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

[Beni-Kujaku]

i found a tumblr post where some esteemed scholar of nerdom seems to have figured out how this happened. https://wesschneider.tumblr.com/post...nders-bestiary

worth a read imo. he dives into how gygax probably got the idea for the creature he called a gorgon that isnt the snake hair lady.

So gorgons are just the name a guy in the 1600s gave the catoblepas, which lead Gygax to make two monsters, one killing with its gaze and the other with its breath, name the first catoblepas and the second gorgon. But then "gorgon" was already taken for the petrifying snake ladies, and he chose to just call them medusas. Eh, not a bad story. Better than the Fossergrim at least.

It's a gorgon with the chimeric template from Monster Manual II

Oh, that makes MUCH more sense. It explains the change in replaced head, and the presence of Multiattack despite the absence of claws. With +17 natural armor, I think it's good enough to justify LA +2, please change my vote to that.

[danielxcutter]

Wait, if this is essentially a stock monster with a stock template tacked to it, albeit in a way that would not be legal by default, do we even need to evaluate this separately?

[Beni-Kujaku]

Wait, if this is essentially a stock monster with a stock template tacked to it, albeit in a way that would not be legal by default, do we even need to evaluate this separately?

Yes. It has.... +4 Int. Yes it is important.

More generally‚ it's not presented as a monster with a template‚ but as a standalone one‚ even if it can be reproduced through templating. The Elite Demon War Mount is just an advanced Mivilorn with the Warbeast template‚ but we still rated it. Technically the original chimera is basically just a lion with the chimeric creature template and a drider is a drow with the drider template (even though in these cases it's the template that was created later). I'm sure there are tons of creatures that can be reproduced through templating of other creatures‚ or even meant as templated versions‚ but as long as they are presented on their own‚ we have to assume they are unique enough to be rated as such.

[Metastachydium]

i found a tumblr post where some esteemed scholar of nerdom seems to have figured out how this happened. https://wesschneider.tumblr.com/post...nders-bestiary

worth a read imo. he dives into how gygax probably got the idea for the creature he called a gorgon that isnt the snake hair lady.

Hm. The hypothesis forwarded is certainly intriguing, and it is by far the closest thing to a rational explanation for the existence of the damn bull as such. Topsell's position, heterodox as it may be, isn't even completely absurd: there are quite well-established traditions that do link the emergence of various venomous monstrosities to the blood dripping from Medusa's severed head (i.e. the severed head of the one Gorgon with a detachable head) as Perseus flew over the desert (including the Amphisbaena, Iaculus and Copper Asp, if memory serves, which all happen to exist as monsters in D&D). Thank you!

Still, that only really gives us the how (Gygax did his research, found a pretty picture and liked it (it's kind of like the story with the Owlbear, mutatis mutandis)), but not the why. So… G. finds out the Catoblepas has an alternate name, which happens to coincide with the standard name of a classic, even better known creature; he decides to use the Catoblepas as is, creates an off-brand alternate Catoblepas, tacks the Gorgon's signature ability on it, and renames the Gorgon so it can claim its name for a made-up creature. Would it have killed him to give the new one a new name? Anoblepas, Gorgotaur, Bo(u)gorgon… I mean, it's not that hard! (And let's not even get into the whole issue of why these guys thought the game needed yet another petrifier, given how I'd be surprised to learn the Basilisk and the Cockatrice were late additions in late editions.)

Yes. It has.... +4 Int. Yes it is important.

More generally‚ it's not presented as a monster with a template‚ but as a standalone one‚ even if it can be reproduced through templating. The Elite Demon War Mount is just an advanced Mivilorn with the Warbeast template‚ but we still rated it. Technically the original chimera is basically just a lion with the chimeric creature template and a drider is a drow with the drider template (even though in these cases it's the template that was created later). I'm sure there are tons of creatures that can be reproduced through templating of other creatures‚ or even meant as templated versions‚ but as long as they are presented on their own‚ we have to assume they are unique enough to be rated as such.

I believe even "it's really just the same thing advanced regularly with more RHD" stuff (Truly Horrid Umber Hulk and its ilk) got their own rating.

