The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able

[Unavenger]

High strength and dexterity makes me think archer build. From the wording of the ability (it's made from their saliva and is CON-based) it seems to be at-will, and 1d6 CON damage (with a decent DC, no less) is a very strong ability to have on every attack you make (another reason I suggest archery is that you hardly need the damage boost of two-weapon melee combat fighting). Sure, you'll suck against constructs and undead, but go cry to the rogue. I'm happy to call it +0 - though if you can poison your allies' weapons too, I can see a case for +1. Even high-level dragons aren't poison-immune, after all.

[Dimers]

I do like the poison DC starting so high. It would increase every 2 character levels, right? Plus more when you get Constitution-boosting items? It should actually work more often than 5% of the time at high levels. (Well, on non-poison-immune enemies, anyway.)

Skills are disappointing -- why no Move Silently? Why no Knowledge (Nature)? Why, on a creature with a Dexterity bonus, an apparent melee role and a fighting style of backing off after a few hits, is there no Tumble?

Poison DC notwithstanding, I agree with -0.

EDIT: Also, they can't benefit from enlarge person. Sigh.

[Inevitability]

It would increase every 2 character levels, right?

No, the DC of innate poison is based on RHD, not HD.

When a character takes damage from an attack with a poisoned weapon, touches an item smeared with contact poison, consumes poisoned food or drink, or is otherwise poisoned, he must make a Fortitude saving throw. If he fails, he takes the poison’s initial damage (usually ability damage). Even if he succeeds, he typically faces more damage 1 minute later, which he can also avoid with a successful Fortitude saving throw. The Fortitude save DC against a creature’s natural poison attack is equal to 10 + ½ poisoning creature’s racial HD + poisoning creature’s Con modifier (the exact DC is given in the creature’s descriptive text).

Constitution increases would affect the DC, though.

[remetagross]

On the other hand, they can benefit from Return to Nature for a permanent undispellable Reduce Person, which comes in handy if they want to go the sneaky route.

-0 LA all the same, 5 RHDs put you too much behind for what you get; though I'll join the crowd and say it's a close call.

[Falontani]

Extraordinary poisons are "natural weapons" and thus increase in damage dice (in this case to 1d8) with improved natural attack or a size increase, correct? (I mean apparently fire elemental can take improved natural attack: burn)

So with hidden talent: expansion and improved natural attack you gain 2 sizes pushing your poison to a 2d6. With a good feat selection their poison can be incredibly deadly where poison is concerned, and they can always harvest their poison and sell it, give it to allies, and coat all their ranged weaponry with it.
It seems to me that you will go:
RHD 6/Hit and Run Fighter 1/ranger 2/assassin 10/swordsage 1.
Hidden talent: expansion
Martial study
Improved Natural Attack: Poison
Martial Stance: Assassin stance
Poison expert: injury
Poison master
Virulent Poison

[ViperMagnum357]

Net +18 abilities puts it between 4 and 5 RHD, with +5 natural AC appropriate for the latter. Average ground speed, slow climb speed, poor skills albeit with a couple of bonuses, And undersized natural attacks. Decent senses; Darkvision 90 ft, Low Light vision, and Scent is respectable. Poison is a big 'ol question mark, but even if it is a free rider on all attacks, I am not sure it makes up roughly 3 class levels (assuming climb speed is one, while the Fast Healing is another, and the senses + hide bonuses + natural attack routine = your racial traits.)

I am going for LA -0. I think it would be LA +0 at 4 RHD, provided the poison rules are not too onerous.

[lord_khaine]

I think the massive stat bonuses, as well as the free healing, is enough to make it compare favorably to a human warblade 6
if it had a single warblade level itself. So +0

[liquidformat]

I think the massive stat bonuses, as well as the free healing, is enough to make it compare favorably to a human warblade 6
if it had a single warblade level itself. So +0

Please elaborate as to how and why it compares favorably. Also we typically use water orc or normal orc as the comparison point since it you know gives ability bonuses and it is hard to quantify the bonus feat...

