The LA-assignment Thread IV: Live Free or Hit Die Hard

[Inevitability]

I honestly cannot think of a single one that is.

As said before, throwing a few level 1 spells together can easily create a viable level 1 character, which can then advance in one of a couple of classes (psionics, binding, caster roles with Surrogate Spellcasting). Lack of body slots hurts, but grafts exist and if all else fails slotless items can at least let an ooze cover its weaknesses.

There definitely exists a middle ground where lowered CLs or stacked spells produce something that's powerful enough for its HD. Unless you group spells in two categories (the ones that are useless no matter how many you have, and the ones that are broken no matter the RHD), there's no way to categorize every single living spell as -0 LA.

[remetagross]

How about a Living Resinous Tar/Entangle/Ray of Clumsiness/Ray of Enfeeblement/Sleep/Color Spray...
All of the above at CL 1? Still a 1 HD chassis, plus DR 10/magic which is huge when one has 1 HD, and all the Ooze immunities, and a crapton of rider effects, all of which work even on a successful save or do not allow for a save at all

[Blue Jay]

As said before, throwing a few level 1 spells together can easily create a viable level 1 character, which can then advance in one of a couple of classes (psionics, binding, caster roles with Surrogate Spellcasting). Lack of body slots hurts, but grafts exist and if all else fails slotless items can at least let an ooze cover its weaknesses.

There definitely exists a middle ground where lowered CLs or stacked spells produce something that's powerful enough for its HD. Unless you group spells in two categories (the ones that are useless no matter how many you have, and the ones that are broken no matter the RHD), there's no way to categorize every single living spell as -0 LA.

What if you only considered single-spell living spells? Do you think those would warrant a blanket LA -0 (with or without the asterisk)?

[ExLibrisMortis]

Stacking many spells will make for a powerful enough single attack (at level 1), but it won't grant good ability scores or any of the basic amenities (hands, speech, body slots). It's not a recipe for a good first-level character, and--in my view--rather cheesy, like a multi-templated tauric creature.

Assuming we're not allowing for bargain bin spells, each spell becomes available only at the level where regular full casters could cast it anyway. Living spells can create the spell's effect at will and without XP costs, of course, and that's potentially game-breaking, but I think that's covered by the asterisk, similar to the genie's wish ability.

With the XP costs covered, all that remains of the living spell PC is a really sad high-RHD ooze with half the magic items and no abilities whatsoever.

---

How about we put in entries for some likely living spells? We can evaluate a sample of living spells created from the best spells at each spell level.

For first-level spells, entangle, colour spray, sleep?
For second-level spells, web, glitterdust, hold person?
For third-level spells, stinking cloud, dispel magic?
For fourth-level spells, orb of fire, Evard’s black tentacles?

I think the 13+ RHD living spells are going to be -0 regardless (even blasphemy is -0, and that's a great spell, especially when you can avoid friendly fire), except for the usual suspects (wish, miracle, mind rape, that sort of thing), which can be covered by an asterisk.

I realize that it's a lot of work, but living spells are varied and interesting enough that I wouldn't mind spending a few more episodes on discussing them.

[Nifft]

Level 1 hail of stone has an expensive material component cost, so that's a candidate. Only inflicts 1d4 damage at 1 HD, but no save / no SR.

Also at level 1 is mordenkainen's buzzing bee, which as an effect imposes -10 on Concentration checks.

Finally level 1 has wall of smoke which imposes Nauseated for 1 round on a failed save.

[Inevitability]

What if you only considered single-spell living spells? Do you think those would warrant a blanket LA -0 (with or without the asterisk)?

I'd consider at least some of those spells to be worth playing. A good example might be a Living Sleep, because it's a level 1 character with a full level in any class, DR 10/magic, ooze immunities, and SR, that can also incapacitate foes by slamming them. I'd argue such a creature is on par with, say, a half-elf bard or something similar.

