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

[No brains]

While I agree that the alternative would allow more free fun, I have to pick option B. Allowing humanoid gear on inhuman creatures when weapons and shields aren't allowed seems arbitrary and animal-specific items such as Pearl of Speech and various Horshoes are built assuming animals won't be able to wear the same gear.

Also while some may disapprove of this strategy, some DMs/ Authors have made creature-specific magic items in the past. Eyestalk 'rings', desmodu harnesses, gelatinous cube 'saddles', all of these were made with the intent that unique body types preclude magic-item swapping. If a DM needs to buff some monster without giving the party a lootable, a bizarre magic item is an option. If a party can loot a Spirit Naga's serpent sock and get powers intended for a villainous NPC, the game could be in trouble.

I may be convinced of option A if it weren't for shields and weapons/wands/staves/rods/potions with stoppers being left behind.

[Thurbane]

B: All creatures have body slots per the guidelines in the MIC, which removes all slots from amorphous creatures and removes exactly what you'd expect from armless/headless/fingerless/headless creatures.

It's a firm B from me, but I will abide by majority decision.

If we change to A, I don't think there's any creatures I'd need to re-score, though.

Didn't one of the dragon books talk about dragons and magic item slots?.

Indeed: Draconomicon, p.24. In essence, they get all the same slots that humans do.

[Dimers]

Definitely B. I mean, we're not going to assume all DMs have access to the MIC at all, or will use it, or will see that line, or will own+notice+use it without being "particularly dedicated to details". And monsters in anything vaguely resembling a typical D&D world will face problems for not being humanoid, without even getting into social stuff; option B is not the camel-back-breaking straw. And as I opined before, I think it's how we've been rating monsters so far.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I'll go with B, for the reasons mentioned above.

[lord_khaine]

I may be convinced of option A if it weren't for shields and weapons/wands/staves/rods/potions with stoppers being left behind.

It isnt for shields/weapons. Those are not magic item slots. They are equipment slots for things that can be magical.

[Caelestion]

B is the obvious choice for me.

[Unavenger]

B, for the simple fact that it's what the vast, vast majority of DMs will almost certainly rule in actuality.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I don't think anybody is arguing that snakes should be allowed to wear shoes, or that a pair of skirmisher boots the party finds should be able to transform into a snake-friendly form. I think the idea behind option A is that it should be possible for snakes to wear some kind of item that grants the same benefits as skirmisher boots without having to pay double cost for a slotless custom item.

In most game worlds, items made specifically for snakes will be very difficult to find, and may have to be specially commissioned. So, a snake PC will still be heavily inconvenienced by the process of acquiring a suitable item, even in a game world that allows items for snakes.

So, the only real difference between Option A and Option B is that Option B means the snake also has to pay double cost for items for which it lacks a body slot.

I'm confused. Don't get me wrong, this post is well-constructed; it all comes together in a point summarized in the last sentence. What confuses me is that point. It doesn't support one side or the other; it belittles the discussion as a whole.
You ask why I care so much about snakes not wearing shoes when, in practice, it's just a question of how much the snake pays for skirmishing. I ask why you care so much about tail-covers when, in practice, it's just a question of how much the snake pays for skirmishing.

In short, this point is irrelevant to any side of the discussion, save the one arguing we shouldn't have it. And I don't think anyone is actually on that side.

[Blue Jay]

I'm confused. Don't get me wrong, this post is well-constructed; it all comes together in a point summarized in the last sentence. What confuses me is that point. It doesn't support one side or the other; it belittles the discussion as a whole.
You ask why I care so much about snakes not wearing shoes when, in practice, it's just a question of how much the snake pays for skirmishing. I ask why you care so much about tail-covers when, in practice, it's just a question of how much the snake pays for skirmishing.

In short, this point is irrelevant to any side of the discussion, save the one arguing we shouldn't have it. And I don't think anyone is actually on that side.

That wasn't my intent, and I'm really sorry if it came off that way.

I was trying to present what I thought was the salient difference without it sounding like I was just lobbying for my side. I'm really not that strongly tied to Option A, to be honest, but I do tend to get really hung up on procedural "purity." I'm sorry about that.