Anyways, I am not seeing how this is that much better than even a raging water orc barb2/warblade 4, the forest troll warblade 1 has +2 str which equates to -2 attack between large size and loss of 2 bab (note if barb 1 instead then equivalent attack), between slightly higher str and poison the forest troll will do more damage but not by much since it won't hit as much, +4 Con over the raging water orc only ends up being an average of 2 extra hp over 6 levels which isn't notable though the fast healing is notable at this point, saves will be similar, between the dex and NA the Forest Troll has better AC, and the water orc will have more skill points and better skill choice. Now on the missing class features, Forest troll either has a barb dip giving it pounce bring its attack up to par and boosting its hp, fort, and will saves or is a equivalent to 3rd level initiator with 3 maneuvers and 1 stance known with access to 2nd level maneuvers. Whereas, the water orc has pounce, improved trip, 5 manuevers, 2 stances, access to 3rd level maneuvers, uncanny dodge, and int to reflex saves and crit confirms. All and all the Forest Troll compares similarly to the Water orc before class features are taken into account at which point a clear advantage is given to the water orc due to actually having class features.

I think this is a pretty clear cut -0 and a loss of 1 rhd should boost it to +0.

[ViperMagnum357]

Anyways, I am not seeing how this is that much better than even a raging water orc barb2/warblade 4, the forest troll warblade 1 has +2 str which equates to -2 attack between large size and loss of 2 bab (note if barb 1 instead then equivalent attack),

Just a notation for your calculations, the Forest Troll is a Medium-sized Giant, which means it can pick up the Half-Minotaur or Half-Ogre templates to go up to Large-size with a full suite of size adjustments (and it can certainly afford the hit to Dex without a huge problem).

[Celestia]

It's really close, but I'm going to say strong -0. Chop off just one RHD, and it'd be a strong +0. If it had true regeneration, though, I'd say that'd be enough to give it +0 with the 5 RHD.

[Blue Jay]

I'm going for LA +0, just to be conservative (again).

The trolls also have a badly-worded Poison ability. It *seems*, but isn't outright stated, that given some time forest trolls can coat their claws and manufactured weapons with a (presumably free?) poison that deals 1d6 constitution damage. That's not bad at all, but it wouldn't hurt for there to be some clearer wording.

It does say that they create the poison using their saliva, which to me implies that there's a crafting process involved, which presumably would use the Craft (poisonmaking) rules from Complete Adventurer. But, since they don't get Craft as a racial skill, and there aren't any costs or Craft DCs presented, I guess they really just weren't interested in considering this for actual player use (in spite of the LA they gave it).

There's also text in the glossary entry for Poisons that says poison smeared on a weapon is effectively just a single-use attack, so that's probably the default assumption we should work with for the forest troll.

Also, it's not clear whether a poison made from their saliva counts as a natural poison, so it's not clear that the trolls themselves are immune to it, which also means they would risk poisoning themselves when they apply it.

In combination, those two things would make it pretty restrictive, which might hurt my original appraisal of LA +0.

Extraordinary poisons are "natural weapons" and thus increase in damage dice (in this case to 1d8) with improved natural attack or a size increase, correct? (I mean apparently fire elemental can take improved natural attack: burn)

I'm pretty sure the only things that are supposed to qualify as "natural weapons" are body parts a creature uses to make attack rolls with. That's how they're described in the glossary entry, anyway. Also, where is that Improved Natural Attack (burn) reference from? I feel like I've heard someone else allude to it once before.

...And undersized natural attacks...

From the "Creature Size" table on p. 296 of the MM, a 1d4 claw is standard for Medium creatures. Or, are you using a different standard for determining what's undersized?

But, claws have a surprising amount of variance, a lot of which doesn't make sense. For example, an ettercap's claws deal 1d3 damage, while a succubus's claws deal 1d6. That doesn't seem quite right to me:

Spoiler: Claws

Show

1d3 claws:


1d6 claws:

Where even are her claws?

