The LA-Assignment Thread -1: Or, Inevitably Rejected

[RoboEmperor]

With animated objects out of the way

I see you've decided to completely ignore my objections. Alright.

[Daedroth]

Why not do both the ECL less than HD, and the free gestalt models and see how they stack up

Well, if you would help with feedback I can retake my thread .

[BrickTheToasted]

I'd love to provide a bit of a breakdown here, but I'm away from my books at the moment and d20srd is giving me nothing but errors.

My gut feeling, though, is that the Elder Arrowhawk is going to need something a lot better than -2 to keep up with even a casual party at those levels.

[Daedroth]

I'd love to provide a bit of a breakdown here, but I'm away from my books at the moment and d20srd is giving me nothing but errors.

My gut feeling, though, is that the Elder Arrowhawk is going to need something a lot better than -2 to keep up with even a casual party at those levels.

Here you have:
http://dndsrd.net/monstersA.html

[BrickTheToasted]

While the younger arrowhawks could be credible candidates for rogue-types with their good chassis and solid dex scores, the elder seems pretty well doomed to the life of a beatstick. While it retains the high dex, its massive number of RHD preclude stacking sneak attack to a reasonable amount of damage, and large size isn't exactly conducive to sneaking. Many of its other abilities aren't particularly amazing, either: the ray does laughable damage, the bite needs to be taken up by a mouthpick weapon for the arrowhawk to have any hope of being useful, and while innate flight is nice, 60' is a thoroughly unimpressive speed at these levels. Oh, and the large size comes without reach. On the other hand, it gets impressive ability scores, a moderate natural armor bonus, and some reasonably decent immunities. It's not nearly enough to make up for 15 RHD, but it's a start.

All in all, what would it take to tempt me to play an elder arrowhawk? Well, my first thought was that this thing could make a decent swordsage, since it makes good use of the ability scores, and the 15 outsider hit dice will put that last iterative in easy reach. So then the question becomes: how many initiator levels would I be willing to lose in exchange for the ability score bonuses, immunities, and improved BAB? I'm not going to consider the arrowhawk's other abilities, because the ray is laughable, large size without reach is more of a drawback than a bonus, and flight just saves you some cash that you'll then have to spend on mouthpick weapons and nonhumanoid armor. LA -5 might be playable, but at that point you're crippling your swordsage progression pretty badly - you lose five initiator levels, you'll have roughly half the maneuvers known/readied of a normal swordsage, and your other class features are ten levels behind (for example, you get evasion at ECL 19, and never get improved evasion at all). So while -5 could be acceptable as a conservative estimate, I suspect that -6 or even -7 could very well be in order.

On a side note, I get that it's supposed to be carried over from the arrowhawk's younger days, but it still amuses me that the elder arrowhawk has Weapon Finesse, despite its strength being higher than its dexterity. Also:

An elder arrowhawk (41 to 75 years old) is about 20 feet long with a wingspan of 30 feet and a weight of about 800 pounds.

Space/Reach: 10 ft./5 ft.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I see you've decided to completely ignore my objections. Alright.

On first reading, I thought BrickTheToasted had rebutted them. (I was kind of in a hurry; I forgot about the thread and had a couple dozen posts to sort through.) So I'll try to address them.

You forgot grapple.
I've been using Gargantuan Animated Objects my entire d&d career, in the form of Secure Shelter (spell) + Ravid (3hd outsider at-will animate object).
They are unkillable, huge, huge reach, and their grapple out-grapples even 18hd outsiders, and this is just when I use a house. If I go for an actual statue, with legs and all, it becomes really fast. 50ft movespeed with wheels. Combine with like adamantium or something, it is indestructible since hardness works on energy damage, with increased hardness against fire, lightning, and especially cold. So when you say they are 6 levels behind barbarians, I have to cast my doubt here.
I assume you're using awaken construct so it gets feats.
Since it's not a naked animated object either you can give it magic armor to boost AC on top of other stuff.
edit: Perma-pinned Barbarian 20ft away from you = a barbarian that can't even scratch you.