I didn't appreciate the comments like "because snakes can wear boots, apparently": that felt like pretty open mockery. But it seems like a few people were voting for Option B because that's what they think Option A is. So, I thought it was important to emphasize that that's not the case. Monsters with nonhumanoid anatomy will be disadvantaged in terms of wearable magic items, regardless of which option is chosen. Option A is just removing some of those disadvantages, while Option B is retaining them all.

On the other hand, if we do choose Option A, maybe it would be frequently interpreted in that silly way, and it would just lead to snakes wearing boots anyway; so I guess it's not inappropriate for people to vote based on that perception.

Okay, I'm sorry: I judged you too quickly and felt the need to correct something that probably doesn't matter.

[ExLibrisMortis]

That wasn't my intent, and I'm really sorry if it came off that way.

I think it's a pretty good point, actually; there's no need to apologize for shaking things up a bit.

[GreatWyrmGold]

That wasn't my intent, and I'm really sorry if it came off that way.

Mind you, I don't think you were actually trying to argue that. I was mostly going all purple prose on "This argument doesn't seem to matter to our discussion."
I do that.

I didn't appreciate the comments like "because snakes can wear boots, apparently": that felt like pretty open mockery. But it seems like a few people were voting for Option B because that's what they think Option A is. So, I thought it was important to emphasize that that's not the case.

I suppose that's fair. But a lot of what people were honestly arguing seemed equally silly (but wordier), like "A pair of magic boots can turn into a slightly larger pair of magic boots, so it must also be able to turn into a tail cover! (No, I don't know what gloves would turn into.)"
And the glove point is relevant. Your argument relies on the assumption that every monster has some body part that corresponds to every magic item slot, when that's really not the case. I guess you could divide serpentine creatures by vertebrae, but it doesn't take long for that to get ludicrous. And by "not long," I mean "most PCs' standard array of basic +numbers gear would start to raise eyebrows".

[javcs]

Mind you, I don't think you were actually trying to argue that. I was mostly going all purple prose on "This argument doesn't seem to matter to our discussion."
I do that.


I suppose that's fair. But a lot of what people were honestly arguing seemed equally silly (but wordier), like "A pair of magic boots can turn into a slightly larger pair of magic boots, so it must also be able to turn into a tail cover! (No, I don't know what gloves would turn into.)"
And the glove point is relevant. Your argument relies on the assumption that every monster has some body part that corresponds to every magic item slot, when that's really not the case. I guess you could divide serpentine creatures by vertebrae, but it doesn't take long for that to get ludicrous. And by "not long," I mean "most PCs' standard array of basic +numbers gear would start to raise eyebrows".

On this last bit about all creatures having all 12 item slots or equivalents, I'll say it again, look at the winged head that's a vargouille.
I expect that nearly every DM is going to tell you no, there is no boot item slot (or equivalent) on a vargouille, that in fact, the Vargouille actually doesn't have most item slots.
The vargouille is probably a more extreme case than snakes/serpentine creatures, admittedly, but the applicable principles remain the same.

Everything having all twelve slots of a standard humanoid might be conducive to easier balancing, but the reality is that there are (and should be) consequences to being a nonstandard, non-humanoid body shape/type.
If you don't have hands, you are probably going have issues with anything that needs hands, be it wearing gloves, opening doors, etc.
If you don't have feet, you're going to have issues with boots, snowshoes, riding a bicyle, etc.
If you don't have a head, you're going to have issues wearing hats (and probably anything connected to the neck).
If you don't have eyes, you're going to have issues with glasses and monocles.

[Thurbane]

If I was feeling generous, I might give a vargouille the same or similar slots to a grell (LoM).

[Remuko]

Mind you, I don't think you were actually trying to argue that. I was mostly going all purple prose on "This argument doesn't seem to matter to our discussion."
I do that.