[ViperMagnum357]

From the "Creature Size" table on p. 296 of the MM, a 1d4 claw is standard for Medium creatures. Or, are you using a different standard for determining what's undersized?

1d6 claws:

Where even are her claws?[/SPOILER]

I was referring to the Bite attack, which is undersized at 1d4 for a Medium critter. As for the Succubus, presumably retractable nails, since there are several other pieces of art where they possess prominent claws and more reptilian hands, like on the cover of Dragon Magazine #306.

[liquidformat]

I'm going for LA +0, just to be conservative (again).



It does say that they create the poison using their saliva, which to me implies that there's a crafting process involved, which presumably would use the Craft (poisonmaking) rules from Complete Adventurer. But, since they don't get Craft as a racial skill, and there aren't any costs or Craft DCs presented, I guess they really just weren't interested in considering this for actual player use (in spite of the LA they gave it).

There's also text in the glossary entry for Poisons that says poison smeared on a weapon is effectively just a single-use attack, so that's probably the default assumption we should work with for the forest troll.

Also, it's not clear whether a poison made from their saliva counts as a natural poison, so it's not clear that the trolls themselves are immune to it, which also means they would risk poisoning themselves when they apply it.

In combination, those two things would make it pretty restrictive, which might hurt my original appraisal of LA +0.



I'm pretty sure the only things that are supposed to qualify as "natural weapons" are body parts a creature uses to make attack rolls with. That's how they're described in the glossary entry, anyway. Also, where is that Improved Natural Attack (burn) reference from? I feel like I've heard someone else allude to it once before.



From the "Creature Size" table on p. 296 of the MM, a 1d4 claw is standard for Medium creatures. Or, are you using a different standard for determining what's undersized?

But, claws have a surprising amount of variance, a lot of which doesn't make sense. For example, an ettercap's claws deal 1d3 damage, while a succubus's claws deal 1d6. That doesn't seem quite right to me:

Spoiler: Claws

Show

1d3 claws:


1d6 claws:

Where even are her claws?

If you are ruling that roughly on poison I am not sure how you are getting to a +0 LA ruling, that is literally the worst way to rule their poison ability possible and the most dysfunctional since that means they would kill themselves by salivating... The text says their saliva is poisonous so I don't see why they would need a craft check to 'make' it nor why they wouldn't be immune to it.

Granted I think it is reasonable to follow the standard rules for applying poison to weapons which means it isn't exactly friendly to doing during battle and therefore poisoned ammunition is probably your best choice.

As far as improved natural weapon goes I think it falls into a maybe category, creatures like spiders and scorpions have a poison by size chart so I can see an argument that poison is size dependent. Though I don't know if that should be a blanket statement for all poison though it would make poison a more powerful ability for longer.

On the topic of claws, please add a banana to both pictures for scale, thank you.

[No brains]

The succubus keeps her claws where the nalfeshnee keeps its surface area for its wings. They're both under-sized but do their job. Those aren't even the most incongruous stuff about demons.

I would like to play a forest troll and be able to talk to buy humanoid-shaped armor and weapons that I can use. That said, I can't commit to a rating. I can't even have it join the Thorn and Cave Troll because a ranger is redundant.

[liquidformat]

The succubus keeps her claws where the nalfeshnee keeps its surface area for its wings. They're both under-sized but do their job. Those aren't even the most incongruous stuff about demons.

I would like to play a forest troll and be able to talk to buy humanoid-shaped armor and weapons that I can use. That said, I can't commit to a rating. I can't even have it join the Thorn and Cave Troll because a ranger is redundant.

It could be a horribly spec'ed druid so it can get venomfire at ecl 10... If it could apply the poison to all natural weapons as a free action going totemist would be worth while but that really isn't even an if but a dream...