I believe I specifically said some form of "If your player makes themselves an adamantine object or otherwise tries to abuse the system, you need to jack up the LA" for each size of animated object. Also, while hardness does acts as universal energy resistance, it does not let you reduce energy damage the way it does against objects. (Those rules are, unsurprisingly, separate from the hardness rule.) You may argue that animated objects, being objects, follow all object damage rules, but this is weakened by the rule for critical/nonlethal immunity specifically mentions that animated objects are still immune—and specifies that this is not because they are objects, but because they are constructs.
(Citation) A barbarian of 18th level is going to have comparable hit points and superior AC (thanks to size and Dexterity bonuses, this applies even if you can somehow get the house to wear armor, a Ring of Protection, and so on); the object only has hardness. And let's not forget that the barbarian has some defensive abilities of his own. If you're not trying to cheese it by saying you shouldn't get more LA for playing a giant wheeled adamantine statue or something, the gargantuan animated object is at best on par with a barbarian even judging on durability alone. Yes, the house will exceed the barbarian in durability if we reduce it to the equivalent of 12th level, but that matters little. As Inevitability has repeatedly noted, even literal invulnerability wouldn't help if you couldn't do enough to make someone want to attack you.
And don't get me wrong, a +31 grapple bonus is a pretty decent trick. But I've personally never seen a grapple build suggested as particularly effective on anything other than a monk, which makes me think that non-monk classes generally have something better to do with their actions. And +32 grapple isn't even all that special against martial classes! An 18th-level martial character can easily get their grapple bonus into the high 20's without even specializing in it, with only Strength and BAB. (A 20th-level orc barbarian built with the DMG charts would have +33 without Improved Grapple. That's not "permanently pinned" material.) At 12th level, a barbarian would be about 15 points behind...which is great if you're fighting barbarians. But a 12th-level party is more likely to be fighting the likes of leonals (+20 grapple), eleven-headed hydras (+25), purple worms (+40), and colossal monstrous scorpions (+58)—you know, monsters. Some of which have eerie powers like incorporeality, teleportation, and flight, which would make them largely immune to grapplers.
But even when you fight humanoid NPCs with class levels...18th level is too much. Every NPC should have some way of getting out of sticky situations by that point—teleportation, if nothing else. Even by 12th level, you're not going to easily keep a spellcaster (or someone with the right magic item) down. 12th-level casters have access to 6th-level spells like word of recall or contingency, not to mention lower-levels spells like telekinesis, hold monster, teleport, freedom of movement...and many of these would be available to non-casters in use-activated or even continuous-effect magic items. There are just too many workarounds.

TL;DR: A grappling-based gargantuan animated object would be a viable character concept, but not compared to other characters of comparable HD.

The elder arrowhawk is too weak at -2.

That's a fair point.
Comparing it to an 11th-level barbarian, the elder arrowhawk has far superior defenses, distinctly better attack rolls, and comparable damage output. With that kind of chassis, I can't lower the LA too much...especially since I'm explicitly not comparing them to swordsages. (Maybe I would if I had the book and experience with initiators...but maybe not.) Still, LA lowered somewhat to account for well-reasoned user feedback.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Athach

The athach offers an impressive chassis—incredible Strength and Constitution, above-average Dexterity and Wisdom, Huge size, and three arms. At first glance, it compares quite favorably to a 14th-level barbarian—slightly higher HP but lower AC, lower attack bonuses but more attacks (and more damage), comparable or superior saves, etc. The barbarian has some useful abilities like Rage and DR, while the athach has its size, third arm, and a poisonous bite. (Also rock-throwing, which is kinda neat.) However, this comparison doesn't hold up to further inspection.
Athaches need full attacks to have any chance of using some of their major strengths (an extra arm, bite, etc), and multiweapon fighting penalties tank its attack bonuses almost as much as iterative attacks. While the Strength damage of an athach's bite could be a significant debuff, the initial 1d6 isn't enough to matter on the scale of typical combats; physically-weak enemies would still take multiple bites to incapacitate, while ones that use Strength almost always have high Fortitude saves. It's not useless, but it's certainly use-impaired. Also, being an 18-foot tall cowardly mutant giant tends to affect your ability to function in noncombat situations, and unless you subscribe to the defunct Vaarsuvius school of thought on explosion-based diplomacy, it's not going to be a positive effect.
All things considered, I have to conclude that athaches are at about LA -4. At that point, their standard attacks and defenses are superior to a non-raging barbarian, but they will be able to compete at peak performance.

