-
The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Please post in the new thread, thanks in advance.
Thread number six already!
The purpose of the thread is unchanged: assign (mostly) balanced level adjustments to the many monsters in 3.5, regardless of type, size, or weirdness.
More information, a list of prior level adjustments, and explanations of some of the terms used in the thread can be found in the LA-assignment archive.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
No, my keyboard isn't sticky: it's actually spelled like that.
Ssvaklors are an interesting dragon/yuan-ti combination critter, that like so many of its kind doesn't inherit what makes either parent interesting. Fifteen dragon RHD are decent, but not great, especially in quantities like this. Medium size is completely ridiculous for any non-caster with this kind of RHD. 19 strength, 24 constitution, and 8-12 everywhere else isn't much to write home about either: nearly all brutes in the 5-10 HD range have similar, if not better ability scores.
The ssvaklor has base land and swim speeds of 40 ft., a reasonable amount of natural armor, two natural claws and a poisonous bite. They also have DR 10/magic, SR 18, scent, blindsense, and immunity to magical sleep, poison, and paralysis.
The serpentwyrm's special abilities are, to put it simply, disappointing. Its breath weapon is probably the most interesting, but it's poison-based, affects a small area, and only deals 1d4 constitution damage. Its spell-likes are ridiculously weak: 1/day Darkness, Entangle, Cause Fear, and Animal Trance might've been worth it at level 3, but they sure aren't now.
Ultimately, the ssvaklor just feels like a low-level monster that the developers tried to give a boost by inflating its RHD and increasing a few numbers. It's outclassed as a melee brute, as a breath weapon user, as a caster-type... I'd genuinely have trouble choosing between this and PrC-less human fighter, just to emphasize how terrible it is.
-0 LA, don't do dragonsnakes they're bad for you.
Greater Ssvaklor
Greater
\ˈgrā-tər \
comparative adjective
1. Describing basically the exact same monster but with twice the RHD.
Yeah, no amount of stat boosts and slightly-better SLAs is going to make this viable deep into epic. -0 LA once more.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Concur, -0 for the both of them.
As per usual for the dragon type, they suck for the number of RHD they have.
Edit: They are CR 10 ... and wtf how did they justify the greater as being CR 20.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
I don't think this one will generate much discusdion, unless there's a combo I'm missing. -0 for both of them.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Tagging in on the thread to watch. The Ssvaklor is an interesting concept, but mechanically disappointing, even as a monster alone. Can’t see it getting anywhere as a playable.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Inevitability
Greater
\ˈgrā-tər \
comparative adjective
1. Describing basically the exact same monster but with twice the RHD.
I don't care who you are, that's funny.
-0 for the both of them.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
See, dragon hit dice are often decent enough to straight-up take over fighter levels, so I'd probably actually take it over the straight-classed fighter. But not over a real build. -0, natch.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Unavenger
See, dragon hit dice are often decent enough to straight-up take over fighter levels, so I'd probably actually take it over the straight-classed fighter. But not over a real build. -0, natch.
Straight-classed fighter can do stuff like go Zhentarim Soldier or Dungeoncrasher, has a ton more feats (and terrible as most are, there's some good fighter-exclusive or fighter bonus feats), and also doesn't have to struggle as much with loot that doesn't fit their body type.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Inevitability
Straight-classed fighter can do stuff like go Zhentarim Soldier or Dungeoncrasher, has a ton more feats (and terrible as most are, there's some good fighter-exclusive or fighter bonus feats), and also doesn't have to struggle as much with loot that doesn't fit their body type.
True. I guess I just like high saves, skills, and having about twice as many hit points too much. :smalltongue:
Also, I quite like the DC 24+base con mod poison which paralyses enemies. That's a relatively strong meme at least - a lot of enemies will have a 50% failure chance or more, assuming they're not themselves poison-immune and you have a decent constitution.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Easy -0 for both. Their poison might have some use for a poison maker with psionic minor creation, but greensickness is just better.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Ugh, I missed the splinterwaif. They’re such neat critters! I think they’ve gotta be right around a very risky +2. +3 is unreasonable, but I will acknowledge that they have enough cookies to be worth more than their RHD alone.
