with 3.5 and its stupid "standardized creature spaces", a Huge creature couldn't be anything except 15x15ft. Hence, the Cube was now a 15x15 jelly cube and weighed 50,000lbs (of course, the density didn't change much), just to keep the same statblock. And the best part is, they themselves knew this was the worst possible choice, and they changed it back through errata later. So in June 2004 the Gelatinous Cube was put as Large, and lost 4 to its grappling bonus, as well as 5ft of both space and reach, surprisingly without losing CR as well. In the end the Gelatinous Cube is probably the only monster in the history of D&D who suddenly put up 40,000lbs only to lose them less than one year later.

The Film of Night should probably follow the same treatment, by the way, being basically a ghostly gelatinous cube in all but statblock. Would the Film of Night being Large change anything to your assessment of its LA?

i miss 3.0 sizes so much. it was so much cooler when things has shapes on the battlefield that actually made sense for their bodies.

[Tzardok]

I don't. They require stuff like facing and figuring out on which of two spaces of a horse the horseman is located.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Okay, so 5HD is not completely terrible, and Incorporeality and concealment are both quite good. No body slots and no speech is quite bad. Stats are bad, but draining two ability scores with your primary attack is decent. This thing is really on the borderline of -0 and +0, but I think it's just an HD or so too high, and I'm going to vote -0. Open to having my mind changed.

[Debatra]

-0 - Thurbane, PoeticallyPsyco
+0 - Beni-Kujaku, Tzardok, loky1109

And we edge out +0, which I would have actually broken the tie in favor of if needed.

Next up is a bit of fiery passion for Valentine's Day, the Fire Archon.

[Debatra]

Fire Archon

Size & Type: Medium Elemental (Extraplanar, Fire)
Space/Reach: 5'/5'
HD: 8
Speed: 40'
Ability Scores: Str +12, Dex +14, Con +8, Int +2, Wis +6, Cha +6 - Net +48, no penalties
Natural Armor: 0, though a suit of armor makes up a good portion of their body.
Natural Weapons: N/A (Adds 1d6 fire to all weapon attacks)
Skill List: Intimidate, Jump, Listen, Spot
Body Shape: Legless Humanoid
Speech (Languages): Yes (Common, Ignan)
CR: 6
WotC LA: -
Our LA: +0

First thing's first: These "Archons" are actually elementals, not outsiders. A suit of armor makes up a significant portion of its body, but this armor can actually be swapped out for upgraded gear. Nothing is said about proficiency, so we just go with the usual "whatever's listed in the creature entry" rule. That said, you could potentially talk to your DM about just giving you proficiency in whatever armor your Flame Archon was "born" in if needed. Nonmagical organic armors (leather, etc) tend to burn away over time, so metal is generally preferred.

They can "regrow" lost limbs instantly, except for a severed head which will kill them as normal. They also appear capable of merging their fingers into a single "mitten-like" hand and reseparating them as needed, though this may just be a visual effect of the flames that make up their bodies. They emit light equivalent to a bonfire, which they can't turn off. "The archon can set things ablaze with its body, but this seems to require some concentration -- something that a fire archon is incapable of while wrestling or in combat."

Unlike most elementals, Fire Archons need to "breathe" in that their flames need air just like normal flames do. They must also "eat" periodically by burning an object completely to ash. (Specifics such as quantity or frequency are not given.) They still don't sleep. As you may expect, they are immune to fire and vulnerable to cold.

Channeling their fire through their weapon appears to deal that damage to the weapon itself as well. Ordinary steel can endure this without issue, but wooden weapons won't last long.

---

The standard Fire Archon is proficient with breastplates and scimitars.

Three times per day, they can unleash a Fire Burst as a (Su) ability. This is a 10' radius burst centered on itself, dealing 3d8 fire damage with a Con-based reflex save for half. When they hit 0 HP, they explode. Their Death Throes are treated as a Fire Burst that deals 5d8 damage.

Unless otherwise noted, the other two variants are identical to the above (but not to each other - for example the Ash Disciple doesn't have the Blazesteel's Flanking Fire).