[Batcathat]

Still, that only really gives us the how (Gygax did his research, found a pretty picture and liked it (it's kind of like the story with the Owlbear, mutatis mutandis)), but not the why. So… G. finds out the Catoblepas has an alternate name, which happens to coincide with the standard name of a classic, even better known creature; he decides to use the Catoblepas as is, creates an off-brand alternate Catoblepas, tacks the Gorgon's signature ability on it, and renames the Gorgon so it can claim its name for a made-up creature. Would it have killed him to give the new one a new name? Anoblepas, Gorgotaur, Bo(u)gorgon… I mean, it's not that hard! (And let's not even get into the whole issue of why these guys thought the game needed yet another petrifier, given how I'd be surprised to learn the Basilisk and the Cockatrice were late additions in late editions.)

If I were to guess (and I have absolutely nothing backing this up), the classical Gorgons were renamed Medusas for other reasons (the name "Medusa" being a lot more recognizable to the public at large than "Gorgons", I'm guessing) and the fact that it left the name Gorgon unused was just a happy coincidence.

[Debatra]

Yes, this isn't the first time that we've noticed that a creature was just some other creature with a template. Most recently was the Dracolisk, I believe. It was even in the same module as this thing.

We haven't done MMII/Chimeric Template yet, but we gave the... I'm calling it a Gorgoblepas I think... +0.

[loky1109]

I call it +1.

[Thane of Fife]

Still, that only really gives us the how (Gygax did his research, found a pretty picture and liked it (it's kind of like the story with the Owlbear, mutatis mutandis)), but not the why. So… G. finds out the Catoblepas has an alternate name, which happens to coincide with the standard name of a classic, even better known creature; he decides to use the Catoblepas as is, creates an off-brand alternate Catoblepas, tacks the Gorgon's signature ability on it, and renames the Gorgon so it can claim its name for a made-up creature. Would it have killed him to give the new one a new name? Anoblepas, Gorgotaur, Bo(u)gorgon… I mean, it's not that hard! (And let's not even get into the whole issue of why these guys thought the game needed yet another petrifier, given how I'd be surprised to learn the Basilisk and the Cockatrice were late additions in late editions.)

The cockatrice, basilisk, medusa, and gorgon are all there in OD&D. The catoblepus first appeared in an issue of Strategic Review (the predecessor to Dragon magazine). I would guess that it was probably submitted by a third party author who was not aware that the creature was the same as the published gorgon.

[Metastachydium]

I'm calling it a Gorgoblepas

I think I don't love that one. It's the kind of silly portmanteau casually ignoring that words mean things, people.

I would guess that it was probably submitted by a third party author who was not aware that the creature was the same as the published gorgon.

Well, seeing how it's not at all the same, but rather just very superficially similar in terms of some not terribly important physical aspects and bearing a name that was erroneously attributed to the thing by a handful of late authors… I'll call that an easy mistake to make.

[Debatra]

I think I don't love that one. It's the kind of silly portmanteau casually ignoring that words mean things, people.

I'm certainly open to suggestions.

[Metastachydium]

I'm certainly open to suggestions.

In my rant above, I rifled off Anoblepas, Gorgotaur and Bo(u)gorgon, for instance.

[Tzardok]

Translations would be nice. I get gorgotaur ("horrible bull") and I think the Bou- also means something in the direction of cattle, so Bogorgon would be "cattle horror", but I don't think I understand anoblepas.

[Metastachydium]

Translations would be nice. I get gorgotaur ("horrible bull") and I think the Bou- also means something in the direction of cattle, so Bogorgon would be "cattle horror"

Correct, although in this particular context they are both to be read more as 'Gorgon of a bovine shape'.

but I don't think I understand anoblepas.

Catoblepas is a slightly corrupt derivative of a Greek word for 'downward looking'; I merely replaced the κατα- ('down') therein with ανα- ('up'), because this is meant to be a Catoblepas variant that is "looking up" to breathe at people, rather than down because its neck cannot support its head and it would kill them by looking anyhow.