[remetagross]

How about we put in entries for some likely living spells? We can evaluate a sample of living spells created from the best spells at each spell level.

For first-level spells, entangle, colour spray, sleep?
For second-level spells, web, glitterdust, hold person?
For third-level spells, stinking cloud, dispel magic?
For fourth-level spells, orb of fire, Evard’s black tentacles?

Hey, why not? We can make Living spells out of areas, but also out of "effects". Thus the opportunity to expand the possible spells to stuff like rays, etc.

As far as 2nd level spells go, long range ones (so as to get that useful 60ft speed) give us Ice knife (provided the attack roll for the slam substitutes itself for the attack roll for Ice Knife, as the Living Spell description tells someone hit by the slam is "affected" directly). Each slam deals +2d8 cold and 2 Dex damage, Fort negates. This outranks a Living Melf's Acid Arrow in pretty much everything bar energy type.

In the Medium range category, Hypnotic Pattern is incredibly strong if the adventure is bound to remain a low-level one. Seeking Ray adds 4d6 electricity damage, and +4 on all subsequent to-hit attacks with a generous reading. Sun Bolt blinds on a failed save, and also deals an extra 2d6 damage, no save. Thin Air deals 1 damage to all ability scores on a failed save...Of course, Web is powerful for inflicting at least the entangled condition, even on a successful save.

And, wow. A Living Shadow Spray deals 4 points of Str damage and dazes with each slam attack, Fort negates. That is legitimely powerful. Blinding Spittle blinds, no save. Ray of Stupidity deals 1d4+1 Int damage, no save. This will take out a great deal many animals, magical beasts et al. in one blow or two.

Would I want to play a 3 HDs Ooze with +2 Str +2 Dex +2 Con --Int -2 Wis -2 Cha, DR 10/magic, +2 deflection bonus to AC, 40ft speed (these oozes are surprisingly nimble, by the way), SR 12, +2 resistance bonus to saves, deals 4 Str damage and daze with each attack on a failed save; but no hands, no way to speak, no body slot, no good saves, a WBL notched down because I had to pay for an Awaken Ooze, a ridiculous amount of skill points and no class skills for these 3 levels?

I might. More for the roleplay opportunity than for the crunch. I think the ooze described above is a bit more powerful than a 3rd level Fighter, barely as powerful as a 3rd level Barbarian. Yeah, I'd say it evens out, by the tiniest margin. I'd go into Ardent to pick up level-appropriate powers despite my RHD and be able to contribute despite my silent, still nature, and I'd make a gish to take advantage of the slam and engulf.

Ok, I'll vote +0 for the 2nd level Living Spell. I can only guess that means 3rd level and higher would be ranked -0.

[Nifft]

And, wow. A Living Shadow Spray deals 4 points of Str damage and dazes with each slam attack, Fort negates. That is legitimely powerful. Blinding Spittle blinds, no save. Ray of Stupidity deals 1d4+1 Int damage, no save. This will take out a great deal many animals, magical beasts et al. in one blow or two.

Ray spells are a great idea.

Hmm, on the subject of no-save / no-SR, how would a living antimagic field work?

Antimagic ray seems pretty obvious, since it has an effect on a target rather than an effect over an area (which removes that area from other magical effects).

[No brains]

I still think -0* would be a good way to parse the weirdness of Living Spell because the spell choice kinda equates to equipment. Remember the Cadaver Golem? That also had a non-linear progression/ unorthodox tool kit at its disposal, but its stats, type, skills, and HD (although in this case we trade that for a loss of body parts) still made it an undesirable base for a build. A Living Spell that picks a good spell list is like a Kobold who takes a T1 class, the option is optimal, but that doesn't make the base critter better.

Though the 1HD vs. weird body makes this a really tough one. It's the best thing a monster could have vs one of the worst things a monster could have. I'm going to be flailing ineptly at doors my entire career, but it will be a long career where I can eventually bypass a fear of doors.

Maybe it's worth a new thread to discuss optimal spell choices.