(Thanks to the readers for helping me sort this one out.)

[BrickTheToasted]

Comparing it to an 11th-level barbarian, the elder arrowhawk has far superior defenses, distinctly better attack rolls, and comparable damage output.

The problem is that with this gestalt model, you're explicitly not comparing an arrowhawk against a barbarian 11, you're comparing an arrowhawk//barbarian X against a barbarian 15. The arrowhawk doesn't get any extra hit dice out of a negative LA, so it's not really fair to evaluate it against a lower-level chassis. That's a key difference against conventional positive LA, and it's an important thing to keep in mind - it's the difference between an arrowhawk/barbarian 4 vs. an arrowhawk//barbarian 4, and those are two very different things.

As for the Athach, it does have reasonably good ability scores, but it also has 14 abysmal HD. The loss of BAB and poor saves really don't do it any favors in its capacity as a beatstick. The third arm doesn't do it much good either - its attack bonuses are far too low to support multiweapon fighting (+12 isn't even close to an acceptable attack roll at ECL 14), and I believe it would need a fourth arm to use the oversized multi-arm weapons from Savage Species. I guess it could enable sword-and-board with a greatsword, but that's not exactly an impressive trick, especially since level 14 is past the point where AC stops being a meaningful defense. The poison won't be great either - it doesn't do enough str damage to outright incapacitate low-str opponents like casters, and high-str opponents will have no trouble making the save.

I don't see a lot of options for making this thing work. Any halfway competent barbarian 14 will be putting out vastly superior attack rolls and utterly incomparable damage rolls. Huge size (and more importantly, huge reach) could present some opportunities, but you'd have to give the player enough gestalt levels to recover from the awful chassis provided by aberration HD. If it were a monstrous humanoid it might be decent with just a few extra class levels, but as an aberration? It would take quite a few points of negative LA before I'd even give the Athach a second glance.

[GreatWyrmGold]

The problem is that with this gestalt model, you're explicitly not comparing an arrowhawk against a barbarian 11, you're comparing an arrowhawk//barbarian X against a barbarian 15.

That's a critique of my methodology, not my analysis (which explicitly doesn't do that). And it's a fair critique! I've never pretended that my methodology is the best one; in fact, it may be the worst one anyone would seriously consider. But if I accepted the gestalt model as the canon model for this thread and gave it a more thorough method, what would I need to do? I'd probably need to build a gestalt arrowhawk/barbarian, and since I'd probably do a better job than the default DMG ones (if only by filling in all the blanks), I'd probably have to build an equally-leveled barbarian. That's starting to rely too much on my ability to evaluate character-optimization choices, not to mention being more work than I'm interested in putting into this. (I'm not Inevitability; he'd probably manage both just fine.) Again, this is why I was encouraging other people to give it a shot.

As for the Athach, it does have reasonably good ability scores, but it also has 14 abysmal HD. The loss of BAB and poor saves really don't do it any favors in its capacity as a beatstick. The third arm doesn't do it much good either - its attack bonuses are far too low to support multiweapon fighting (+12 isn't even close to an acceptable attack roll at ECL 14)...[/quote]
+12? That doesn't sound right...
checks the Monster Manual
Huh. I must have been focusing on single-attack bonuses. D'oh, shoulda proofread the buffer entries better. Well, luckily, I only had those three in my buffer.
Wait, no, that's not lucky...erm...

Back on track! Focusing on full attacks, I don't think I can go below -3 or -4. At -3, the athach has almost the same AC and four attack bonuses barely below the barbarian's first, but a third more health and much more damage. I'm inclined to say -2 or -3. What do you think?

[BrickTheToasted]

That's a critique of my methodology, not my analysis (which explicitly doesn't do that). And it's a fair critique! I've never pretended that my methodology is the best one; in fact, it may be the worst one anyone would seriously consider. But if I accepted the gestalt model as the canon model for this thread and gave it a more thorough method, what would I need to do? I'd probably need to build a gestalt arrowhawk/barbarian, and since I'd probably do a better job than the default DMG ones (if only by filling in all the blanks), I'd probably have to build an equally-leveled barbarian. That's starting to rely too much on my ability to evaluate character-optimization choices, not to mention being more work than I'm interested in putting into this. (I'm not Inevitability; he'd probably manage both just fine.) Again, this is why I was encouraging other people to give it a shot.