[Caelestion]

Translations would be nice. I get gorgotaur ("horrible bull") and I think the Bou- also means something in the direction of cattle, so Bogorgon would be "cattle horror", but I don't think I understand anoblepas.

Bous is "ox", yes, as in the steed of Alexander the Great, Boukephalas (Bucephalus, ox-head).

[Tzardok]

Sounds like that horse was a really stubborn bastard. Either that, or Alexander put a horned helm on it so it could gore people.

[Beni-Kujaku]

Sounds like that horse was a really stubborn bastard. Either that, or Alexander put a horned helm on it so it could gore people.

When‚ according to legend‚ it's a descendant of Diomedes's man-eating mares and could never be tamed except by the great Alexander the Great (did I mention he was great? He was great.)‚ I think "stubborn" describes it well. Other theories apparently state that Bucephalus had a bull-head-shaped spot on its forehead‚ which gave it its name.

[GreatWyrmGold]

You know, as much as some of it makes sense, the RHD system and creature types really didn't work out in the end, did they?

Like, the entire reason turning and rebuking are so useless is because of undead HD bloat.

Pretty sure undead HD bloat was a response to turning and rebuking. A cleric with decent Charisma score can scare off a bunch of undead with equal HD to the cleric's level, or even outright destroy a bunch of undead mooks if the mooks' HD aren't inflated.

It also has the petrification breath weapon of the bull-that-I-refuse-to-call-a-gorgon-for-the-same-reason-I-refuse-to-call-Gorgons-Medusas...

I understand not wanting to call the iron petrifying bulls gordons, but not wanting to call medusas "medusas" because Medusa was originally a proper noun in a post where you call chimeras "chimeras" is just silly. The Chimera was also a unique monster in the original myths. So were most monsters.

When‚ according to legend‚ it's a descendant of Diomedes's man-eating mares and could never be tamed except by the great Alexander the Great (did I mention he was great? He was great.)‚ I think "stubborn" describes it well. Other theories apparently state that Bucephalus had a bull-head-shaped spot on its forehead‚ which gave it its name.

One of those is interesting, the other is historically plausible. (How would anyone even know it was descended from Diomedes's mares? Did Olympus maintain really detailed horse pedigrees?)

[Metastachydium]

I understand not wanting to call the iron petrifying bulls gordons, but not wanting to call medusas "medusas" because Medusa was originally a proper noun in a post where you call chimeras "chimeras" is just silly.

The issue is, Medusa belonged to a class of creatures collectively known as Gorgons, so in this particular case, there really is a term for when one has to deal with "one of these", so to say. Like I said earlier, Medusa is only somewhat acceptable insofar as she's the only mortal one, and the D&D monster is nowhere near as tough a nut to crack as her sisters.

[GreatWyrmGold]

The issue is, Medusa belonged to a class of creatures collectively known as Gorgons, so in this particular case, there really is a term for when one has to deal with "one of these", so to say. Like I said earlier, Medusa is only somewhat acceptable insofar as she's the only mortal one, and the D&D monster is nowhere near as tough a nut to crack as her sisters.

I don't see why that's relevant.

If turning specific beings in Greek mythology into species of monster named after the original is acceptable, then both "medusa" and "gorgon" are acceptable names for species based on Medusa of Greek mythology. If both "medusa" and "gorgon" are acceptable names, then it's silly to refuse to call medusas "medusas" just because there's another name that would also work.

It's one thing to prefer "gorgon" over "medusa," it's another to act like "medusa" is a totally illegitimate name when A. it matches a convention you accept for other species and B. it's broadly accepted not just by D&D, but by lots of fantasy media in general.

[Metastachydium]

I don't see why that's relevant.

If turning specific beings in Greek mythology into species of monster named after the original is acceptable, then both "medusa" and "gorgon" are acceptable names for species based on Medusa of Greek mythology. If both "medusa" and "gorgon" are acceptable names, then it's silly to refuse to call medusas "medusas" just because there's another name that would also work.

It's one thing to prefer "gorgon" over "medusa," it's another to act like "medusa" is a totally illegitimate name when A. it matches a convention you accept for other species and B. it's broadly accepted not just by D&D, but by lots of fantasy media in general.