[Thurbane]

Forest Troll (I have a bit of a soft spot for these guys as encounters)

• Medium Giant.
• 5 RHD - not good.
• 30 ft move, 20 ft climb - climb speed is always nice.
• +5 natural AC - not bad, but slightly underwhelming at ECL 5.
• 2 claws and a bite - good in the right build.
• Poison 1d6 Con/1d6 Con - a fairly nasty poison for a PC to have.
• Darkvision 90 ft, low-light vision, scent - decent senses.
• Fast healing 5 - I always think fast healing is great, but I know other Play-grounders don't value it like I do.
• Str +6, Dex +6, Con +10, Cha -4: net +18 - pretty good for ECL 5, IMHO. Cha is often a dump stat anyways. No hit to Int, yay!
• Small but somewhat useful skill list: racial bonuses to a few skills. Not terrible, but not great either.

You can speak, you're humanoid in shape, you're medium - so you avoid the gear and class difficulties of some of the weirder creatures. Weighing up ability score boosts, poison and fast healing against 5 sub-par RHD, I'm happy to give these guys LA +0.

[Chainguy]

I won't repeat what has been said in it's favor, and because I dont feel it would be a drag to a party my vote goes to +0.

There is also some support material to keep the poison viable through the mid-level range (be it crafted or natural...or both!?) so it would be useful for most of the typical adventuring career.

[Thurbane]

Giants benefit from the Primordial Template (LA +0) and also, as mentioned, the Return to Nature spell: dependant on the build you're going for, of course.

It could be a horribly spec'ed druid so it can get venomfire at ecl 10... If it could apply the poison to all natural weapons as a free action going totemist would be worth while but that really isn't even an if but a dream...

It's a shame Venomfire isn't a Blighter spell.

Might be fun to have a Primordial, fine-sized troll (RtN) Druid 5/Blighter 10...

Troll 5/Druid (or Cleric) 1/Swordsage 14? You can use Venomfire from a wand, and hit IL 17 by ECL 20.

[Covenant12]

I'm leaning to -0, but it depends a bit on how the poison is dealt with. I think a level 6 orc barbarian/warblade will be more effective, with better skills and abilities than forest troll with a level dip. It is a strong -0 though, losing 1 RHD means 1 less lost BAB, so I think at 4 RHD it becomes +0. If you value tankiness more than this thread does (including me) it gets by at +0 and 5 RHD.

Depending on poison interpretation, though, hrm. It says they can create it, but no craft skill or mechanic on that. I'd likely houserule you can create them quickly but they don't last more than an hour or three. The most generous interpretations could reach into +0* territory. Optimizing around free very good Con poison could get ugly.

[Blue Jay]

If you are ruling that roughly on poison I am not sure how you are getting to a +0 LA ruling, that is literally the worst way to rule their poison ability possible

I probably wouldn't rule that way, but if we're looking for a strict RAW interpretation, I think that's probably the most literally correct one. But, I kind of gave LA +0 on the assumption that nobody would agree with me, and that I wouldn't fight them too hard on it.

and the most dysfunctional since that means they would kill themselves by salivating... The text says their saliva is poisonous so I don't see why they would need a craft check to 'make' it nor why they wouldn't be immune to it.

Well, what I'm getting at there is that their saliva obviously isn't poisonous, or else their bite would be poisonous too. So, it seems like their saliva might just be an ingredient, and it needs some work to make it poisonous. So, since it's a crafted poison, it might not technically count as a "natural poison" according to the rules, so it might not benefit from that clause that creatures are immune to their own natural poison.

A technicality, but one that I feel is at least worth mentioning.

As far as improved natural weapon goes I think it falls into a maybe category, creatures like spiders and scorpions have a poison by size chart so I can see an argument that poison is size dependent. Though I don't know if that should be a blanket statement for all poison though it would make poison a more powerful ability for longer.

Yes, those rules could definitely benefit from a little more clarity.

On the topic of claws, please add a banana to both pictures for scale, thank you.

We have a strict "no bananas at work" policy, so I'm afraid I can't oblige you there.

[Inevitability]

Extraordinary poisons are "natural weapons" and thus increase in damage dice (in this case to 1d8) with improved natural attack or a size increase, correct? (I mean apparently fire elemental can take improved natural attack: burn)

Extraordinary poisons aren't natural weapons, because they miss the definition for 'weapon' altogether. You can't make a weapon attack roll with a poison, just with a poison-augmented attack. The assumption that being bigger somehow increases poison virulence runs counter to both RAI, RAW, and RACSD.