Fire Archon, Blazesteel

HD: 10
Ability Scores: Str +14, Dex +8, Con +12, Int +4, Wis +6, Cha +5 - Net +49, no penalties
Skill List: As above, plus Balance and Tumble
Speech (Languages): As above, plus Terran
CR: 7
WotC LA: -
Our LA: +0

Neither the Blazesteel nor the below Ash Disciple have Fire Burst. The Blazesteel is proficient with chain shirts, scimitars, and heavy steel shields.

When a Blazesteel is reduced to half health, and also at zero, it emits a Wounded Burst. This is equivalent to the standard Fire Archon's Fire Burst, but it deals 5d8 damage.

When a Blazesteel flanks a foe, it gets an extra attack agains the creature it flanks "whenever it attacks". Yes, by strict RAW this infinitely loops with itself. But let's interpret it in a non-silly way, shall we? Let's say an extra attack per round. They also deal an extra 1d6 fire damage to creatures they flank for each other Fire Archon adjacent to that target.

Fire Archon, Ash Disciple

HD: 14
Ability Scores: Str +10, Dex +12, Con +8, Int +4, Wis +6, Cha +6 - Net +46, no penalties
Natural Weapons: One Primary Slam (1d6 plus 1d6 fire), one Primary Fire Bolt (50' range, 8d6+StrMod fire and target catches fire, adjacent creatures take 1d6 fire - no listed saves)
Skill List: Balance, Intimidate, Jump, Knowledge (Planes), Listen, Spot, Survival, Tumble
Speech (Languages): As the Blazesteel
CR: 8
WotC LA: -
Our LA: -0

The Ash Disciple is only proficient with chain shirts.

Once per encounter, an Ash Disciple can use a Cinder Burst. This is similar to the Fire Burst, except the damage is 8d8 and the reflex save also prevents being blinded for one round. When it hits zero HP, its Death Throes are equivalent to a 10d8 Cinder Burst.

As a move action, it can Flame Step, teleporting to within 15' of any fire creature within 100'.

Finally, once per encounter they can unleash a Flame Wave, dealing 8d8 fire damage in a 30' cone. Creatures in the area get a Con-based reflex save for half damage, but are pushed back ten feet regardless of the save.

---

These guys are quite something, with several relevant and potentially-relevant details scattered throughout the article instead of being in the relevant statblock.

[Tzardok]

Ugh, I hate that article. It's practically dripping with condescension for everything that came before 4e. No wonder that 4e lore is such a ****show when that was the attitude behind it.

A whole bunch of the fire archon's weirdness (both flavorwise as an elemental that needs to breath or eat, and abilitywise) is propably because it's a 4e creature that was essentially backported.

[Remuko]

Fire Archon

When a Blazesteel flanks a foe, it gets an extra attack agains the creature it flanks "whenever it attacks". Yes, by strict RAW this infinitely loops with itself. But let's interpret it in a non-silly way, shall we? Let's say an extra attack per round. They also deal an extra 1d6 fire damage to creatures they flank for each other Fire Archon adjacent to that target.

I think the intended reading is (in my own rewording) "whenever the Blazesteel Archon is flanking a foe, each time it would be able to choose to make attacks add +1 to the number of attacks made. For example: on its turn it, due to its base attack bonus, if attacking with a weapon it normally makes 2 attacks, while flanking it makes 3. If on the enemies turn, it is still flanking and its foe (that its flanking) causes the Archon to make an attack of opportunity, it would get 2 attacks, 1 as normal +1 for its flanking bonus." This means its potentially more than just "an extra attack per round" as you said, but not nearly infinite, which yeah the poor original wording can be abused to imply.

[danielxcutter]

Ugh, I hate that article. It's practically dripping with condescension for everything that came before 4e. No wonder that 4e lore is such a ****show when that was the attitude behind it.

A whole bunch of the fire archon's weirdness (both flavorwise as an elemental that needs to breath or eat, and abilitywise) is propably because it's a 4e creature that was essentially backported.

Yeah, elementals did have lore and stuff (especially in things like Planescape); it's just that most people just didn't think about using it.