Unlike, say, the ssvaklor. That’s an easy -0. I completely agree with the sentiment that they’re a low-level brute that got pumped full of RHD without any new tricks.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Quote:
Originally Posted by
javcs
Edit: They are CR 10 ... and wtf how did they justify the greater as being CR 20.
2/3 of HD = CR. 2/3 of 15 = 10. 2/3 of 30 = 20.
Concur with the -0 for both.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Inevitability
No, my keyboard isn't sticky: it's actually spelled like that.
Yeah, it's a snakey-dragon. It needs a snakey name, which has to involve hisses. It's childishly simple, if a bit childish; there's no reason to throw a hissy-fit about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RedWarlock
The Ssvaklor is an interesting concept, but mechanically disappointing, even as a monster alone.
"What if we took two of the most iconic, if boring, abilities of yuan-ti and dragons and put them together? Poison breath, boom! Oh, and add a couple random C-tier abilities from each."
I mean, to be fair, that probably wasn't the exact design process; they probably went over a few combinations of dragon and yuan-ti abilities and went with the one that was simplest to use and played best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Unavenger
True. I guess I just like high saves, skills, and having about twice as many hit points too much. :smalltongue:
Four skill points per level and two more good saves are nice, but I regret to inform you that dragon only have d12 hit dice, not d10. We only get twice as many hit points per level because of our high Constitution scores; if there was a fighter as tough as a dragon, they'd only be one hit point her hit die behind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Remuko
2/3 of HD = CR. 2/3 of 15 = 10. 2/3 of 30 = 20.
Makes sense. The fighter's going to get about as much stronger from level 10 to level 20 as the dragon would.
pointedly ignores spellcasters
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
LA -0 on both versions of the snake dragon. Something went wrong between concept and execution, and this thing is too boring to bother examining why. Next.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Why do I feel like I've killed hundreds of these guys grinding in some video RPG?
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
There are far better playable dragons than these guys. They get a bucket-load of RHD, with relatively little to show for it (in dragon terms). You'd probably be better off playing a half-dragon yuan-ti.
LA -0 for both.
Always cracked me up that the illustration has wings, but it doen't get a fly speed. I'd imagine it was one of those deals where either the art department and creature creator didn't communicate; or the stat block was changed AFTER the art was commissioned.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Thurbane
There are far better playable dragons than these guys. They get a bucket-load of RHD, with relatively little to show for it (in dragon terms). You'd probably be better off playing a half-dragon yuan-ti.
LA -0 for both.
Always cracked me up that the illustration has wings, but it doen't get a fly speed. I'd imagine it was one of those deals where either the art department and creature creator didn't communicate; or the stat block was changed AFTER the art was commissioned.
It's got a swim speed, though, so its wings serve the same purpose as those of a penguin, presumably.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GreatWyrmGold
Four skill points per level and two more good saves are nice, but I regret to inform you that dragon only have d12 hit dice, not d10. We only get twice as many hit points per level because of our high Constitution scores; if there was a fighter as tough as a dragon, they'd only be one hit point her hit die behind.
I mean, yeah, but you get a +7 to constitution modifier, so +8 to hit points per level over the fighter. If the fighter has +2 or +3 constitution modifier, that means about twice as many as the fighter.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Yeah, solidly both LA -0. RHD bloat is the real issue here.
I've looked at it from a few angles, can't see any way for this to contribute in a 15th level party other than speed bump. Druid's animal companion will likely be better.
Poison is Con damage and paralysis, and Con based with 24 base Con, so that is something. Fort tends to be the highest save among PC's opponents, and poison immunity is common. Without that it can't compete with an Orc warblade. Note that the tolerable damage is partially due to two feats for Improved Natural Attack, so it will compete badly with a Full BAB beatstick.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
I'm glad we had the Splinterwaif as a palate cleanser, because this is a particularly clear -0.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Quote:
Originally Posted by
javcs
It's got a swim speed, though, so its wings serve the same purpose as those of a penguin, presumably.
Makes me want to stat up the majestic Pengodragon (Pendragon?):
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Thurbane
Makes me want to stat up the majestic Pengodragon (Pendragon?):
It's a draguin!
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Thurbane
Makes me want to stat up the majestic Pengodragon (Pendragon?):
Pengon? Dracoguin? Dracopen? Penguidrake? Arctic/Antarctic Sea Drake?