The succubus keeps her claws where the nalfeshnee keeps its surface area for its wings. They're both under-sized but do their job. Those aren't even the most incongruous stuff about demons.

They're demons: blatant and obvious disregard for the laws of physics is their entire theme.

[Zaq]

As always, I find abilities interesting and numbers boring. The only semi-interesting bit is the poison, but it’s not clear how that works. If it’s easy to apply it to the majority of your attacks without spending major actions in combat, that’s okay. Otherwise it’s somewhat problematic.

Leaning towards -0. It’s boring if you end up with just a sack of number-studded meat. It’s close to +0, and a very generous reading of the poison ability might tip me over the edge, but lighting 5 HD on fire (or on acid) just for some physical stats and some fast healing doesn’t strike me as a winning trade.

[Remuko]

-0 is my vote; but close to +0. -1 RHD to fix seems reasonable.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Skills are disappointing -- why no Move Silently? Why no Knowledge (Nature)? Why, on a creature with a Dexterity bonus, an apparent melee role and a fighting style of backing off after a few hits, is there no Tumble?

Because the forest troll stat block isn't a class, it's a build—a build that every forest troll is forced to adhere to, as far as skills are concerned.

If you are ruling that roughly on poison I am not sure how you are getting to a +0 LA ruling, that is literally the worst way to rule their poison ability possible and the most dysfunctional since that means they would kill themselves by salivating... The text says their saliva is poisonous so I don't see why they would need a craft check to 'make' it nor why they wouldn't be immune to it.

I can see a decent argument for crafting, and a stupid argument for immunity. The argument for crafting is that, while their saliva might contain toxic chemicals, it probably doesn't contain them in the right concentrations to be useful as an in-combat poison, and certainly not in a form that sticks well to weapons. The argument for immunity is that a poison going straight through a wound isn't going to be going through your digestive tract the same way a poison you swallow would.
I'd probably rule that you need to spend time making poison (though probably not a Craft check) and that you'd be immune to your own poison, but I can see people making other arguments.

Extraordinary poisons aren't natural weapons, because they miss the definition for 'weapon' altogether. You can't make a weapon attack roll with a poison, just with a poison-augmented attack.

I'll take that challenge! Let's see, who do I know who has a vial of poison...

The assumption that being bigger somehow increases poison virulence runs counter to both RAI, RAW, and RACSD.

I don't think I've heard of that last one...what's it stand for?

They're demons: blatant and obvious disregard for the laws of physics is their entire theme.

Really? They're not very consistent about it.
Oh, right, chaotic.


As far as LA goes, I'm chucking my hat in the "barely -0" camp. Forest trolls get some decent numbers, a few natural attacks, poison, and fast healing...but the fast healing and numbers aren't enough to make up for their near-lack of "class features".

[Celestia]

The argument for immunity is that a poison going straight through a wound isn't going to be going through your digestive tract the same way a poison you swallow would.

There is actually real world precedent for that. There is a difference between toxic substances, like arsenic and mercury, and venomous substances, like most animal poisons. The former are simply dangerous by virtue of existing and can cause harm regardless of what part of the body they touch. The latter, however, are dangerous by being radical proteins that interact with the body in harmful ways. The latter, typically, are only a threat if they are injected into the body or enter the bloodstream but are broken down by the stomach acid and, therefore, rendered harmless. Theoretically, it is completely safe to drink snake venom. I would not recommend doing so, however, as most people have cuts, even microscopic ones, in their mouths and/or esophagus that can allow the venom entry into the bloodstream.

Therefore, it would actually make sense for a forest troll to be harmed by it's own poisonous saliva, at least when taking the real world into account. In D&D, however, there is no model differentiating between the two types of poisons, so there's no cause to create such an obscure exception. I would definitely rule that the forest troll is immune to it's own poison, especially if it has to be specifically applied to be used.