[Beni-Kujaku]

I have to agree with Tzardok. The statblocks are not inherently bad, but the lore is painful to read. Besides the forcefeeding of the Primordials-Gods war everywhere (which could theoretically work as a "before the beginning" story), the lore doesn't mesh with anything in 3e. The gods killed so many elementals? What? The Elemental Chaos? What? Isn't the Elemental Chaos supposed to have been created by the Spellplague? Now it's been there from the beginning? It all screams "we wanted to do another cosmology, but didn't know how". And that's exactly the problem here. If you want to do something new, do something new. If you want to keep the existing lore, keep the existing lore. But do not change everything in the existing lore and frame it as if it was always that way. The clearest (and, in my opinion, most infuriating) part of it all is why they named these elemental soldiers "archons":

Yet the word "archon" is powerful, and we knew we wanted 4th Edition to use it in a cooler way that would be more likely to see play than the angelic furries. Giving it to the new elemental beings we wanted in the game seemed a perfect fit. There could be no confusing them with the old archons, and using a cool word that would be familiar to many players would raise their profile.

What? Just for name recognition? Are you kidding me? What did they think would happen when a 3e DM goes through the 4e MM? "I want an archon for my next scenario that will introduce my players to 4e, let's look at... Well these aren't archons at all. Oh well, I'll look up angels... Well these aren't angels either. Guess I'll play the scenario in 3.5 instead." Making DMs and players expect something through name and giving them something completely different is the fast track to disappointment. There were so many other ways to name these that would be cool, even if you wanted to cut the celestial archons from the game, but "fire archon" is just stupid so soon after the celestials have been part of the game for decades.

The whole Spellplague debacle is the same, trying to find a reason why "we're in the same world as before, but everything is different". And worse than that, the reason isn't even good. Mystra already died twice before without any cosmological change. As it is written in the wiki, "In [some] scholars' views, the truth [of why the Spellplague happened] would never be fully known to mortals, and perhaps not even to the gods.". Thanks for that, and get out. F**king WotC in machina. The whole edition is just "please buy our new edition, we promise you it's still D&D".


The other thing that oozes from the article is the will to make everything dangerous. Not to create an ecosystem, to create a hostile environment for PCs. It's the same for so many things in the new continuity. The gray render were affectionate monsters bonding and protecting humanoids, they are murder-monsters in 4e. Astral Stalkers were noble hunters with a set of strict rules for their hunt, they are still hunter, but bloodthirsty, with no rules, and surprisingly created by the gods.

The elementals of 3rd Edition have no needs, no clear desires or motivations, and no culture, yet they attain human Intelligence, speak, and can manipulate objects. They exist in limitless numbers on the elemental planes, but they build nothing and make no lasting impression upon the game. Mechanically, they exist as neat creatures to summon or put in a dungeon and nothing more. What do they do on the elemental planes besides attack interlopers? What do they care about? In 3rd Edition, we have only vague ideas that they fight each other. If they were dumb beasts, they would make more sense. If they had a culture and did interesting things like invade the Material Plane, they would be better.

I read "if they attacked us, they would be interesting". No. Not at all. Quaraphons are not interesting because they attack people. They are (mildly) interesting because they have a clear society, with people to talk to, because they know their place in the setting. Changing "lives peacefully in the elemental planes, can be summoned and attacks interlopers" with "created in the elemental planes and lives to wage war and destroy everything until they die" doesn't make anything more interesting, especially not when they explicitly keep the previous elementals. Making them more interesting would mean creating relations between elementals and other creatures and giving them related motivations. Or, you know, not, and give them an actual society. They live in the elemental plane of fire, there could be commoner fire elementals, and artists, and bards, and alliances between several elements to create something new. No general motivation for the race doesn't make the race uninteresting. No personality for the race does, though. And fire archons do lack personality.