I suppose that's fair. But a lot of what people were honestly arguing seemed equally silly (but wordier), like "A pair of magic boots can turn into a slightly larger pair of magic boots, so it must also be able to turn into a tail cover! (No, I don't know what gloves would turn into.)"
And the glove point is relevant. Your argument relies on the assumption that every monster has some body part that corresponds to every magic item slot, when that's really not the case. I guess you could divide serpentine creatures by vertebrae, but it doesn't take long for that to get ludicrous. And by "not long," I mean "most PCs' standard array of basic +numbers gear would start to raise eyebrows".

I dont think that any of us were saying what you think at all. Were saying that they would get magic items, fit to their body (not ones that magically change to fit them if they werent made that way) that cover all the same functions as humanoid slots. So yes a Coatl would get a "gloves equivalent" slot, but it wouldnt be a glove slot, it would probably be more like a ring/belt for them (but its not actually a "ring" or "belt" via game rules, it just is shaped like one for fitting purposes). So like a magic item covered snake would look like its wearing 12 magic "rings" but only 2 of them would be "ring" magic items, the others would function as stand ins for other body slots.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I dont think that any of us were saying what you think at all.

It's okay, Prime32, I remember your existence.

If every pair of magic boots can change shape to fit both Fine creatures and Colossal creatures, with both long feet and short, why couldn't they shrink their toes so that a couatl user can wear them as a tail cover?

Sure, not all of you think that, but I never said all of you did.

So yes a Coatl would get a "gloves equivalent" slot, but it wouldnt be a glove slot, it would probably be more like a ring/belt for them (but its not actually a "ring" or "belt" via game rules, it just is shaped like one for fitting purposes). So like a magic item covered snake would look like its wearing 12 magic "rings" but only 2 of them would be "ring" magic items, the others would function as stand ins for other body slots.

You're not going to convince me that a coatl's slots being divided by vertebra, resulting in slots that have no relation to the original slot and hence no sensible connection with the original effect, is less ridiculous by rephrasing the idea I presented as ridiculous.

[Remuko]

It's okay, Prime32, I remember your existence.

Sure, not all of you think that, but I never said all of you did.


You're not going to convince me that a coatl's slots being divided by vertebra, resulting in slots that have no relation to the original slot and hence no sensible connection with the original effect, is less ridiculous by rephrasing the idea I presented as ridiculous.

*shrugs* I just dont see why that's a thing that matters. Why does it matter if snakes get a boot-enchantment style slot for boot-related boosts, that isnt a boot? why does this aesthetic change bother you so much? Why do you find it ridiculous. Its not less arbitrary than the rules for normal humanoid magic item stuff.

[Inevitability]

Crysmal

Crysmals are small earth elementals with some psychic powers. 6 elemental RHD are kind of harsh, and the ability scores gained in return are moderate, at best (-4 intelligence, +0 wisdom, +2 constitution, +4 to everything else). DR/5 bludgeoning, electricity resistance, and cold and fire immunity are all good traits though. They have a 20 ft. burrow speed in addition to their 30 ft. land speed.

The crysmal also suffers from a decidedly nonhumanoid body shape, with no easy ways to attack in melee other than a pitiful 1d3 sting.

Psionically, they're somewhat better off, and can manifest a number of useful low-level powers at-will (Control Object, Control Sound, Detect Psionics, Empty Mind, 2d10 Mind Thrust). They also get Psionic Dimension Door thrice a day.

However, all things considered this feels underwhelming. At ECL 6 I doubt I'd pick this over a default PHB race psion, let alone later in the game.

-0 LA: maybe knock off half the RHD if you want it to be more relevant.

[Inevitability]

Also, for the obvious record, option B received the majority vote and will be adopted. Archive post has been updated to reflect this.

[Dimers]

The crysmal was my entry for "favorite unplayable character option", which is to say, LA -0. Maybe I could get a baby crysmal as a pet or Improved Familiar or something ...

[ViperMagnum357]

LA -0 on the Crysmal. The immunities are the main draw, but sinking 6 RHD without casting into something that really has to be a caster is a long uphill climb. All the problems from your size, body shape, underwhelming net abilities, and lack of useful features kibosh Incarnum or Initiator, you have no real build as a skill monkey, and generic martial is right out the window.

