The LA Assignment Thread XII: the LA-bors of Heracles

[loky1109]

One abusable ability isn't enough. Agree with -0

[GreatWyrmGold]

Their liquid form allows them to take on any shape they wish. While this is labeled as "Alternate Form (Su)", it really is just the shape. You explicitly do not get any abilities or traits of your shape. It is purely aesthetic, and you retain your blood-red color. You are also limited to shapes of your size. At least you probably won't have trouble with body slots, and can maybe even get access to some extra or nonstandard ones. Don't rely on that though, it's very much an "ask your DM" situation.

Honestly, I want more shapeshifting abilities like this in D&D. No usage limitations, no real mechanical effects, just casually change your shape for fun.

Not worth eight subpar levels, though. And the rest of the golem isn't much to write home about. At its size, its slams are basically shortswords with a fun but weak follow-up effect and no TWF penalty. Blood Drain's damage-damage bumps the total damage up to about what a large longsword would do, and the Constitution damage has a decent chance of draining another hit point per hit die, but that's not going to be that much unless you're fighting really high-level monsters.

Magic immunity is nice, especially if you have a source of cheap magical fire damage; blindsight is nice, strength is nice, natural armor is nice. And Alternate Form is fun! The blood golem probably has more than enough perks to balance out the unfortunate side effects of construct traits and magic immunity. But it doesn't balance out missing a bunch of armor/weapon proficiencies and five fighter bonus feats, let alone what you'd get from eight levels of a decent class.

-0

"Fun" Fact: It takes about 30 gallons of blood to make a Blood Golem. The text doesn't specify, but going by real life this would take at least 20 adult Humans on average.

Since the Imperial system doesn't think anyone would want to convert between units of volume and length, I also feel the need to point out that 30 gallons is slightly more than 4.01 cubic feet. The closest thing to a mention of other materials needed is saying that the skin forms itself, so either the blood golem is mostly skin with just a couple dozen gallons of blood in the middle, or they are kinda small.

[Debatra]

Since the Imperial system doesn't think anyone would want to convert between units of volume and length, I also feel the need to point out that 30 gallons is slightly more than 4.01 cubic feet. The closest thing to a mention of other materials needed is saying that the skin forms itself, so either the blood golem is mostly skin with just a couple dozen gallons of blood in the middle, or they are kinda small.

Well, despite being classified as Large creatures, they do only occupy a 5' space.

[loky1109]

Well, despite being classified as Large creatures, they do only occupy a 5' space.

It's 3.0 weirdness.

[H_H_F_F]

I also believe that LA -0 is in order.

[Emberlily]

Since the Imperial system doesn't think anyone would want to convert between units of volume and length, I also feel the need to point out that 30 gallons is slightly more than 4.01 cubic feet. The closest thing to a mention of other materials needed is saying that the skin forms itself, so either the blood golem is mostly skin with just a couple dozen gallons of blood in the middle, or they are kinda small.

that's approximately 125kg/275lb of blood. even assuming there's 0 hollow space inside, they'd be the size of a 112kg/250lb human. I could see a small-end Large creature if particularly it's lanky. and of course if there's any hollow space on the inside (maybe the 'skin' it's talking about is the blood acting as a sort of hollow exoskeleton situation?), it can be much bigger.

gonna go with a -0 on this one too, for the rating

[Darkholme]

No queue as such. People propose stuff and if something's popular and makes sense, it gets a treatment.

Gotcha. Personally I would like to see a treatment for Faerunian monsters, or perhaps dragon magazine monsters. But, I've gathered that I play this game with a mix of sources that became less common in the later 2000s.

I don't know exactly which monsters in Monsters of Faerun didn't get reprinted in another book (I still use MoF), but I know there are also some in the FRCS and Waterdeep and other setting books. Sword Spiders, Guardgoyles, Leucrotta, Peryton, Dragonkin, Naga, Beholderkin, Tressym, Quaggoths, Wemics, Lythari, etc.

Manual of the Planes and Book of Vile Darkness also had some fun beasties, and I don't know that they all appeared in newer printings.

Even when we switched our PHBs to 3.5, we used a lot of 3.0 sources still, and while most of my 3.0 group doesn't play 3.x anymore, I've kept using the 3.0 sources I liked back in the day.

I use the two "Realms Bestiary" volumes from Candlekeep too, and sometimes the EN Creature compendium, most of which is 2e monsters converted over. Realms Bestiary is by authors who appear in published WotC books, but it's a free Candlekeep document, not an official book, so I get skipping it. I also get that a lot of people don't know it exists.

[danielxcutter]

Usually we go with a single book from A to Z until it's done, then move onto another. The current set of monsters we're reviewing is "MM6", which isn't an actual book but rather an index of 3.0/3.5e monsters from web articles. If we can keep this going I imagine we'll probably finish the Monster Manuals first?

[Darkholme]

Usually we go with a single book from A to Z until it's done, then move onto another. The current set of monsters we're reviewing is "MM6", which isn't an actual book but rather an index of 3.0/3.5e monsters from web articles. If we can keep this going I imagine we'll probably finish the Monster Manuals first?

