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

[ZamielVanWeber]

IIRC a few others are off in the archive (marut says +1 on the list and +0 in the post). I meant to check and PM inevitability

[Nifft]

[CENTER]Armand

Anyways: the Armand is the answer to the question nobody ever asked, said question being: 'what if the Dwarven Defender was a race?'. The result is a 5 RHD, small-sized monstrous humanoid with what aren't very impressive ability scores (+6 constitution and dexterity).

Armands can also enter a defensive stance as a move action, which gives them a sizeable bonus to AC as well as smaller bonuses to attack rolls and saves. Of course, it also restricts their ability to move, making it a very situational ability.

The creature's other selling points are Stability (mostly negated by them being Small), and a slow burrow speed. The latter is quite rare on humanoid creatures, though, so it's worth mentioning.

It's obvious that armands aren't exceptionally strong, but I believe they don't require -0 LA. Monstrous humanoid RHD still give full BAB, burrow speeds are exploitable, and Defensive Stance has its occasional use. +0 should be fine.

+12 stats (both of which are good), +4 natural armor, Small size and Stability in combo tends to remove some bad parts of Small size so you just get +1 to attack & defense. It's a decent package. I could see someone taking a Paragon Class which gave these perks and feeling like that paragon class was borderline OP.

Verdict: LA +0 seems fine.

The major downside to me is the paucity of skill points. If I were to play this thing, it'd be on a skillful martial type.


Flavor text dysfunction: Defensive Stance gives you a Dodge bonus until you move. Therefore, you are somehow dodging without moving.

Well, sure, that works when you're the DM. And, for games I'm in or running, that's what I'd generally prefer, too.
However, for this thread, we need to be more cautious, because not every DM is going to look at a critter and say, "yeah, it's got hands/equivalent" when it's not clear or definitive one way or the other.

We have to err on the side of "no hands/equivalent" unless there's a very strong case for them and/or a nearly non-existent case against them.

I don't see any justification for the latter.

I suspect that I'm not that different from other DMs. Likewise, what you do when you're the DM, you're probably within a standard deviation or two of most other human DMs.

When you or I are the DM, we would both prefer functional PCs rather than heavy-handed manipulator deprivation. That is an indication that the general case should be in the direction we both prefer. I mean, unless you have a reason why what we prefer is somehow self-destructive (in which case I'll re-evaluate my preference), or why we are somehow exceptions to the general rule (I suspect we're not that special).

[Inevitability]

I noticed something in the archive list: The Stone Golem is listed as having +0 LA, but in the post about golems it has -0.

Fixed! Same with the marut.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Thanks for the hard work, by the way. I really do appreciate it.

[Inevitability]

Thanks for the hard work, by the way. I really do appreciate it.

I'm flattered! Thank you!

[Dusk Raven]

Oh hey, I look away from this thread for a few months and Heroes of Horror is done. A shame I missed it, as I was one of the ones who wanted HoH done. I see there were some discussions I would have enjoyed... still, at least all the monsters are done, which is especially nice as I'm actually reading through HoH right now.

Related, the Tainted Reaver is actually a Tainted Raver. Although I don't think that spiked chain would be very welcome at a rave.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Well, if you were going to make a tainted, weapon-ey version of ravers' glowsticks and whatnot, what would it be?

...Aside from a flail covered in alchemist's fire.

[Goaty14]

Well, if you were going to make a tainted, weapon-ey version of ravers' glowsticks and whatnot, what would it be?

...Aside from a flail covered in alchemist's fire.

Spell Thematics + Flame Blade

[No brains]

Thanks for the hard work, by the way. I really do appreciate it.

I'm flattered! Thank you!

In case we don't express it enough, the longevity of this thread is due to your wit and persistence. Thank you for keeping us entertained.

[Inevitability]

Astral Stalker

Predators: now in D&D!

Astral stalkers are LE, 12 RHD, medium-sized outsiders obsessed with hunting the ultimate quarry (a mindset that shouldn't be hard to combine with an adventurer's life). Right now they have a LA of +6, which is the very upper limit of what has ever been assigned in this thread. Given that astral stalkers lack overleveled cleric casting, theirs will probably end up a lot lower.

The stalkers' chassis is quite nice, with +10 natural armor, 50 ft. land speed, and bonuses of at least +10 to every physical stat as well as charisma. Wisdom and intelligence receive smaller boosts, but are not low by any means.