Also, thanks for the love on the name suggestions.

[Morphic tide]

Overall, given the sheer magnitude of abusability and capacity to get really good tricks, CL 1 & 2 Living Spells seem to be LA +0*, while CL 4+ are LA -0*. CL 3 is right at the border of viability due to 2nd level spells exploding the potential capabilities, especially when you allow more than one spell. If you go Swordsage (as an aside, many Maneuvers would stack your Slam's spell effects and few permit more than one attack per round anyways, so you lose a lot less than "normal" Martials would), you can get a stack of powerful ability damage to go with more ability damage off of a spell.

The big thing for CL 3 Living Spells is that they get stuff like Web, Entanglement and the 2nd level Ray spells. Most Rays are no-save, using an attack roll instead, but the Living Spell instead uses their Slam. I'd say that three levels is worth some of those Rays, though little can surpass the value of a Ray of Enfeeblement Initiator who's packing full class levels, as far as Living Spells are concerned. Seriously, the 4.5 average Strength damage is better than a third-level Maneuver, and you get it on all of your Slams! Strikes (presumably, as you are using the Slam) included! And the Maneuver gives them a save, while your Slam-carried spell doesn't.

For any "one big hit" class, a CL 1 Living Spell essentially trades actual equipment for their spell of choice on their attack. With Rays, this is going to be a lot better early on, while potentially falling off late-game. The question is "how late" and "is it enough for LA -0 in general?". If you're a Living Create Trap (Races of the Dragon, page 112, 1st level Sorc/Wiz spell), things get super weird because you make a CR 1 trap (from a quite limited list, but still) every time you hit an enemy with your Slam. A Psychic Warrior could grow pretty strong with access to on-hit Web allowing them to much more frequently Full Attack with the rest of their Natural Attack arsenal (which is improved by one Slam), as an example of build deficiency mitigation.

[Celestia]

I'm going to be flailing ineptly at doors my entire career, but it will be a long career where I can eventually bypass a fear of doors.

Lol. If I put quotes in my sig, I'd definitely sig this one.

[No brains]

Lol. If I put quotes in my sig, I'd definitely sig this one.

Aw, thank you so much. Maybe I'll make it into a cheese inspirational poster for you.

[Blue Jay]

If you're a Living Create Trap (Races of the Dragon, page 112, 1st level Sorc/Wiz spell), things get super weird because you make a CR 1 trap (from a quite limited list, but still) every time you hit an enemy with your Slam.

The living spell doesn't cast its spell every time it hits with its slam: the creature it slams is affected as if it had been hit by the spell. Since creating a magical trap isn't an effect on a creature, I doubt that create trap actually works. They probably should have excluded spells that create objects too.

[Nifft]

The living spell doesn't cast its spell every time it hits with its slam: the creature it slams is affected as if it had been hit by the spell. Since creating a magical trap isn't an effect on a creature, I doubt that create trap actually works. They probably should have excluded spells that create objects too.

Perhaps it creates a trap on the creature, somehow, like replacing one armor spike with a triggered launched spike trap.

Still mostly useless of course.

[javcs]

The living spell doesn't cast its spell every time it hits with its slam: the creature it slams is affected as if it had been hit by the spell. Since creating a magical trap isn't an effect on a creature, I doubt that create trap actually works. They probably should have excluded spells that create objects too.

They should have, but they didn't.
Which means you can use something like Wall of Iron.

You can also use something like Stone Shape. And figuring out how that would work is a whole new headache.

Also there's a spell called Catapult - its effect is to weaponize an object by launching it at something else. Would a living spell with Catapult then so weaponize those it slams or engulfs?
Likewise telekinetic thrusts.



I'd say that living spells in general warrant DM caution and oversight in ways that most character creation options do not.


And it's all the spell effects, no way to pick and choose.
You could maybe make a living spell as a minion with all the buffs, status restoring, and healing spells, to shortcut buff cycles in the event of surprise combat, mass dispells or disjunctions.