That's very fair. Even with your current method, I'm sure this thread is a lot of work, and doing full breakdowns like that can get pretty exhausting. That said, I think you just brought up the main thing that bothers me about your method: you're absolutely right that you could do a much better job than the default DMG characters. I think the vast majority of players would as well, even players who don't consciously optimize in any way. And when you're balancing the monsters against such a low bar, the hilariously weak DMG characters will make the monsters look inordinately powerful by comparison. For example:

At -3, the athach has almost the same AC and four attack bonuses barely below the barbarian's first, but a third more health and much more damage.

That's not an indication of a powerful monster, that's an indication that the DMG barbarian is completely incapable of meaningfully contributing in a fight. An ECL 11 barbarian can easily have attack bonuses in the 18-20 range, and damage numbers that put the Athach's to shame. And that's without ever straying into "optimization" territory.

I very much appreciate the effort you've put into this thread, but with the current methodology, I worry that it will lead to the monsters getting the short straw due to skewed benchmarks of comparison. I'll probably just continue advocating for stronger LAs on monsters that I believe need them, and do some more writeups like I did for the arrowhawk when we get to monsters that interest me (a category which notably does not include the athach. I mean, it's a weird-looking giant with a third arm tacked on. Who comes up with this stuff?)

On a side note, if I was actually interested in this thing, I'd probably build it as a dungeoncrasher, not a barbarian. That puts the high strength to good use, while sidestepping the BAB issue from all those terrible RHD. So if anyone is interested in doing a comparative breakdown of it, that might be a good place to start.

[javcs]

Well, when it comes to beatsticks/brawler-type monsters, I'd be inclined towards erring on being over-generous with the negative LA.

Especially considering that if you're comparing to the DMG NPCs, one needs to take into account the fact that (a) NPCs have significantly inferior WBL relative to PCs, and (b) WotC has trouble optimizing its way out of a paper bag.



I'd probably err on the side of being over-generous with negative LA for most creatures, except perhaps those with meaningful racial casting.

[Telok]

and (b) WotC has trouble optimizing its way out of a paper bag.

WotC has problems making characters period. I recall a thread that checked most of the sample characters in the books and found that almost all of them were incorrect or illegal in some way.

[Dimers]

I'd go -4 on the athach. Huge size is a nice combat advantage, but at the same time it's an adventuring liability, physically and often socially too.

[lord_khaine]

I actually think the Gold Dragons method of comparison is pretty valid. Currently he is comparing 2 unoptimised sourced from the relatively fair assumption that monster and NPC are about equally badly build.
And yes, im certain that even with just core sources a Barbarian could be build with much higher numbers. But in the same way you could do something much more effective with the monster chassis.

Anyway, back to the Athach. I guess -3 or -4 are both equally valid. It is kinda hard to go any lower than that, but even so i still dont think anyone is going to want to play this anyway.

[GreatWyrmGold]

That said, I think you just brought up the main thing that bothers me about your method: you're absolutely right that you could do a much better job than the default DMG characters. I think the vast majority of players would as well, even players who don't consciously optimize in any way. And when you're balancing the monsters against such a low bar, the hilariously weak DMG characters will make the monsters look inordinately powerful by comparison.

On the other hand, as someonenoone11 and others have pointed out, the Monster Manual entries are also horribly unoptimized, and moreover incomplete. Perhaps most notably, they (typically) don't have any magic items. (Often, they lack gear entirely...though the athach isn't one of those creatures.)

I'll probably just continue advocating for stronger LAs on monsters that I believe need them, and do some more writeups like I did for the arrowhawk when we get to monsters that interest me.

I'm glad! More opinions are always good, especially when the main voice is so un-confident in their own abilities.

On a side note, if I was actually interested in this thing, I'd probably build it as a dungeoncrasher, not a barbarian. That puts the high strength to good use, while sidestepping the BAB issue from all those terrible RHD. So if anyone is interested in doing a comparative breakdown of it, that might be a good place to start.

I'm not sure what the differences between dungeoncrashers and fighters are, and don't have the book required to check. (Which is another reason I'm trying to stick to PHB classes.)

...but even so i still dont think anyone is going to want to play this anyway.