Just look at how they describe the fire fonts: "A fire font presents a great opportunity for a cool adventure location. Let your imagination run wild. Put it anywhere you like, and use it as an excuse to make a truly magical location. Flame throwers in the walls and floor, flying bonfires, jets of fire that leap from place to place, buildings of flickering crystal, inferno tornadoes that carry creatures about, stairs of smoke, blazes that act as teleport pads -- whatever you want.". Great! These are all great things to add. But why are these here? Do efreeti create these teleporters? Do fire archons use these flame throwers for anything? Who cares! But it's cool, right? Yes. Yes, it's cool. But in the frame of an adventure, "cool" isn't enough, it needs a reason to exist. 4e is cool. The art is awesome. But it's not fun to build as a DM and it's not fun to play as a player and it doesn't create a good story by itself. And if you wish to go "out with the old, in with the new", you'll need something that can stand on its own two legs without relying on name recognition and, apparently, miniature art from another game.

Spoiler: Yeah, miniatures. What do they have to do with anything?

Show

Between the reference to the Desert of Desolation miniature set and the Dreamblade miniature game, it seems like they really wanted to sell miniatures. But why put that in a lore article about upcoming creatures in a new game? It just feels weird, and like they want the client to buy as many things as possible from the edition while putting the least amount of effort in and basing themselves on Dreamblade. I am angry and I fear that they could have made something great within the Dreamblade universe but instead chose to put everything in the D&D universe to take the least amount of risk possible and because they knew that it would sell anyway even if it was bad, while they didn't have that guarantee in a new universe.

But no matter any of that. Let's look at the monster itself. Elementals sacrificed in a dark ritual by Elder Evils, efreet or what have you, to create powerful elemental soldier slaves, got it. It intrigues me that they mention that any kind of elemental could do. Sacrificing a water elemental to create a fire archon seems weird, especially when 4e has water, air and earth elementals, all created basically the same way.
What is the equivalent of the crucible for earth archons? The crucible can be used repeatedly to create several fire archons, but at what frequency? Can a player create a fire archon? How much does it cost? These are all things that 3e strived to provide, not just to be left to the DM.

"Although a fire archon can remove its armor and wear different armor during its life, the encasement of its energies in armor from the foundry's forge is a crucial element of the ritual. Without that final step, the fire archon might expire or lack the intelligence and soldier's mindset at best, and at worst, it might grow into something powerful and uncontrollable that seeks revenge for its torturous transformation."

Honestly, that part is actually interesting. The fire archons seem to be both influenced and restrained by the armor in which they are born. But they're not. What is a blazesteel? What is an ash disciple? Just fire archons created in more powerful fires. I would have liked to know what an unarmored fire archon becomes, what it entails to change their armor, how it all works. But now I only see a basic archon in heavy armor and two more powerful ones in light armor. Is it relevant? Absolutely not! And there's no more information in the 4e Monster Manual, because of course, it's 4e!



So, the fire archon, 8 RHD, +12 Str, +14 Dex, +8 Con, +2 Int, +6 Wis, +6 Cha: Absolutely god-like stats, balanced and all, but no useful ability (what was that? "like an ogre without Power Attack"?) except a weak fire burst that you'll probably never use. So many stats make me think of monk or paladin, these classes that are generally too MAD to be useful, but would be interesting here. Or anything, really. Maybe a psionic rogue, with so much Dex and an Int bonus. Or a Binder. A swordsage is always nice, or a fancy prestige class (abjurant champion? Chameleon?). All in all, so many stats but no ability makes me confused. There has to be something to do with it. I'm just too blind to see it. It will just do okay but not great anywhere you put it. I'll go with a tentative LA +0, but I could be talked to +1 or -0.

Blazesteel fire archon, 10 RHD, +14 Str, +8 Dex, +12 Con, +4 Int, +6 Wis, +4 Cha: Flanking Fire makes the Blazesteel more akin to a melee combatant. Being able to make two melee attacks with a standard action is great, and makes an initiator the preferred class here. Probably Warblade. Once again, a tentative LA+0, probably a weak one.

Ash Disciple fire archon, 14 RHD, +10 Str, +12 Dex, +8 Con, +4 Int, +6 Wis, +4 Cha: Yeah, this one's not worth it. The stats are basically the same as the regular archon, and the only interesting ability (Flame Step), though it may be interesting if an ally is a Swordsage with Distracting Ember, doesn't make up for 6 HD. LA-0

[Tzardok]

Nice to see that my own attempt to keep me from ranting provoked a rant from you.