[Zaq]

I've always wanted to find a way around the "can't be a spell that makes/summons a creature" restriction, because a Living Spell of Mount is about the funniest damn monster ever.

*slam*
HORSE
*slam*
HORSE
*slam*
HORSE

Don't even get started on Living Spell of Regal Procession (aka Wall of Horse).

*slam*
HORSEHORSEHORSEHORSEHORSE

[Nifft]

Don't even get started on Living Spell of Regal Procession (aka Wall of Horse).

*slam*
HORSEHORSEHORSEHORSEHORSE

"Obviously I can hit incorporeal creatures, I'm a living [Horse] effect."

[javcs]

I've always wanted to find a way around the "can't be a spell that makes/summons a creature" restriction, because a Living Spell of Mount is about the funniest damn monster ever.

*slam*
HORSE
*slam*
HORSE
*slam*
HORSE

Don't even get started on Living Spell of Regal Procession (aka Wall of Horse).

*slam*
HORSEHORSEHORSEHORSEHORSE

That would be hilarious.

Huh. That makes me wonder - what about something like Mage's Sword - or the various Hands spells? Or Unseen Servant/variants or Prestidigitation.
Or any of the Wall spells.

Pretty much anything that is a persistent effect or an instantaneous conjuration(creation) effect has similar issues.

Living spells are much better as monsters than as PCs. Though if a PC were to create their own living spells, they could be decent minions.


Oh. Oh snap. I just realized something - if one does one of the various shapeshifting builds where you get a supernatural ability of the shifted form, living spells could be a useful form, since stacking spells doesn't affect their RHD.

[Nifft]

Oh. Oh snap. I just realized something - if one does one of the various shapeshifting builds where you get a supernatural ability of the shifted form, living spells could be a useful form, since stacking spells doesn't affect their RHD.

Living Spell is a template, so you can't get into it with most shapeshifting effects.

[Blue Jay]

They should have, but they didn't.
Which means you can use something like Wall of Iron.

Yeah, you can use it, but what I was saying is that it probably doesn't do anything, because you can't really subject a creature to it. So, a living wall of iron (which actually sounds like an awesome type of golem) is really just an 11-HD ooze that managed a double-digit AC.

You can also use something like Stone Shape. And figuring out how that would work is a whole new headache.

Stone shape is a targeted spell, so that's not eligible for the template.

Also there's a spell called Catapult - its effect is to weaponize an object by launching it at something else. Would a living spell with Catapult then so weaponize those it slams or engulfs?

Also a targeted spell.

Likewise telekinetic thrusts.

Also a targeted spell.

[javcs]

Living Spell is a template, so you can't get into it with most shapeshifting effects.

Living Spell isn't exactly a normal creature template, though.
For one thing, it cannot be applied to another creature. Only to non-creatures. It's either a living spell or it is a non-living spell. One option is a creature, one is not.

An argument could be made that Living Spells are somewhat akin to Animated Objects, in that the entry provides a formula for creating creatures using different bases.

[The_Iron_Lord]

"Obviously I can hit incorporeal creatures, I'm a living [Horse] effect."

Can I put that quote in my sig please? XD

[zergling.exe]

Living Spell isn't exactly a normal creature template, though.
For one thing, it cannot be applied to another creature. Only to non-creatures. It's either a living spell or it is a non-living spell. One option is a creature, one is not.

An argument could be made that Living Spells are somewhat akin to Animated Objects, in that the entry provides a formula for creating creatures using different bases.

“Living spell” is an unusual template, in that it is applied to an arcane or divine spell effect (or in some cases, a group of spell effects) and not a creature.

I don't see how you can get more explicit. It is a template, an unusual one, but a template nonetheless. It is thus prohibited from being a valid shapeshift form.

edit: Animated objects are a different beast entirely, because they have a set number of statistics. They also do not mention the word "template" at all in the write-up.