That makes sense. I just thought you were doing "mm6" because you were finished the proper MM entries.

[danielxcutter]

Yeah, I don't really think you could guess unless you knew for sure that there were only five 3.0/.5 MMs.

[remetagross]

Coolish monster, crappy PC. Sad to see it's so bare-bones (he). LA -0.

[Bavarian itP]

If we can keep this going I imagine we'll probably finish the Monster Manuals first?

If we ever finish the MM6, we should do a few short books for a change, imo.

[danielxcutter]

Oh yeah, that'd be nice I suppose.

Also LA -0 from me as well, a gimmick isn't nearly enough for some of the crappiest HD in the game.

[loky1109]

If we ever finish the MM6, we should do a few short books for a change, imo.

I'd vote fot Tome of Magic.
And I'm sure, it isn't "if", it's "when".

[Prime32]

Just noticed that the mind flayer has LA +2* for its at-will astral projection SLA, but it only had that ability in 3.0.

[Beni-Kujaku]

This is an unanimous -0. Next is the Bone Golem Scimitar Slasher from the 3.5 Tomb of Horrors.

[Beni-Kujaku]

Bone Golem, Scimitar Slasher

Size & Type: Large Construct
Space/Reach: 10'/10'
HD: 11
Speed: 20'
Ability Scores: Str +14, Dex -2, Con -, Int -, Wis +0, Cha -10 - Net +4, one penalty
Natural Armor: 14
Natural Weapons: Two Primary Scimitars (1d8+Str)
Skill List: N/A
Body Shape: Humanoid Skeleton
Speech (Languages): No
CR: 9
WotC LA: -
Our LA: -0

This golem is summoned when someone opens a trapped chest in the Tomb of Horrors. It has identical stats to the Clay Golem, but with worse natural attacks (it wields scimitars, dealing less damage than the Clay Golem's slams. It cannot make iterative attacks with them. A nice DM may allow it to put them down and choose actual weapons, but it's unclear if it's possible or if the scimitars are built stuck to its arms), worse DR by 5 points, and a worse haste ability, since the Bone Golem's requires a standard action to activate.
A Bone Golem's Magic Immunity isn't bypassed by any spell.

If the Clay Golem didn't make the cut, then this one isn't worth positive LA either. See you tomorrow.

[danielxcutter]

Wait, when did you take over again?

[Tzardok]

Just now, I assume.

[Beni-Kujaku]

Wait, when did you take over again?

About now-ish. Mainly to avoid the thread being considered as dead after one and a half month. If anyone tells me not to do it anymore, I will stop, but since it's been more than a month with no new reply on a monster with no debate going on, I felt like the thread needed a bump.

Just noticed that the mind flayer has LA +2* for its at-will astral projection SLA, but it only had that ability in 3.0.

I believe this comes from Realmshelp having the 3.5 version of the statblock, but with Astral Projection. Maybe there is also a reprint of the Monster Manual with a sneak errata removing the SLA in question.

[Paragon]

About now-ish. Mainly to avoid the thread being considered as dead after one and a half month. If anyone tells me not to do it anymore, I will stop, but since it's been more than a month with no new reply on a monster with no debate going on, I felt like the thread needed a bump.

I see no problem. Actually thank you for assuring this continues !

[danielxcutter]

Oh sorry, thought I'd missed it or something.

[Metastachydium]

Oh sorry, thought I'd missed it or something.

It's happened before. Poor Debatra gets busy a lot, and Beni has another thread to fuel with stuff from here.

but with worse natural attacks (it wields scimitars, dealing less damage than the Clay Golem's slams. It cannot make iterative attacks with them. A nice DM may allow it to put them down and chose actual weapons, but it's unclear if it's possible or if the scimitars are built stuck to its arms),

Technically, while the damage is off, the statblock specifies great scimitars, an exotic weapon from Sandstorm, and wielding them like that is a lot like having Superior Two-Weapon Fighting on something that should be 2d6+STR, 18–20/×2 at Large size. As weapons, they are also easier to enchant as a Golem's Immune-to-Magic slam would be, which is also a plus. So… Given the lack of iteratives, it doesn't scale very well, but I'd call it strictly superior to either normal slams or normal weapons used with its one iterative. Also, I believe they are not part of the creature. The description says scimitar-wielding, not scimitar-welded.

That doesn't make it +0 material, though, at this number of HD. I'll give you that.

[Debatra]

Yeah, sorry about that. I'll get things back on track.

And much thanks to Beni for keeping things going when I fail to.

[Beni-Kujaku]

Technically, while the damage is off, the statblock specifies great scimitars, an exotic weapon from Sandstorm, and wielding them like that is a lot like having Superior Two-Weapon Fighting on something that should be 2d6+STR, 18–20/×2 at Large size. As weapons, they are also easier to enchant as a Golem's Immune-to-Magic slam would be, which is also a plus. So… Given the lack of iteratives, it doesn't scale very well, but I'd call it strictly superior to either normal slams or normal weapons used with its one iterative. Also, I believe they are not part of the creature. The description says scimitar-wielding, not scimitar-welded.