Astral stalkers have two claws that are about as strong as short swords (including the crit range), so not that incredibly useful. Sadly, a DM would be well within their rights to rule that their comically large claws render them incapable of wielding weapons, which'd be quite a problem for any martial astral stalker.

Their second natural weapon is a 'throat dart' which presumably is some kind of poisoned launchable spine, but isn't actually described anywhere in the text. While its damage is disappointing (1d4), the stalker's strength modifier does get added, and the paralyzing poison is a semi-decent SoL (albeit with a short duration of only 1d4 rounds). Note that these weapons can't both be used in a single full attack.

Other abilities of the stalker include 2d6 sneak attack, Camouflage (as per the ranger ability), Evasion, DR 10/magic, Unearthly Grace (hello there, +10 racial charisma!), and a couple of tracking-related abilities. First of these is Track as a bonus feat, second is Swift Tracker (which reduces the penalties for moving fast while tracking someone, and last is Elusive Prey (which imposes a penalty on the survival checks of anyone tracking the stalker). Note that the last ability technically applies to all survival checks: if you want to forage for berries while tracking an astral stalker your chances of finding something will plummet.

In the end, I can't help shake the feeling that the astral stalker is just a CR 12 monster trying to be good at something that stopped being relevant around level 6. Yes, it can track quite well (not as good as an 8th-level ranger, but still), but at a level where magical flight became commonplace several levels ago, 1d6 claws aren't a viable weapon, and a lot of things are immune to poison, sneak attacks, or both, you could be better off just playing a PC.

That said, the ability score improvements are quite large, Unearthly Grace is an amazing ability to have, and paralyzing poison can single-handedly win encounters. +0 LA seems like a decent compromise between the stalker's inability to do what it wants to do and the sheer force of its chassis.

[ViperMagnum357]

Astral Stalker...off the bat, Outsider RHD, so a good start. Somewhat strange-this has class features besides spellcasting, with the Sneak Attack/Evasion of a 3rd level Rogue, and cherrypicking 3 features of a Ranger (Track, Swift Tracker, Camouflage). Put that on Outsider RHD with Unearthly Grace, 50ft movement, a natural climb speed, and the throat dart, and you have something that could have been more powerful than its straight RHD...with fewer HD total. Now, it gets +10 natural AC and a net +52 abilities: which would look a lot better on something like 6-7 RHD, not 12. As is, that translates to less than 1 natural AC and a little over +4 abilities per RHD, which is too low to get above curve. Likewise, if you compared its other abilities to a straight class of comparable ECL, it would be able to keep up...until around ECL 9, when it runs out of abilities to tack on (12 abilities, 6 are weak enough to double up).

Put together, I would say as it stands LA+0. A solid chassis that pigeonholes you into a skill monkey with mediocre martial potential; I think the best build would be along the lines of a Rogue mixed with a few non-initiator martial PRCs to bring the damage up to snuff. I think the cutoff would have been RHD 9; at 8 RHD I would have said LA+1, with enough abilities to nominally keep up with a class and a much better ratio of net abilities/natural AC to work with.

[ExLibrisMortis]

It's got a lot of skill points, good raw numbers, not a lot of class features. Matches up well enough to a ranger or rogue; not as good as a t3 ranger variant, but still LA +0 I suppose.

[Zaq]

12 RHD is an awful lot. Like, an awful lot. Outsider HD might be one of the best RHD in the game, but still, starting play at level 12 and being ECL 13 before you can even start gaining class features is not something I'd personally find to be terribly entertaining.

I can't argue that the numbers are bad, because they're not. Those stat bonuses are nice, Unearthly Grace is good stuff, and they at least have respectable skills. 2d6 SA isn't nothing, I guess, though it's still kinda low. I feel like we're really missing a bit of explanation about what the hell a "throat dart" is (is it a dart shot at a target's throat? Is it intended to be a dart that comes out of the stalker's mouth via their throat, or does it bust out of their neck somehow?), and I think we could probably spend some time trying to figure out how it really works—it's listed separately from the claws in the "full attack" line, but it's not really stated to be a natural weapon OR something that is by definition incompatible with full attacks, so there's possibly some way to get more than a single shot with it (or more than a single swing while using it, at least). Or maybe not, because the natural weapon rules are super poorly defined. Poison is okayish but is going to be hard to love if we can't find a way to combine it with a proper multi-swing full attack.