[Blue Jay]

I can see a decent argument for crafting, and a stupid argument for immunity.

I feel like you meant to say "... a stupid argument against immunity," because yeah, I think it's a stupid argument. Personally, I'd probably never rule that a forest troll risks poisoning itself with its own saliva. Actually, I'd probably not even require a character to roll that percentile chance of self-poisoning, even if they didn't have Poison Use, because it's one of those things that requires me to do extra work as a DM just so I get one more chance to annoy my players, and I don't have the self-esteem to be that confrontational in the game. Poison can be potent, but I don't think it needs that one extra layer of red tape to discourage it.

It's kind of like tracking how many pages you've used in your frickin' spellbook. I don't care: you're just going to buy another one when you run out of pages, and then we'll have to invest effort in remembering which book has which spells, which is also boring and has no chance of ever benefiting you; so who frickin' cares?

Honestly, I'd probably just ask for some symbolic action that acknowledges that there's a crafting process involved and a promise to not go overboard. Like, as long as you're not making new doses as a standard action or in the middle of combat, and you're not trying to manufacture a limitless stockpile or sell it all for huge profits, I'd probably be lenient in most ways. I prefer to use simple rules like "a forest troll adventurer can create 1d4+1 doses of poison during their usual morning ritual," and "you can carry up to 10 doses at a time," and "you can apply poison as a move action, or as a free action if you have Quick Draw."

There is actually real world precedent for that. There is a difference between toxic substances, like arsenic and mercury, and venomous substances, like most animal poisons. The former are simply dangerous by virtue of existing and can cause harm regardless of what part of the body they touch. The latter, however, are dangerous by being radical proteins that interact with the body in harmful ways. The latter, typically, are only a threat if they are injected into the body or enter the bloodstream but are broken down by the stomach acid and, therefore, rendered harmless. Theoretically, it is completely safe to drink snake venom. I would not recommend doing so, however, as most people have cuts, even microscopic ones, in their mouths and/or esophagus that can allow the venom entry into the bloodstream.

Therefore, it would actually make sense for a forest troll to be harmed by it's own poisonous saliva, at least when taking the real world into account. In D&D, however, there is no model differentiating between the two types of poisons, so there's no cause to create such an obscure exception. I would definitely rule that the forest troll is immune to it's own poison, especially if it has to be specifically applied to be used.

In real life, I'm a spider biologist, and the failure to distinguish "poison" and "venom" used to be a big pet peeve of mine, and it used to almost offend me that D&D used "Poison" instead of "Venom" (also D&D made vermin Mindless, which is really unfair to arthropods). Poison is something that makes you sick if you ingest it or inhale it. Venom is something that attacks you when injected directly into your bloodstream. Of course, the word "poisonous" is also useful is distinguishing venoms that are and aren't dangerous: so, a "poisonous spider" is one that is dangerous to humans. With that definition, almost all spiders are venomous, but not all of them are poisonous to humans.

Anyway, sorry for the sidetrack. I always end up writing too much.

[Inevitability]

I don't think I've heard of that last one...what's it stand for?

Rules as common sense dictates.

What RAW is should be obvious enough, RAI is often relevant when dealing with ambiguous or erroneous text (like the 1d43 scorpion whip) and RACSD is useful when considering D&D weirdness like 'greatswords make better pickaxes than actual pickaxes' or 'by RAW, the moon should be invisible'.

The latter statements are true by RAW, are very definitely what the rules intended (or at least, no intention that things should work differently can be gleaned from the books) and yet run so counter to what we consider sensible and normal that few people wouldn't change at least a few such things in their games.

[liquidformat]

The assumption that being bigger somehow increases poison virulence runs counter to both RAI, RAW, and RACSD.

Please See spiders, scorpions, and centipedes for RAW support of poison increasing virulence with size...