That doesn't make it +0 material, though, at this number of HD. I'll give you that.

The scimitars are an exotic one-handed weapon. If they weren't counted as natural weapons, we would see a penalty for wielding a one-handed weapon in the off-hand, and/or a penalty for inappropriately-sized weapon, and/or a penalty to damage for wielding a light weapon in the off-hand, and/or a penalty for nonproficiency. There are too many things that would be wrong to consider them differently from other "artificial natural weaponry", like the nimblewright's rapier-hands, so I don't think they can be considered great scimitars in their own right when the Bone Golem does not wield them (what size category would they even be?), or enchanted like regular weapons (I mean, it's not like they are masterwork like the Blood Golem of Hextor's flails anyway). But I don't see why they couldn't be enchanted the same way a slam is enchanted : with a necklace of natural weapons. They can't benefit from Magic Fang, but saying that they can't be enchanted is weird.

Also, if it wasn't clear, I vote for LA -0.

[Metastachydium]

The scimitars are an exotic one-handed weapon. If they weren't counted as natural weapons, we would see a penalty for wielding a one-handed weapon in the off-hand, and/or a penalty for inappropriately-sized weapon, and/or a penalty to damage for wielding a light weapon in the off-hand, and/or a penalty for nonproficiency. There are too many things that would be wrong to consider them differently from other "artificial natural weaponry", like the nimblewright's rapier-hands, so I don't think they can be considered great scimitars in their own right when the Bone Golem does not wield them (what size category would they even be?),

If they are great scimitars, they are Medium-sized, and as such (granted, after applying the penalty for size), would count as light for the Large skeleton, which, as a humanoid-shaped Construct, proficient with any weapon it is described as wielding, the Bone Golem would have no non-proficiency penalty for using.

That still leaves us with the TWF issue, of course.

or enchanted like regular weapons (I mean, it's not like they are masterwork like the Blood Golem of Hextor's flails anyway).

…
Well, if it wields them, it can always pick up the masterwork version! (But yeah, fair.)

But I don't see why they couldn't be enchanted the same way a slam is enchanted : with a necklace of natural weapons. They can't benefit from Magic Fang, but saying that they can't be enchanted is weird.

Technically, they can't be enchanted. A magic item can impart an enchantment bonus to them, but that's totally not the same! (I.e. yeah, fair.)

[remetagross]

Crappy monster. And crappy illustration as well, though somewhat charming. LA -0 of course.

[loky1109]

-0 if you need my vote.

[Debatra]

Calzone Golem
Page 4

Size & Type: Medium Construct
Space/Reach: 5'/5'
HD: 6, 13 Large
Speed: 30' (can't run)
Ability Scores: Str +6, Dex -2, Con -, Int -, Wis +0, Cha -10 - Net -6, two penalties
Natural Armor: 4
Natural Weapons: Two Primary Slams (1d8 +1d4 fire)
Skill List: N/A
Body Shape: Humanoid
Speech (Languages): No
CR: 3
WotC LA: -
Our LA: -0* (Berserk, potential to stack NI natural armor)

Well, at least this golem's berserk rage doesn't just trigger once per minute of combat. Instead, it triggers every time it's hit by a piercing or slashing weapon. So probably far more often. On the plus side, it gets a non-scaling DC12 will save to avoid this. Still though.

Another thing that happens when damaged by such a weapon is that it Spurts out extremely hot sause from the wound, dealing a single point of fire damage to everything within 5'.

That heat extends to the outside of its body as well. Just touching it deals 1d4 fire damage.

Once every five rounds, it can exhale nauseating gas as a free action. It covers a 5' radius centered on itself in a Stinking Cloud, with a Con-based fortitude save to negate.

Finally, as with most golems, it has magic immunity aside from a few specific effects. Cold slows it for 2d6 rounds; and fire hardens it, increasing its natural armor by one for each three points of damage the effect would have dealt. That would actually be pretty neat if the rest of the monster wasn't so terrible.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Worth noting that the calzone golem's berserk is the kind where "no known method can reestablish control," like the clay golem. The clay golem isn't asterisked, but I think it should be, simply because DM interpretation can be the difference between an inconvenience and permanently losing control of your character with one unlucky saving throw. Looks like Debatra thinks the calzone golem should get the asterisk.

But there might be another reason for that. Since there's no type given for the magic immunity fire-based NA bonus, it should stack with itself, which means that there's probably some way to give the calzone golem arbitrarily high AC.

Ignoring those two abilities, it's a 6 HD melee fighter whose attacks are comparable to a first-level fighter with 18 Strength. (+5 attack bonus, average of 12 damage, which is kinda like 2d6+5, which is less than you'd get with a +4 Strength bonus if you used a two-handed weapon like a greatsword.) I could try to quantify how many lost fighter levels its other abilities are worth, but it's less than five, so -0*.