[Blue Jay]

I don't see how you can get more explicit. It is a template, an unusual one, but a template nonetheless. It is thus prohibited from being a valid shapeshift form.

If you want to get really semantic about it, shapeshift abilities like alter self don't forbid templates: they specifically forbid "creatures with templates." And that does kind of leave Living Spells in a gray area, because during the process of making a living spell, you never apply a template to a creature, so it's technically not a creature with a template.

So I think I agree with javcs's notion, in principle. But, in practice, I'd probably still ask my players not to polymorph into living spells, because even though I think there's something fundamentally distinct about using a template to create a creature versus using a template to modify an existing creature, I still think the principle behind the shapeshifting restriction is applicable: there are just too many variables involved to make it a good idea to allow it.

[Nifft]

Can I put that quote in my sig please? XD

Of course, of course.

If you want to get really semantic about it, shapeshift abilities like alter self don't forbid templates: they specifically forbid "creatures with templates." And that does kind of leave Living Spells in a gray area, because during the process of making a living spell, you never apply a template to a creature, so it's technically not a creature with a template.

It's a creature only with the template.

Without the template, it's not a creature at all -- it's a spell.

[javcs]

If you want to get really semantic about it, shapeshift abilities like alter self don't forbid templates: they specifically forbid "creatures with templates." And that does kind of leave Living Spells in a gray area, because during the process of making a living spell, you never apply a template to a creature, so it's technically not a creature with a template.

So I think I agree with javcs's notion, in principle. But, in practice, I'd probably still ask my players not to polymorph into living spells, because even though I think there's something fundamentally distinct about using a template to create a creature versus using a template to modify an existing creature, I still think the principle behind the shapeshifting restriction is applicable: there are just too many variables involved to make it a good idea to allow it.

Oh, yeah, I'd never allow it in my own games, though I do think there's a technical argument for it being allowable by RAW, or at least, in that grey area.

[Inevitability]

Lizardfolk, Blackscale

Lizardfolk, but bigger, stronger, and surprisingly compliant with the square-cube law. Not much else to say here.

The chassis, with 4 monstrous humanoid RHD, 19 strength, 14 constitution, acid resistance 5, a natural bite (plus two claws), a huge natural armor bonus, only slightly below-average mental stats, Hold Breath, and some miscellaneous skill bonuses, is surprisingly okay. The ogre got +0, and that one was worse in basically every way except two points of strength (which I'd be willing to give up for the bite and +1 BAB alone).

The lizardfolk also has a very small amount of racial support ogres lack (of those only Axethrower is probably worth it, and only then as a niche pick, but still).

With all this in mind, I could see the blackscale as either a strong +0 or a weak +1. If I could I'd suggest just adding a single RHD and calling it a day, but such things are sadly outside of this thread's scope.

For now I'll assign +0, but others' opinions are very welcome.

[javcs]

A stronger +0, I think.

Maybe a borderline +1, but given its role and probable build path, I'm inclined to err low, rather than high.

[Zaq]

What’s the argument in favor of +1? It’s just a brute, and I don’t see what makes it such a good brute compared to the actual brute PC classes that it needs a penalty.

Count my vote as probably +0, though I’m going off Inevitability’s synopsis rather than the original text.

[ViperMagnum357]

Blackscale Lizardfolk: Large, with average reach and speed for a Large biped. Monstrous Humanoid RHD are adequate, if a long way from a selling point. Net abilities +6 on 4 RHD is atrocious, though +7 natural AC is comfortably above par for the same. 2 claws, 1 bite, Darkvision, Acid Resistance 5, hold breath, not selling points either. +12 net skill bonuses is solid, though. Overall, an extremely simple bruiser with little to recommend it if you can get Large another way, unless the sizable natural AC is of particular interest. Put it together, and it is an acceptable if not sterling beatstick, with full BAB and enough oomph in the right places to be viable.

I will go with LA +0. Large size on the decent bruiser chassis is about on par, but not so much to be penalized.