Perhaps they're an Arctic/Aquatic variation or cousin to the Pseudodragon.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Inevitability
Greater
\ˈgrā-tər \
comparative adjective
1. Describing basically the exact same monster but with twice the RHD.
After all these years, I never thought I'd be updating my signature.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Yeah, these do remind me of something video-gamey.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TotallyNotEvil
Yeah, these do remind me of something video-gamey.
I think reminds me of Great Dragons in FF9.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Ssvalkor is really bad, and shockingly greater really bad is still bad, so -0 all around. While I could imagine a game where it could be fun to play, I have to imagine pretty hard.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Has there ever been a greater [x] that actually got a higher LA than the basic?
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jindra34
Has there ever been a greater [x] that actually got a higher LA than the basic?
Pretty sure that there hasn't been.
There might be a couple that haven't had a lower LA, not counting ones that were both -0.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Quote:
Originally Posted by
javcs
Pretty sure that there hasn't been.
There might be a couple that haven't had a lower LA, not counting ones that were both -0.
There's been two Greater monsters that didn't get an LA -0; the Greater Barghest and the Greater Shadow.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Quote:
Originally Posted by
danielxcutter
There's been two Greater monsters that didn't get an LA -0; the Greater Barghest and the Greater Shadow.
And while it didn’t use the actual word “greater,” the splinterwaif knave walked away with +0, so there’s probably one or two others (at least) that a simple ctrl-F for “greater” would miss.
But yeah, for the purposes of this thread, RHD advancement is bad 99% of the time.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Of the various schools of monster design (who never talk to one another and never admit they exist) there seems to be one that likes to make punching bag monsters. Reasonable-sounding offensive abilities, easy to hit, but a metric ton of beef. Raw hit dice stacking is an easy way to turn any monster into a punching bag monster, and WotC likes them a lot because players get to feel accomplished when they hit the thing, but can't one-shot it to take away that satisfaction from the other players. The same works the other way around: weak attacks threaten a PC without one-shotting them.
For obvious reasons, these monsters make terrible PCs themselves.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Flickerdart
Of the various schools of monster design (who never talk to one another and never admit they exist) there seems to be one that likes to make punching bag monsters. Reasonable-sounding offensive abilities, easy to hit, but a metric ton of beef. Raw hit dice stacking is an easy way to turn any monster into a punching bag monster, and WotC likes them a lot because players get to feel accomplished when they hit the thing, but can't one-shot it to take away that satisfaction from the other players. The same works the other way around: weak attacks threaten a PC without one-shotting them.
For obvious reasons, these monsters make terrible PCs themselves.
It's not a terrible idea in terms of monster design, I'd say, especially since most monsters weren't made to be PCs in the first place.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
As a DM, I like to use "wall of meat" type encounters; but the problem is, unless they have immunities or resistances, as soon as the party gets access to a Will or Reflex based save-or-lose, they become more or less useless...
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Thurbane
As a DM, I like to use "wall of meat" type encounters; but the problem is, unless they have immunities or resistances, as soon as the party gets access to a Will or Reflex based save-or-lose, they become more or less useless...
So a monster with good defenses compared to offensive capabilities, presuming it doesn't make the battle a boring grind, makes for a fun monster to fight?
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zaq
But yeah, for the purposes of this thread, RHD advancement is bad 99% of the time.
It's like a class level, but without any class features.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Flickerdart
...Raw hit dice stacking is an easy way to turn any monster into a punching bag monster, and WotC likes them a lot because players get to feel accomplished when they hit the thing, but can't one-shot it to take away that satisfaction from the other players. The same works the other way around: weak attacks threaten a PC without one-shotting them.
Of course, this isn't unique to D&D. In fact, D&D is one of the less-extreme versions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Thurbane
As a DM, I like to use "wall of meat" type encounters; but the problem is, unless they have immunities or resistances, as soon as the party gets access to a Will or Reflex based save-or-lose, they become more or less useless...
Beyond that, it's easy for walls of meat to become repetitive and samey. There's only so much players can do to make trading full attacks interesting.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Quote:
Originally Posted by
danielxcutter
So a monster with good defenses compared to offensive capabilities, presuming it doesn't make the battle a boring grind, makes for a fun monster to fight?
Pretty much, yeah.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GreatWyrmGold
Beyond that, it's easy for walls of meat to become repetitive and samey. There's only so much players can do to make trading full attacks interesting.