I shudder to think of what will happen when I get to things people might want to play. Hopefully, I will have sharpened my skills enough to do better...


Since I've had some time to think and some time to type, I've rewritten the athach's entry. -4 seems to be the consensus answer, so I'll go with that.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Greater Abyssal Basilisk

Or is it the Abyssal Greater Basilisk? I can never tell...anyways, let's start by analyzing the basilisk's

As with most of these creatures, the basilisk has more HP and a lower AC than any comparable barbarian (though the gaps decrease when the barbarian rages). By 16th level, the barbarian’s primary attack is comparable to an abyssal basilisk’s only attack, though likely dealing less damage. Its hit points are also starting to be comparable, though the AC is still several points ahead. Much more than a -2 would probably make the basilisk a better beatstick than the barbarian...and we haven’t gotten to the petrifying gaze.
Granted, its DC is only 21. An aboleth mage (CR 17) would make their save 75% of the time, with tougher enemies like old black dragons (CR 16) making the save 90-95% of the time. But there’s always the possibility of rolling a 1, and even a mere 5-25% chance of an enemy turning to stone, each round, for every enemy within 30 feet, on top of other actions, is hardly nothing. Even with the disadvantages that a horrible creature from the lower planes with no opposable thumbs would face, I’m not sure I can give the greater abyssal basilisk a level adjustment below -1.

Though this still begs the question...is there any such thing as a lesser abyssal basilisk? Or an infernal greater basilisk? (Or, for that matter, an infernal lesser basilisk?)

[BrickTheToasted]

I'm not sure what the differences between dungeoncrashers and fighters are, and don't have the book required to check. (Which is another reason I'm trying to stick to PHB classes.)

It's a fighter variant that gives up the bonus feats at 2nd and 6th, in exchange for the ability to deal damage by bull rushing people into walls. It also gets some minor bonuses against traps, but no one really cares about those - the bull rush trick is the real star of the show. It's useful for a high-strength, low-BAB chassis like the Athach, since bull rush just uses a strength check rather than an attack roll.

I shudder to think of what will happen when I get to things people might want to play.

Don't forget that Dragons are coming up before too long. And considering the nature of this thread, we won't even get to take the easy way out and write them all off as -0 like Inevitability did. Won't that be fun?

[GreatWyrmGold]

Don't forget that Dragons are coming up before too long. And considering the nature of this thread, we won't even get to take the easy way out and write them all off as -0 like Inevitability did. Won't that be fun?

Yeah...luckily, they get to 21+ HD quickly enough that I can write many of the older dragons off as "beyond the scope of this thread".

[Dimers]

Wow. Abyssal greater basilisk -- now that is a horrible build. Large size without reach, no DR or SR worth squat, uninspiring stat bonuses, a junk skill list with -7 Intelligence, 20' speed, a single natural attack (and no limbs for wielding typical weapons) ...

An 11th-level barbarian or rogue could put this to shame when optimized to an equal degree, which would indicate at least LA -7. But I wouldn't consider it playable in an 18th-level group with just seven gestalt levels, not even gestalted with a tier 1 class. I don't want to be extreme but I'd call this -9 LA.

EDIT: Whoops, hold it, missed the upgraded save DC for the gaze attack. Okay, maybe -7 LA. Still nothing I'd want to try to play, myself.

[GreatWyrmGold]

An 11th-level barbarian or rogue could put this to shame when optimized to an equal degree, which would indicate at least LA -7.

Well, assuming that the MM and DMG statistics are equally (un)optimized as I have been...
An 11th-level barbarian has four more points of AC, more skill points, greater rage, fast movement, and a couple points of DR. On the other hand, the basilisk has almost twice as many hit points, (only half again as many if the barbarian rages), an attack bonus ten points higher, likely more damage, and some useful defensive abilities. Resistance to two of the most common energy types, DR 10/magic, and spell resistance which would still be relevant at that level. Oh, and the petrifying gaze. Given a bit of optimization (and equipment), I can't help but suspect that a greater abyssal basilisk could still surpass a raging 11th-level barbarian.
I've been wrong before, but if I'm wrong now, I need a bit more detail on why.

But I wouldn't consider it playable in an 18th-level group with just seven gestalt levels, not even gestalted with a tier 1 class. I don't want to be extreme but I'd call this -9 LA.