No it doesn't. It's Titan, not Kronos, Harpy, not Kelaino and Centaur, not Nessos. So it boils down to this: can you show me all the other times where there is a (quasi-)species name, but it is ditched in favour of the given name the most famous example bears?

[Debatra]

This discussion deserves its own thread, I think.

As for the gorgimera, let's take a look at the votes:

+3 - emulord,
+2 - H_H_F_F (possibly +1), Metastachydium, Beni Kujaku,
+1 - loky1109

Looks like +2 is taking it ths time. Next up is the Gravbeast.

[Beni-Kujaku]

No it doesn't. It's Titan, not Kronos, Harpy, not Kelaino and Centaur, not Nessos. So it boils down to this: can you show me all the other times where there is a (quasi-)species name, but it is ditched in favour of the given name the most famous example bears?

Pegasus was a specific winged horse (of which there are plenty in greek mythology)‚ and is now almost synonymous with winged horses. Couatls come from Quetzalcoatl‚ a winged serpent. Age of Mythology and Warhammer 40k feature medusae as a species. In french‚ the word for fox is "renard"‚ which is the name of a specific "goupil" (the old name for fox) in the massively popular works "le Roman de Renart"‚ from the 12th century. I guess there may be a few examples in english.

[Debatra]

Gravbeast

#Don'tForgetGravityRush

Size & Type: Large Magical Beast
Space/Reach: 10'/5'
HD: 6, 10 Huge
Speed: 40', Climb 40'
Ability Scores: Str +10, Dex +6, Con +8, Int -4, Wis +6, Cha +0 - Net +26, one penalty
Natural Armor: 7
Natural Weapons: One Primary Bite (1d8), four Secondary Claws (1d6)
Skill List: Balance(+4 racial), Climb (+8 racial), Hide (+4 racial, +8 in tall grass/undergrowth), Jump (+8 racial), Listen, Move Silently (+4 racial), Spot, Survival (+4 racial)
Body Shape: Six-Legged Cat
Speech (Languages): Yes (Common)
CR: 6
WotC LA: -
Our LA: __

Scent, DR 3/-, and Track as a Bonus feat make for a nice chassis. The Gravbeast has gravity manipulating powers that allow it to shift its weight as it moves and fights, though it can not fully "fly" by pointing gravity in a specific direction. This ability is the source of its racial Jump and Climb bonus, as well as its Climb speed. It can instantly reverse the direction of gravity's pull on itself, without taking an action to do so and is even able to do it while flat-footed or during someone else's turn. It automatically succeeds on Climb checks, takes no fall damage, and can Levitate (CL6) at will.

It can also alter its mass with the same lack of restrictions on activating it, up to quadrupling its weight. It can effectively be treated as one size category larger whenever it would be beneficial to have the mass of such a creature, such as during grapples, tripping, etc. While not explicitly stated, this almost certainly doesn't also allow the Gravbeast to use larger equipment. The exact wording is "In any situation in which increased size would help the gravbeast".

It has a unique version of Pounce that, instead of simply allowing it to full attack at the end of a charge, instead lets it make six claw attacks (and presumably more if it somehow acquires additional legs that end in clawwed feet), but it can not bite during this attack. This is an Extraordinary ability, but there is also a Supernatural element that allows it to deal double damage per hit while doing so (meaning double dice and modifier, not just roll normally and then double).

If the beast hits with at least one claw during that Powerful Pounce, it can take a free action to Trip its opponent without needing a touch attack or provoking an AoO. If the trip fails, the Gravbeast can not be tripped in return.

Once every 2d4+2 rounds, it can create an area of Reverse Gravity, similar to the spell of that name (this is Su, not Sp). It can create a 20'x40' cylinder with this effect at a range of 60', and the effect lasts six rounds. The reflex save is Charisma-based.

And finally, also every 2d4+2 rounds, it can surround itself with an aura of inconsistent gravity for six rounds, giving all non-ray ranged attacks a 50% miss chance against the Gravbeast.