Also true.
One of the most annoying things I find is that by the time that monsters like most standard Giants come on line (as a CR appropriate fight), the party already has abilities that make the fight a cakewalk. Unless you slap class levels or templates on them (and push their CR up further)...which kind of defeats the point.
I like a mix of encounters for the parties I DM, but I do like the occasional melee grind type encounter.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Quote:
Originally Posted by
danielxcutter
There's been two Greater monsters that didn't get an LA -0; the Greater Barghest and the Greater Shadow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zaq
And while it didn’t use the actual word “greater,” the splinterwaif knave walked away with +0, so there’s probably one or two others (at least) that a simple ctrl-F for “greater” would miss.
But yeah, for the purposes of this thread, RHD advancement is bad 99% of the time.
Ah, but while both of those have a positive LA, their LA values are lower than the baseline version.
As such, while they have a positive LA, it is not an increased LA over the baseline, which was the original question.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Quote:
Originally Posted by
javcs
Ah, but while both of those have a positive LA, their LA values are lower than the baseline version.
As such, while they have a positive LA, it is not an increased LA over the baseline, which was the original question.
Well, "greater" usually means "advanced by 8-12 RHD" which also sometimes brings with it some stat boosts or a size increase. Obviously, no PC is going to spend 8 HD on +8 STR and some natural armor, so they are pretty much invariably lower LA (unless you ask WotC, in which case more stat boosts = more LA regardless of how many RHD you pay for it).
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
If this is a stonesinger, does that mean it likes rock music?
Jokes aside, I actually really like this monster! It's got an uncanny design that in my opinion shows what an aberration should be like, it is truly weird to interact with, and it's got cool special abilities. The only remaining question: does it make a good PC?
Sadly, nine aberration HD make me think the answer to that is going to be 'no'. Large size is decent, the ability scores are decent (20 strength, 18 constitution and charisma, 16 intelligence, 10 wisdom and dexterity), DR 5/magic is kinda meh. The critter has various movement modes, but they're all on the slow side.
In terms of natural attacks, it has six 1d6 claws and a 2d6 bite. The bite also injects a very interesting poison that deals low dexterity damage but completely fossilizes creatures reduced to 0 dex by it. It's not too useful on a PC, but nothing if not flavorful.
Next is Shattering Shriek, which lets the stonesinger deal 12d6 nonlethal damage by making a Perform(Sing) check that exceeds the target's touch AC (apparently, being nimble allows you to dodge sound in D&D). If the target fails a saving throw, it's also stunned for 1d6 rounds, making this a decent save-or-suck. Sadly, its use is limited to once every 5 rounds.
The stonesinger's SLAs are reasonable. 3/day Meld Into Stone and Stone Shape have their uses, and 1/day Wall of Stone is pretty great BFC.
Overall, I'm just not sure this is worth +0 LA. Maybe it if had a few less RHD, or a somewhat better chassis, it'd be worth it, but right now I feel like this monster is just a poor attempt at a BFC caster.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Yeah, -0 LA. This thing has a particularly horrible design. As for its abilities, they're much better than a bunch of what other 9-HDers have brought to the table, and the diversity of what it can attempt to do is neat. But yeah, maybe at 5 HDs, not so much at 9.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Seven attacks? Probably not going to bring this up to LA +0, but bonus damage(ie. Sneak Attack) could build up a lot, especially with (Improved) Rapidstrike.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Seven natural attacks sounds nice, but at ECL-"you're starting to run into stuff with DR on a semi-regular basis", they kinda lose a lot of their oomph.
Also, this thing has basically nothing on the defensive side; really, how many things in the game have trouble hitting a 21 AC by level 9?
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Random Sanity
Seven natural attacks sounds nice, but at ECL-"you're starting to run into stuff with DR on a semi-regular basis", they kinda lose a lot of their oomph.
Also, this thing has basically nothing on the defensive side; really, how many things in the game have trouble hitting a 21 AC by level 9?
Well, it has DR/Magic, so its attacks defeat DR/Magic.