I'll wait a bit until I heard a bit more opinions (not to mind calmed down a little) before I'll give a rating (if I can at all).

[danielxcutter]

Apparently 5e's lore wasn't any better *cough*dragons*cough*

[Tzardok]

Dare I ask? No, I don't. I've been stupefied enough from 5e's take on beholders, thank you very much. Let's just return to rating stuff, shall we?

[Oniyoru]

Only now do I notice that the change of ruleset from 3.0 to 3.5 did affect the lore of some monsters.

They changed Nymph looks from Human to Elf.

I'm still trying to understand their point lol.

[Remuko]

They changed Nymph looks from Human to Elf.

I'm still trying to understand their point lol.

its been a while so i looked it up. her body overall is a lot more human than elf looking but she did have pointy ears from what i can tell.

i miss that they dropped the insta death effect they had lol

[Debatra]

Okay guys, I'm not a fan of 4e either, and it was actually kind of interesting to read these takes, but let's stay on-topic.

[Thurbane]

These things hurt my head. Let's just say I agree with +0/+0/-0 and be done with it.

[loky1109]

I am in some confusion. Let it be -0/+0/-0. But I'm not sure about regular, maybe it's +0.

[Tzardok]

Meh. Let me agree with Loky: -0/+0/-0.

[Debatra]

+0/+0/-0 - Beni-Kujaku, Thurbane
-0/+0/-0 - loky1109 (with possible ++-), Tzardok

Just an update because it's been way too long. Life's been... something. I don't really have time to do the next entry right now, so I guess I'll wait another day or two before calling it just in case more votes want to show up in the meantime.

But you know... I'm not dead, the thread isn't dead, etc.

[Temotei]

I guess +0/+0/-0 is fine with me. That fire teleport is kind of cool. Too bad about it being attached to 14 RHD.

[Debatra]

Fixer Scarab
PDF Link

Size & Type: Tiny Construct
Space/Reach: 2.5'/0'
HD: 2
Speed: 30'
Ability Scores: Str -4, Dex +2, Con -, Int -, Wis +0, Cha +0 - Net -2, one penalty
Natural Armor: 4
Natural Weapons: One Primary Bite (1d4 plus "Special Bite")
Skill List: -
Body Shape: Insect
Speech (Languages): No
CR: 1
WotC LA: -
Our LA: -0

These aren't really meant to exist on their own, but with another, bigger construct as their host. But even then, it leaves much to be desired.

They have DR 5/adamantine, the ability to bite whatever their host construct just hit in melee as if they had that construct's reach (as a standard action, not just whenever the host hits something), and a set of special tools attached to their mouths that allow them to either repair a specific category of construct or add an additional effect to its bite attack. Each scarab can only have one of these tools, and the article leaves open the possibility of other tools beyond the specifically listed ones.

Regardless of the tool it has, the Fixer Scarab can spend a full-round action to heal their construct host by a whopping one hit point. And only up to HDx10 times per day. And using their special bite in combat counts against this pool, though regular biting doesn't. As for the special bites themselves:

• Red-Hot Bite is for repairing metallic constructs, and deals an extra 1d6 fire damage to enemies.
• Rending Jaws help shape flesh to repair flesh golems and the like. They deal an extra 1d4 damage per attack, but can then use the attacked creature's freshly damaged flesh to heal its construct by an amount equal to the extra damage done without using a second use of its special bite.
• Petrifying Mandibles are for stone and other mineral golems (which includes "any mineral that is not a metal", such as gems), and can turn other materials into stone. The bite forces a Con-based fortitude save vs a single point of Constitution damage as the bitten area is partially petrified.
• Scraping Proboscis is for clay and the like. The damage from this special bite doesn't heal naturally, and requires a DC13 caster level check to heal magically.

There are also instructions for making Fixer Scarabs.

[danielxcutter]

Yeah, probably -0.