I'm no optimization expert, but aren't most tier 1 classes the spellcasting ones where losing just a couple levels means giving up a whole spell level, with all the power and versatility that entails?


Also, I added a picture to the animated objects section. I hope it was worth the effort.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Belkar

I get to compare a creature to something other than a barbarian? Oh, frabjous day!
It doesn’t seem fair to compare a belker to a pure beatstick; large size aside, its smoke form and natural bonus to Move Silently seem to push it more towards a sneakier, scouty role. Not to mention that its natural attacks are pitiful (they’d be good weapons for a Small warrior), but numerous; a full-attacking belker with a flanking ally and some sneak attack dice could easily make up for its lack of raw power.

Anyways, onto the comparison. A belker has a strictly superior combat chassis to a 5th-level rogue; half again as many hit points, five more points of AC, better attack bonuses, better saves, far better Dexterity. In fact, it compares favorably to a 5th-level barbarian (though falling behind in damage and—just barely—hit points). However, the rogue is going to have a far better time at actually roguing it up. Between size, skill points, and the belker’s Intelligence penalty, a rogue is simply going to be better at rogue skills. The belker’s higher skill cap and better Dexterity would make it superior at some skills, but it can’t choose as many. Not to mention that it’s lost out on five levels of rogue abilities—3d6 sneak attack, evasion, uncanny dodge, and a couple other useful perks. On the other hand, turning into smoke for a couple of minutes per day is pretty handy at sneaking into places; it’s just a shame that it’s so limited.
Still, with its special powers, while a belker isn’t as as good of a rogue as a 5th-level rogue or as good a fighter as a 5th-level barbarian, it’s at least competent enough at significant aspects of both. Its numerous (if weak) natural attacks also give it potential. I could see an argument for -1 or -2, but given how past entries have gone, I’ll go with -2.

[Daedroth]

Wow. Abyssal greater basilisk -- now that is a horrible build. Large size without reach, no DR or SR worth squat, uninspiring stat bonuses, a junk skill list with -7 Intelligence, 20' speed, a single natural attack (and no limbs for wielding typical weapons) ...

An 11th-level barbarian or rogue could put this to shame when optimized to an equal degree, which would indicate at least LA -7. But I wouldn't consider it playable in an 18th-level group with just seven gestalt levels, not even gestalted with a tier 1 class. I don't want to be extreme but I'd call this -9 LA.

EDIT: Whoops, hold it, missed the upgraded save DC for the gaze attack. Okay, maybe -7 LA. Still nothing I'd want to try to play, myself.

You know that this thread is not "Partial Gestalt negative LA" right? This thread is about ECL<HD. The way negative LA work in this thread is literal negative LA, no gestalt.

For actual partial gestalt, visit this thread: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...8#post22295258

[GreatWyrmGold]

Oh, neat, you went back to that.
Anyways, onto the level adjusting. It's an easy one tonight.

Bugbear

With so few hit dice, there are only a couple of options—-1 or -2. Is the bugbear stronger than a level one barbarian? Yes. Therefore, its level adjustment is -1. Alright, let me go work on my buffer.

Note: Between writing this and posting it, I reached displacer beasts. Next are the dragons...oh dear...

[lord_khaine]

Not really much to comment on with all these simple ones. but yes, dragons are going to be interesting.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Chaos Beast

Well, this is gonna be fun.
Compare the chaos beast to a third-barbarian. The beast has half again as many hit points and almost the same AC, higher attack bonuses with almost no damage, and much better saves. If it wasn’t for the chaos beast’s lack of damage output and inability to use basically any kind of gear, it would be a clearly-superior pure brawler. But it can’t do much with its durability, or even its accuracy.