If it was a PC, you could drop pretty much all those godawful feat selections for stuff that might help you, except probably multiattack. It's stats would of course be even higher because most games start you with better than an array of 10s, so it's DCs should go up. Although it doesn't specify it per se in the descriptive text, I would argue given that it eats rocks it's burrow speed should work through stone, which is actually a pretty powerful ability. Poison whose DC scales with HD as this one clearly should is pretty good. Use some WBL to shore up it's weaknesses and accentuate it's strengths and I'd say a good player could play this at 9th level at most tables and contribute. Hell, there are so many situations I have been in in games where the ability to burrow through stone would have solved things that I think that alone is almost enough to make it playable.
I give it a +0, with the caveat that in most games it would be difficult to play because of RP reasons, as people would run screaming or try to murder you any time you went into town.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hackulator
... Although it doesn't specify it per se in the descriptive text, I would argue given that it eats rocks it's burrow speed should work through stone, which is actually a pretty powerful ability. ...
Just because I eat steak does not mean I can burrow through steak. :smalltongue:
The eating apparatus and the burrowing apparatus are likely to be separate bits.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Quote:
Originally Posted by
unseenmage
Just because I eat steak does not mean I can burrow through steak. :smalltongue:
The eating apparatus and the burrowing apparatus are likely to be separate bits.
I bet you could in fact burrow through steak, albeit slowly.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
A Burrow speed through flesh of even 10' per round would make a monster nearly unstoppable. Why deal hit point damage when you can just drill a hole through people?
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Both seem like solid -0 though Stonesinger doesn't seem far off from +0...
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Stonesinger: Above average natural AC for 9 RHD, and net +32 abilities are just below par-acceptable on about 8 RHD. DR 5/Magic means its natural attacks bypass DR/Magic, so you can scrimp on the necklace for a while. 7 natural attacks with average base damage have potential, while the decent poison and SLAs are solid.
However, this thing loses 3 points of BAB and has 9 levels of 2 poor saves and 2+Int skills, so it compares poorly to most natural attack builds that got their extra attacks through PRCs or quality templates. It is also rather slow, even with the extra movement modes-its base land and climb speed are 10-20 feet per round slower than average for such a multi-ped, but the burrow speed alleviates that somewhat. And the usual disclaimer about no obvious hands and odd body slots.
Overall, I am leaning towards an almost playable LA -0. I think you could shave as little as a single RHD to get something on par, albeit with the usual DM caveat about critters with no obvious manipulator limbs.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Less HD, I'd be happy to give this LA +0. 9 Aberration HD? Yeah, LA -0, unfortunately.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OgresAreCute
(unless you ask WotC, in which case more stat boosts = more LA regardless of how many RHD you pay for it).
Stat boosts make you stronger, above and beyond the benefits of getting the RHD. They're additional features, why should you get features for free when you take levels?
Darn, I never managed to work the word "class" into there...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Inevitability
Next is Shattering Shriek, which lets the stonesinger deal 12d6 nonlethal damage by making a Perform(Sing) check that exceeds the target's touch AC (apparently, being nimble allows you to dodge sound in D&D).
That makes...only slightly less sense than a Reflex save for half damage.
Anyways, the Shattering Shriek is a good way to open encounters. Skill checks are pretty easy to boost, and most enemies will have mediocre touch ACs (because there aren't a lot of ways to boost those, especially for enemies which tend towards big-tough-and-clumsy), meaning that they immediately lose about 72 hit points. The stunning and not-killing-enemies-you-don't-want-to is just gravy.
...That said, I have no idea where you'd go after that, either in the sense of "What do you do on round 2" or "What do you do at level 10". Maybe you could go rogue, try to get some sneak attacks on the stunned enemies? I'm not sure that one (maybe two) big stunning blasts per combat and potentially some d6 sneak attacks are going to compete with what humanod rogues or even single-classed fighters are going to do with equal consistency, let alone what happens when even low-tier casters break out the big guns. Out of combat, they're not completely devoid of utility, but their special abilities are pretty situational and arguably counterbalanced by the lack of hands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lapak
A Burrow speed through flesh of even 10' per round would make a monster nearly unstoppable. Why deal hit point damage when you can just drill a hole through people?
This discussion got weird fast.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
I’m trying to justify going above -0 on the stonesinger. It has a few interesting standard actions and enough natural attacks to inform a build, but like GWG said, it’s hard to think of what you want your class levels to be. Maybe something with sneak attack? That many Craven-boosted swings per round will be noticeable if you can get HiPS or something, but don’t ask me how to do that. Maybe a Tiger Claw user? The SLAs are actually semi-decent, which helps a lot.