There is actually real world precedent for that. There is a difference between toxic substances, like arsenic and mercury, and venomous substances, like most animal poisons. The former are simply dangerous by virtue of existing and can cause harm regardless of what part of the body they touch. The latter, however, are dangerous by being radical proteins that interact with the body in harmful ways. The latter, typically, are only a threat if they are injected into the body or enter the bloodstream but are broken down by the stomach acid and, therefore, rendered harmless. Theoretically, it is completely safe to drink snake venom. I would not recommend doing so, however, as most people have cuts, even microscopic ones, in their mouths and/or esophagus that can allow the venom entry into the bloodstream.

Therefore, it would actually make sense for a forest troll to be harmed by it's own poisonous saliva, at least when taking the real world into account. In D&D, however, there is no model differentiating between the two types of poisons, so there's no cause to create such an obscure exception. I would definitely rule that the forest troll is immune to it's own poison, especially if it has to be specifically applied to be used.

You are actually mixing up three distinct things which kind of ruins your argument... There are toxic things like bleach, mercury, arsenic, and so forth; which are harmful in most anyway you come in contact with them to differing degrees. There are poisonous things such as poison dart frogs, night shade, poison ivy, and so forth that again to differing degrees harmful no matter how you come in contact with them. And then finally there are venomous creatures such as scorpions, snakes, and spiders that have contact/injury venoms that aren't normally thought to be harmful or as harmful if turned in steam or eaten.

Furthermore, venom is active, whereas, poisonous is passive. I suppose the question is which of the three categories does forest troll poison fall into?

Anyways that doesn't really clear up the main question of if the troll has to make its poison or if it is simply requiring it to lick its hands or weapon.

Would this make the Troll a -0* LA since poison is dysfunctional enough to require a dm to step in and make a call?

If in fact making poison is an out of combat activity and applying it requires standard rules including chance of poisoning yourself I would say Forest Troll is pretty clearly -0 LA and the ability is pretty worthless until you gain an ability like poison use from assassin...

[Blue Jay]

Please See spiders, scorpions, and centipedes for RAW support of poison increasing virulence with size...

And see viper snakes for a RAW counterpoint.

Poison damage might increase with size for some creatures, but there's no direct statement of that as a default mechanic, so I think it should probably be assumed that person damage does not scale with size unless specifically stated.

[lord_khaine]

Please elaborate as to how and why it compares favorably. Also we typically use water orc or normal orc as the comparison point since it you know gives ability bonuses and it is hard to quantify the bonus feat...

Anyways, I am not seeing how this is that much better than even a raging water orc barb2/warblade 4, the forest troll warblade 1 has +2 str which equates to -2 attack between large size and loss of 2 bab (note if barb 1 instead then equivalent attack), between slightly higher str and poison the forest troll will do more damage but not by much since it won't hit as much, +4 Con over the raging water orc only ends up being an average of 2 extra hp over 6 levels which isn't notable though the fast healing is notable at this point, saves will be similar, between the dex and NA the Forest Troll has better AC, and the water orc will have more skill points and better skill choice. Now on the missing class features, Forest troll either has a barb dip giving it pounce bring its attack up to par and boosting its hp, fort, and will saves or is a equivalent to 3rd level initiator with 3 maneuvers and 1 stance known with access to 2nd level maneuvers. Whereas, the water orc has pounce, improved trip, 5 manuevers, 2 stances, access to 3rd level maneuvers, uncanny dodge, and int to reflex saves and crit confirms. All and all the Forest Troll compares similarly to the Water orc before class features are taken into account at which point a clear advantage is given to the water orc due to actually having class features.

I think this is a pretty clear cut -0 and a loss of 1 rhd should boost it to +0.

I dont compare with a Water Ork since i think its bonkers to hold something up against a race thats so much stronger than the default human.
And the relevant comparison point for a barbarian/warblade would be another barbarian warblade. Else the brief power boost you get from a class dip is likely to skew things unduly.
So i compare pure warblades because that gives a clearer picture.

And with those things out of the way, then the troll does have a massive advantage in physical stats, natural armor, darkvision, scent and fast healing.
To make up for being a few initiator levels behind.