Aside from, of course, its defining feature—corporeal instability. Anyone who suffers from it will inevitably turn into a raving chaos beast, barring powerful restorative magic, but the process can be slowed dramatically by a (non-scaling) Charisma check; if your enemy has any Charisma at all, it will probably take far longer for said enemy to turn than it would to simply kill it. And if you get lucky to face an enemy with low enough mental stats to be weak...who says that beings of pure chaos are going to get along? Out of the frying pan, into the ftagn.
So corporeal instability is just a debuff. But it’s one hell of a debuff—speed reduction, no spellcasting, 50% miss chance and -4 attack penalty and random targeting, making equipment worthless, -4 Dexterity for non-nude humanoid opponents...they’re out of the fight until they make that Charisma check or turn into chaos beasts. The Wisdom debuff is welcome, too, especially if your party members have some Will-targeting effects. The problem is, of course, the low DC...but for low-level enemies, this isn’t a problem, especially if you can spend some resources to buff it.
This leaves the chaos beast as a serious one-trick pony. It can inflict a crippling debuff on enemies who they hit...and who fail a save, and who don’t succeed on a further Charisma check (with a static DC) that they get to make once per round, and it doesn’t look like hitting them once they’ve made that check forces them to make a save against getting debuffed again.

And how can the chaos beast advance? Well, it has above-average physical ability scores and perfectly average mental ones. It might make an okay brawler (or at least meatshield) if it could wield weapons, but since those who fall victim to the earlier stages of chaos-beast-ification can’t hold anything, that’s one heck of an argument to make. Anything equipment-focused is going to be impossible, and nothing the chaos beast offers is worth losing even a couple spellcasting levels. I guess you could make a terrifying monk, with each unarmed strike carrying a horrible curse, if you weren’t a literal embodiment of chaos.
Poor chaos beast. I’m inclined to go somewhere between -5 and -6, for sheer tankiness and the insane debuff, but there needs to be nine hells of an asterisk on there. I mean, there’s a chance that any mook you fight is going to turn into a CR 7 monster; chaos beasts are probably not going to be popular party members in any party which can’t handle those with ease.

Isn't this kinda weird? I mean, I guess I get the idea—the embodiment of chaos doesn't have a set form—but this goes a step beyond that into nightmarish madness.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I didn't completely forget about this thread, I only mostly forgot about it.

Before we start, a quick question. Chuuls are described as a mixture of insect, crustacean, and serpent. So what...okay, several questions. What about the chuul is serpentine? What does it have that insects do and crustaceans don’t, requiring their separate mention? (Is it their feet?) And what the frig kind of insect, crustacean, or serpent has paralytic mouth-tentacles? Geez, Gygax, it’s not the 60’s anymore, lay off the drugs.

Anyways. Compared to a chuul, a 9th-level barbarian has slightly fewer hit points, mostly-inferior saves, and—shockingly!—a lower AC! While attack bonuses will be comparable, the chuul gets two attacks at maximum value, and unless the barbarian has one heck of a magic sword, the chuul’s claws are going to deal comparable damage. The situation gets worse if the chuul breaks out the grappling rules; a strong constrict, automatic nibble damage, and possible paralysis are pretty fearsome. Oh, and it can swim. It’s hard to argue that chuuls aren’t better than 9th level brawlers.
I’m going to go with -1, but this seems like one of those monsters that might be able to earn a +0 if it was (ab)used right.

It's weird how this contrasts with Inevitability's review. I keep wondering if one of us was reading one of the rulebooks wrong.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I can't tell if nobody's commenting because everybody agrees with my assessments or because nobody cares about my assessments.
Anyways, on with the thread?

Delver

If you thought chuuls were weird, get a load of delvers. They’re elephant-sized slugs with six-clawed flippers, and they exude corrosive slime, eat rock, and get high by eating coins. Just...what?