I would not be overly impressed by a collection of 12 class levels that gave what the stalker has (plus or minus the stats and the base speed). I suppose I wouldn't be completely ashamed, but I also wouldn't be entirely impressed. It's honestly not that much better than Ranger, though I guess Camouflage comes online at Ranger 13 rather than Ranger 12. (Camouflage is also kind of hard to use without HiPS to go with it.) A Ranger would have to spend spell slots on Hunter's Eye to exactly mimic the Sneak Attack, but they would in fact get spell slots (meaning increased flexibility), a (weak) pet, and a fighting style. (And I think that Ranger is actually a super weak class in general.) Compared to the Ranger, the Stalker gets Unearthly Grace, a weird throat dart, and a flavor ribbon in the form of Elusive Prey, plus better base stats.

I'm right on the borderline between -0 and +0. I guess it's close enough to what you get out of 12 levels of Ranger that I can justify +0, but I still think that it's too much investment for too little payoff. I'd have a much easier time with +0 if it only had, like, maybe 6 HD and correspondingly lower stat buffs. (Still not sure what class levels would actually make sense if you were to play one of these, though. Maybe Rogue? Casters are right out, and even the early frontloaded levels of the martial classes don't help that much when added to this package. You know, aside from ToB classes, but that seems like about it.)

[ExLibrisMortis]

1(Still not sure what class levels would actually make sense if you were to play one of these, though. Maybe Rogue? Casters are right out, and even the early frontloaded levels of the martial classes don't help that much when added to this package. You know, aside from ToB classes, but that seems like about it.)

Agreed with your entire post.

Progressing the astral stalker probably happens along the lines of all high-HD high-stat melee brutes: a splash of ToB, a splash of Totemist (really wish there was an initiating/meldshaping class), a splash of barbarian. For the astral stalker specifically, Telflammar Shadowlord would be cool (with swordsage entry). It's not a super-wide range of tricks to pull from, but that's mostly because few subsystems are really dip-friendly.

[javcs]

Astral Stalkers are, at best, a very weak +0. However, I'm inclined towards going with -0.

Astral Stalkers just have too many RHD for their abilities to be level-effective, IMO.

It's not that they have bad abilities or significant weaknesses/vulnerabilities, it's just that their abilities aren't particularly useful at level 12+, since they've largely been left behind at this point.

[Inevitability]

Avalancher

Ever wanted to bury your players under a rockslide and simultaneously start combat? Forget about goblins with levers, here's the avalancher!

With 6 magical beast HD, large size, and respectively +12 and +10 to strength and constitution, the avalancher would theoretically make a fearsome melee combatant. However, it is held back by a lack of limbs and only a single natural weapon (it's a 1d8 slam, in case you're wondering). Its other ability scores (ranging from 12 dexterity and wisdom to 5 intelligence) aren't anything to write home about either.

In terms of defenses, the avalancher has +8 natural armor and a very interesting immunity to bludgeoning damage. Total immunity to slams, tentacles, hammers, and the occasional unarmed strike is quite nice, if only I say so myself.

Mobility-wise, the avalancher has at least some stuff going for it. 20 ft. climb speed is easily forgettable, but the burrow speed has its niche uses.

Avalanchers have a couple of special abilities. 1/day Transmute Rock to Mud is a decent way to hinder grounded melee enemies, weaken obstacles of unworked stone, and dispose of petrified foes.

The other ability is Cause Avalanche, which does exactly what it sounds like. The rockslide created is moderately potent (2d6 bludgeoning damage, a chance to get buried with no clear answer on how to escape, and arguably a movement opportunity for the avalancher). The fact that it only works in terrain that is both sloped and covered in loose rubble ruins it, though.

All-around vision is hardly worth mentioning; the same goes for +4 on Hide in rocky terrain.

All things considered, I think -0 LA is appropriate here. The avalancher has one trick it can do sorta well, and which it can only perform in a very specific kind of place. As a melee brute, its secondary role, it is outclassed by a typical PC and has significantly worse growth potential to boot.

[ViperMagnum357]

Avalancher: Magical Beast RHD are bad but not terrible. Natural Climb and Burrow speeds, Large size with reach, net +20 abilities in an arrangement agreeable to martials, +8 natural AC...all seems like a good start. All-around vision and immunity to bludgeoning is great-immunity to an entire damage type is rare and very useful. Unfortunately, that is where the good news ends: a 1/day weak SLA and 3/day signature ability are not selling me, with such harsh limitations. Taking a -6 hit on Intelligence in addition to 6 RHD sticks a fork in any chance of moving outside the martial box. And, of course, a superfluous Slam attack.