Do not pass go, do not collect $200.00, do not choose for a PC as written. Maybe reconsider around 3 RHD.

[Blue Jay]

Ever since Dimers mentioned it in the "favorite unplayable" thread, I've found this thing kind of adorable. It makes baby crystal scorpions out of gems! Why don't they have a stat block for baby ones?

Crysmal LA -0

[Thurbane]

About all I know about these critters is that first appeared in the AD&D MM2, from memory. Can't remember if they were psionic or not, back then...

[OgresAreCute]

All I know about these critters is that they're totally terrible.

-0.

[Zaq]

In 4e, these were made into elemental companions: familiar-like pets that anyone can pick up for a couple feats. I had a buddy pick up a crysmal companion for a while, but it was so underwhelming at its intended job that he swapped it out before long.

Yeah, I know, vastly different rule set, but still. The point is that even when intended for PC use, they disappoint. Obvious -0.

[liquidformat]

-0 LA for Crysmal.

*shrugs* I just dont see why that's a thing that matters. Why does it matter if snakes get a boot-enchantment style slot for boot-related boosts, that isnt a boot? why does this aesthetic change bother you so much? Why do you find it ridiculous. Its not less arbitrary than the rules for normal humanoid magic item stuff.

There are inherent issues with your premise that all creatures should have all slots. For starters let's look at giving a Vargouille a boot slot, this now means I can increase its non existent land speed by +10' while leaving no tracks in snow without worrying about slipping on ice. Please explain to me how these work? Or for another example giving glasses that provide dark vision to a blind creature, can it now see in the dark? Your argument falls apart because of very simple functional limitations of creatures, giving an armless creature 'gloves' now allows it to dual wield weapons with its nonexistent hands!

There is also the issue of sillyness, sure lets give the snake twelve item slots; that is hat, mask, necklace, torso, upper upper body band, upper body band, upper middle body band, middle body band, lower middle body band,upper lower body band, lower body band, and tail band. Does that not strike you as completely ridiculous?

[dhasenan]

There are inherent issues with your premise that all creatures should have all slots. For starters let's look at giving a Vargouille a boot slot, this now means I can increase its non existent land speed by +10' while leaving no tracks in snow without worrying about slipping on ice. Please explain to me how these work? Or for another example giving glasses that provide dark vision to a blind creature, can it now see in the dark? Your argument falls apart because of very simple functional limitations of creatures, giving an armless creature 'gloves' now allows it to dual wield weapons with its nonexistent hands!

There is also the issue of sillyness, sure lets give the snake twelve item slots; that is hat, mask, necklace, torso, upper upper body band, upper body band, upper middle body band, middle body band, lower middle body band,upper lower body band, lower body band, and tail band. Does that not strike you as completely ridiculous?

Your examples are very good for demonstrating your view. On the other hand, there are things like Bracers of the Entangling Blast: deal half damage with a spell in order to entangle the affected creatures for 1d3 rounds, up to three times a day. That would be handy for a couatl and not problematic in any way, but a couatl doesn't have an arms slot to use them on. Instead of just having to commission a special version that's identical except for fitting a couatl, you need to pay double to get an item on an unusual slot. This seems awkward.

I'd take it on a case-by-case basis, personally.

[Efrate]

-0 for baby skarner. Maybe as a psicrystal stand in it might be neat, but it's worse in most ways though it is oddly adorable.

[danielxcutter]

I thought the front limbs could be used the arms slot...

Oh yeah, BTW, would a Liliend be able to wear Tailbands of Impact?

[Grey Guard]

The cute little Crysmal gets -0 for me. It has too little going for it with way too many racial hit die. Retooling them to be some sort of familiar sounds like a neat thing, though.

[Thurbane]

Oh yeah, BTW, would a Liliend be able to wear Tailbands of Impact?

Under the guidelines now set in this thread? No. The Tailbands are specific in saying theytake up the boot slot, and Lillends do not have such a slot.

The Tailbands are a real corner case, though: very atypical of most every other boot slot item.