Hmm. May have to give up for now. It’s just outside the range where this is salvageable, I think.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lapak
A Burrow speed through flesh of even 10' per round would make a monster nearly unstoppable. Why deal hit point damage when you can just drill a hole through people?
Sure, I'll keep that in mind next time I'm fighting an earth elemental if I have a burrow speed. I didn't think, up until now, that it needed saying that being able to burrow through something that isn't trying to fight back is not the same as being able to murder someone.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
It's a -0. Not terribly far from being at the bottom end of +0, but there's little in the way of the scaling, and there's not really a clear progression path forwards.
9RHD hurts a lot, and any builds that rely on spamming attacks (you do have 7 natural attacks) usually rely heavily on class levels for bonus damage and/or getting pouncing abilities.
The Shattering Shriek ability might be more useful if it weren't single target.
Plus the lack of hands.
Makes for an interesting encounter, though.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GreatWyrmGold
Anyways, the Shattering Shriek is a good way to open encounters. Skill checks are pretty easy to boost, and most enemies will have mediocre touch ACs (because there aren't a lot of ways to boost those, especially for enemies which tend towards big-tough-and-clumsy), meaning that they immediately lose about 72 hit points. The stunning and not-killing-enemies-you-don't-want-to is just gravy.
Beware, 12d6 on average yields 42, not 72 which is 12d6 at a maximum. Still powerful, mind you, but 72 would have been enough to outright knock down ennemy rogues and casters.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Unavenger
Sure, I'll keep that in mind next time I'm fighting an earth elemental if I have a burrow speed. I didn't think, up until now, that it needed saying that being able to burrow through something that isn't trying to fight back is not the same as being able to murder someone.
I was definitely being serious and not at all trying to make a joke when I posted right after the person talking about steak. :smallwink:
But with regard to the Stonesinger, yeah, -0. I could see +0 at 6 or 7 HD, maybe, but 9 Abberation HD demands some really good features in return, not just a one-shot single-target blast and an admittedly-good natural attack routine that you could pick up for fewer HD and/or class levels.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
For what class this critter should be taking, probably Totemist. Heart of fire and dread carapace add some nice damage to all of those natural attacks, and other soulmelds provide some utility. Maybe dip barbarian for pounce, and if you need higher level chakras unlocked there're the Unlock Chakra feats.
That said, I'm not savvy enough to say whether the Stonesinger's natural attacks, abilities, and movement make it roughly equivalent to a totemist 9.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
I like some of the abilities, but I tentatively vote -0.
Decent stats, good NA, 7 attacks, but 9 bad RHD. Wall of stone is never useless, but its 1/day and the spell-likes don't scale well. Note that the 2d6 bite took INA to get there, so you have 7 weak attacks. That as noted pierce DR magic, but watch out for golems and the like. Poison is weak but should have a decent DC, based off HD and respectable Con score.
Int 16 is nice even with 2+ skill points/level. Listen and Spot plus 120' darkvision provide a use besides beatstick. (and tunnel-maker with generous DM).
Still seems limited and underwhelming. Definitely watching for someone to pull something I'm not thinking of, swordsage/sneak attack/craven/fire to attacks? It won't be easy, but could be possible. It has inherent 10' reach, I just don't see it excelling at a melee BFC though.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
I really want to give this +0, but i just cannot. 9 aberration hd need a lot of love to be viable. You could do some sort of swordsage totemist and/or rogue with craven and focus on shadow hand for movement. Get pounce via totemist and blend a stunned target. Its a very binary playstyle but its likely usable.
I think I will go -0.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread: Making monster PCs VI-able
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zaq
Maybe something with sneak attack? That many Craven-boosted swings per round will be noticeable if you can get HiPS or something, but don’t ask me how to do that.
Personally, I'd try to find some way to consistently get flanks. If only you could take a dip in splinterwaif for their call bramble ability...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
remetagross
Beware, 12d6 on average yields 42, not 72 which is 12d6 at a maximum. Still powerful, mind you, but 72 would have been enough to outright knock down ennemy rogues and casters.
...Yup. Not sure how I screwed up that formula, but I did.