Overall, not as negative as I initially judged: a decent martial chassis, but not my first or even fifth pick as such. I am going to go with a relatively strong LA -0 here. I think keeping it as is but reducing it to 5 RHD could leave you with an argument for a weak LA +0, it is that close.

Speaking of, in the process of assigning a LA, I have found my usual process is taking the creature as is and start reducing or increasing its RHD while keeping the rest the same, to compare with appropriate classes at that ECL. How are the rest of you arriving at your final result?

[ZamielVanWeber]

As a note: the avalancher is also immune to the fairly ubiquitous bite natural weapon. It still has large tall and can run right into war hulk (which nicely fixes it's amazing skill points issue). +0 does not seem entirely out of place here honestly.

[GreatWyrmGold]

As a note: the avalancher is also immune to the fairly ubiquitous bite natural weapon.

Is it? I was under the impression that immunity to bludgeoning weapons only means immunity to weapons that are pure bludgeoning, much like how DR/piercing can be overcome by a morningstar.

[TotallyNotEvil]

Seems like the usual +0.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Is it? I was under the impression that immunity to bludgeoning weapons only means immunity to weapons that are pure bludgeoning, much like how DR/piercing can be overcome by a morningstar.

Morningstar overcomes DR/piercing for the same reason it is eaten by avalancher's immunity:
The game asks does your damage include piercing? Answer is p/b so yes, it does. DR bypassed.
The game asks does your damage include bludgeoning? Answer is p/b so yes, it does. Damage negated.

[Mike Miller]

As a note: the avalancher is also immune to the fairly ubiquitous bite natural weapon. It still has large tall and can run right into war hulk (which nicely fixes it's amazing skill points issue). +0 does not seem entirely out of place here honestly.

Bites deal P, S, and B. It definitely is not immune to bites. Also, I believe this is a -0.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Bites deal P, S, and B. It definitely is not immune to bites. Also, I believe this is a -0.

If that were true morningstars could not bypass dr/piercing or dr/bludgeoning, only dr/ bludgeoning and piercing.
Do bites do bludgeoning? Yes. So it cannot damage an avalancher. There is no part of that bite's damage that is not bludgeoning so there is no part that it could bypass the immunity as "not bludgeoning."

[Mike Miller]

If that were true morningstars could not bypass dr/piercing or dr/bludgeoning, only dr/ bludgeoning and piercing.
Do bites do bludgeoning? Yes. So it cannot damage an avalancher. There is no part of that bite's damage that is not bludgeoning so there is no part that it could bypass the immunity as "not bludgeoning."

This doesn't make sense. There is part of the bite that is not bludgeoning. Therefore, it damages the Avalancher. The Avalancher doesn't even have damage reduction and as such, DR should not factor into the argument.

[ZamielVanWeber]

This doesn't make sense. There is part of the bite that is not bludgeoning. Therefore, it damages the Avalancher. The Avalancher doesn't even have damage reduction and as such, DR should not factor into the argument.

Internal logic is not a factor is determining how rules interact? What are we supposed to use in that case?Also can you demonstrate what parts of a bite are not bludgeoning? For those parts and only those parts would be able to affect the avalancher on the bite. Any part of the damage's damage that contained the quality "bludgeoning" it would not be affected by since that is the literal definition of immunity.

[javcs]

Internal logic is not a factor is determining how rules interact? What are we supposed to use in that case?Also can you demonstrate what parts of a bite are not bludgeoning? For those parts and only those parts would be able to affect the avalancher on the bite. Any part of the damage's damage that contained the quality "bludgeoning" it would not be affected by since that is the literal definition of immunity.

Every part is also slashing and piercing.

I believe that the applicable precedent would be that if you aren't immune to all of it, you aren't immune, or you are, at best, immune to only part of it, not all of it.

For partial immunity, I believe the applicable precedents would be to divide damage equally amongst the various types, and therefore, immunity to bludgeoning would stop only one third of bite damage.


Personally, I'd go with no immunity or partial immunity. Probably no immunity.




I concur with -0.