[danielxcutter]

HD equal to CR is already a pretty good indicator of not being bad, and those are some very nice abilities. Double damage Pounce, Powerful Build except the weapon part, effective free Improved Trip, miss chance against non-ray ranged attacks (so most of them)… Also Magical Beast type allows for Rapidstrike. In theory that would allow for twelve or more Powerful Pounce claw attacks.

Also I think you forgot to add the specific wording of the effective size booster, Debatra?

[PoeticallyPsyco]

More than just respectable, this is downright good! I foresee a positive LA in this beasty's future, though I have no idea what value it deserves.

[Metastachydium]

Pegasus was a specific winged horse (of which there are plenty in greek mythology)‚ and is now almost synonymous with winged horses. Couatls come from Quetzalcoatl‚ a winged serpent. Age of Mythology and Warhammer 40k feature medusae as a species. In french‚ the word for fox is "renard"‚ which is the name of a specific "goupil" (the old name for fox) in the massively popular works "le Roman de Renart"‚ from the 12th century. I guess there may be a few examples in english.

[TANGENT]Pegasus gets close, but there's no umbrella term it displaced that I'm aware of. The thing with Couatl is basically the same as the thing with Chimaera, and thus beside then point. WH40k… Is WH40k, and two examples from two games are not quite th well-established pattern the Great Wyrm suggested there is for this kind of thing. The goupil thing I didn't know. It's quite interesting, so thanks for sharing.[/TANGENT]

I refuse to say anything about the Gravbeast, because it's a cat and I don't like cats.

[Tzardok]

I refuse to say anything about the Gravbeast, because it's a cat and I don't like cats.

... I'm sorry, I'll have to unfriend you. And that when I was planing such a nice birthday present.

Nah, I can overlook this. After all you didn't say you don't like snakes. You do, don't you?

[Metastachydium]

... I'm sorry, I'll have to unfriend you. And that when I was planing such a nice birthday present.

[G-L-A-R-E-S, feeling betrayed!!]

Nah, I can overlook this. After all you didn't say you don't like snakes. You do, don't you?

Snakes? I love snakes! Especially Colubrids. And most of the ones that come in green. And Colubrids that come in green, obviously. Snakes are cool.

[H_H_F_F]

[G-L-A-R-E-S, feeling betrayed!!]



Snakes? I love snakes! Especially Colubrids. And most of the ones that come in green. And Colubrids that come in green, obviously. Snakes are cool.

Don't snakes eat baby birds? I would've though this would be the source of your dislike of cats.

[GreatWyrmGold]

No it doesn't. It's Titan, not Kronos, Harpy, not Kelaino and Centaur, not Nessos. So it boils down to this: can you show me all the other times where there is a (quasi-)species name, but it is ditched in favour of the given name the most famous example bears?

Lamia was a demon. Nosferatu was a vampire. Fenrir/the Fenris Wolf was a wolf. The Barghest was a black dog, or a hellhound if you're feeling poetic. Coatls (or whatever a given story calls them—I'm pretty sure I saw one that called them quetzals) are plumed serpents, or feathered serpents, or ampitheres.
I could go on. I could also list examples like Empusa, where we can observe the transition from individual to kind in the historical record.

I'm sure you can invent a specific enough rule that includes all the individual-as-species examples you like and excludes all the ones you don't. Who cares? Words aren't used based on complicated definitions. We invent complicated definitions for words to explain how they're used.



Anyways. Gravbeast.

Lots of fun gravity stuff. It's technically not as good as flight, but the sum of its abilities is pretty close for most non-combat purposes. (And some combat purposes.) And it has a ton of natural attacks, which become all the deadlier on a charge. Six 2d6+4 attacks on a charge (give or take a different Strength modifier) is quite a lot! That's, like, three 6th-level fighters with greatswords. Plus DR, and skill bonuses, and tracking, and gravity nonsense, including the ability to give itself 50% miss chance on most ranged attacks, which lasts six rounds out of every ~7 and doesn't seem to require an action to activate...

I don't feel confident naming an exact number, but this seems better than +0.