Let’s start by analyzing its defenses. Its AC and hit points are almost equal to a sixteenth-level barbarian’s, and its saves are comparable or superior. Solid start—I wonder why Inevitability gave this a -0. Sure, the inability to use gear is bad, but it should be fine for at least a while. Then I consider its offense. Its attack bonuses are comparable to a 13th-level barbarian, and the physical damage it does by flailing about with its flippers is comparable to a low-level half-orc brawler with a greatsword. Pretty pathetic, especially for a Huge creature. Luckily, it does acid damage as well, but against organic foes that’s going to make the flipper damage comparable to two low-level greatsword attacks, and a 16th-level barbarian can make two high-level ones with attack bonuses exceeding the delver’s. But at least it’s big enough that its sheer bulk might make it an effective wall against anything without Tumble or better maneuverability...than a typical human who can’t get within five feet of anything solid...
Its defense is good, but its offense sucks. What about its special powers? The big ones are probably its burrowing and tremorsense, but the burrowing is so slow that it’s practically useless in combat. (It’s a whole turn just to completely emerge from the ground.) It’s a bit better for party transport, since it leaves a tunnel behind it, but what cleric or wizard is going to slowly walk through a slimy tunnel at a level when they have the power to send the giant slug to the Elemental Plane of Salt before teleporting home for a shower? It can also shape stone...25 cubic feet of it at a time, several times per hour. And it’s immune to acid, one of the rarer energy types. Also, it can destroy armor, clothing, and weapons, but by the midlevels a lot of that is treasure, so...can I turn that off? No? Better start looking into ways to spam make whole, then.
Speaking of which, how is this thing going to advance? Virtually nothing synergizes with its few strengths, and its huge mountain of HD is going to act as a serious hindrance to any class abilities it tries to learn from scratch. And how about gear? Even if you can find gear that would fit it, you would need to somehow protect the gear from acid constantly seeping from the delver’s body.

In short, the delver has an excellent defense and some outdated situational special abilities, but its offense is poor, it destroys treasure, and perhaps worst of all (both in the sense of making delvers lackluster and making them difficult to accurately rate), its advancement opportunities are lackluster to nonexistent. If it wasn’t for that last flaw, I might give it a mere -3 or -4 or something in that range. As is? Let’s say -7. That should leave the delver only a few initiator levels behind a normal-race version if you go with the gestalt option, which (combined with the inability to use gear) seems like a fair tradeoff for the delver’s remarkable defenses. (Maybe throw in a Vow of Poverty, too.)

[GreatWyrmGold]

Derro

Fun fact: The derro were inspired by the writings of Richard Shaver, who claimed that the letters of the (English) alphabet corresponded to 26 concepts (related to English words and word fragments) which formed Mantong, the Earth’s oldest language (despite being, you know, only 26 words long), and also that this somehow proved Atlantis. And that’s just the start of the crazy.
So what kind of monster was inspired by this madman? A race of albino human/dwarf mongrels with some creepy magic and some natural assassin abilities. A monster inspired by the ravings of a literal madman is less crazy than some of Gygax’s original creations. The jokes write themselves.

Anyways, I get to leave page 113 once more and look at how the derro compares to a rogue. A 3rd-level rogue has essentially the same combat statistics, though the derro’s natural armor and Dexterity bump up its AC. Derros also have notably superior Will saves. However, the big differences are in the special abilities.
A rogue has evasion, trapfinding, trap sense, and an extra die of sneak attack, not to mention more skill points and a better skill list. A derro has racial stealth bonuses, a couple of weak (but potentially useful) spell-like abilities, spell resistance strong enough to matter at low levels but which doesn’t (by RAW) increase as they level, and vulnerability to sunlight. Inevitability argued that the derro’s set of special abilities is weaker than what a normal character would get, and I’m inclined to agree.
With all this in mind, the derro is a bit weaker than a standard character, but not horribly so. -1


(Should I bother to keep working on the art for this thread? I have a few ideas I could implement, but I'm not going to bother if nobody reads this.)

[Daedroth]

In short, the delver has an excellent defense and some outdated situational special abilities, but its offense is poor, it destroys treasure, and perhaps worst of all (both in the sense of making delvers lackluster and making them difficult to accurately rate), its advancement opportunities are lackluster to nonexistent. If it wasn’t for that last flaw, I might give it a mere -3 or -4 or something in that range. As is? Let’s say -7. That should leave the delver only a few initiator levels behind a normal-race version if you go with the gestalt option, which (combined with the inability to use gear) seems like a fair tradeoff for the delver’s remarkable defenses. (Maybe throw in a Vow of Poverty, too.)

Now i'm confused, wich option are you doing? Because both are very different XD

[GreatWyrmGold]

Now i'm confused, wich option are you doing? Because both are very different XD

Mostly the non-gestalt option, since it's simpler, with the gestalt option brought in at times to compare. The numbers should be broadly similar, which can be useful when I could see arguments for wildly-different LAs. Of course, this is one of those monsters that I've had lying around for a while, so who knows what I thought when writing it.

(I'm kinda disappointed that that's the only thing that's gotten a comment in the past four assignments. Including the one where I asked why nobody was commenting anymore.)