[Luccan]

Internal logic is not a factor is determining how rules interact? What are we supposed to use in that case?Also can you demonstrate what parts of a bite are not bludgeoning? For those parts and only those parts would be able to affect the avalancher on the bite. Any part of the damage's damage that contained the quality "bludgeoning" it would not be affected by since that is the literal definition of immunity.

A morningstar overcomes resistance to bludgeoning because it does piercing and bludgeoning damage. It does not do this damage separately, all damage a normal morningstar does is both bludgeoning and piercing. A bite attack does piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning damage. The avalancher cannot be immune to biting, because biting does all three types of damage (so, like a morningstar, it overcomes relevant resistances.)

[ZamielVanWeber]

A morningstar overcomes resistance to bludgeoning because it does piercing and bludgeoning damage. It does not do this damage separately, all damage a normal morningstar does is both bludgeoning and piercing. A bite attack does piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning damage. The avalancher cannot be immune to biting, because biting does all three types of damage (so, like a morningstar, it overcomes relevant resistances.)

The problem is there is no consistency to this argument. The situations at their most basic level are the same: If A then B. Thus the DR looks like:
If damage includes piercing then DR does not apply.
But what you are saying is that the avalancher's immunity looks like this:
If damage is only bludgeoning then damage does not apply.
What no one is providing is any reason for the arbitrary change in condition, the "A," of the second statement. If you accept that this change is valid you also create problems: 1) any time an extra type is applied to a damage type it gets the ability to bypass defenses keyed to that damage type (ex: vile fire damage such as from a violated scorching ray ignored resistance to fire) and 2: any defense against damage not explicitly defined by the rules becomes dysfunctional as without a sense of internal logic to go on each instance must be defined at to it's purpose (such defenses include energy immunity to acid/electricity/sonic).

[Luccan]

The problem is there is no consistency to this argument. The situations at their most basic level are the same: If A then B. Thus the DR looks like:
If damage includes piercing then DR does not apply.
But what you are saying is that the avalancher's immunity looks like this:
If damage is only bludgeoning then damage does not apply.
What no one is providing is any reason for the arbitrary change in condition, the "A," of the second statement. If you accept that this change is valid you also create problems: 1) any time an extra type is applied to a damage type it gets the ability to bypass defenses keyed to that damage type (ex: vile fire damage such as from a violated scorching ray ignored resistance to fire) and 2: any defense against damage not explicitly defined by the rules becomes dysfunctional as without a sense of internal logic to go on each instance must be defined at to it's purpose (such defenses include energy immunity to acid/electricity/sonic).

1. Sort of. If something deals 2 types of damage as part of the same damage roll (as in the case of our example the morningstar, which does 1d8 piercing and bludgeoning), then they ignore immunity to one type of that damage. Keep in mind, this is what makes weapons that deal multiple types of damage simultaneously actually useful. However, a flaming mace will only deal 1d6 fire against an opponent immune to bludgeoning, because the mace's damage and the fire damage are separate rolls.

2. I literally have no idea what you just said here.

[Nifft]

The problem is there is no consistency to this argument. The situations at their most basic level are the same: If A then B. Thus the DR looks like:
If damage includes piercing then DR does not apply.
But what you are saying is that the avalancher's immunity looks like this:
If damage is only bludgeoning then damage does not apply.
What no one is providing is any reason for the arbitrary change in condition, the "A," of the second statement. If you accept that this change is valid you also create problems: 1) any time an extra type is applied to a damage type it gets the ability to bypass defenses keyed to that damage type (ex: vile fire damage such as from a violated scorching ray ignored resistance to fire) and 2: any defense against damage not explicitly defined by the rules becomes dysfunctional as without a sense of internal logic to go on each instance must be defined at to it's purpose (such defenses include energy immunity to acid/electricity/sonic).

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I'd probably look at DR penetration and immunity as logically inverted operations.

DR 10/bludgeoning => if damage includes bludgeoning, then bypass the DR.

Immunity to bludgeoning => if damage includes (not bludgeoning), then bypass the immunity.


IIRC, vile damage isn't an added type, it's just an added rider which restricts the conditions for healing that damage. Vile fire damage is still fire damage, and would be totally ignored by something with immunity to fire.

Sonic immunity is an oddball because [Sonic] is a spell descriptor which applies to a bunch of non-damage spells, and (for example) prevents them from functioning in the area of a silence spell. Immunity to [Sonic] effects would be immunity to more than just a damage type.