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

[javcs]

Specific trumps general.


I'm pretty sure that the average DM is going to be a hard sell on the concept that all creatures have all the humanoid normal body slots. Even a permissive DM is going to be skeptical.
I'm confident that most DMs are going to have the position that body slots are going to be related to body shape/type.

Especially since the precedent other than the MIC (which allows for body type/shape to affect body slots) is that body type/shape affects available body slots.

[Dimers]

I re-iterate: I strongly suggest we adhere to the MIC's ruling

The issue, of course, is whether a voter thinks most DMs will in fact be "particularly dedicated to details". Many vote explanations have included a mention of lack-of-body-slots as a reason to rate lower than one would otherwise be inclined. I expect I have a lot of company in believing that view to be these threads' default.

[remetagross]

I would agree with these views. Not only do I think this (the restrictive take on item body slots) is what is used/would be used by most DMs encountering this issue, but also this has been largely adopted by contributors to this thread for past monsters. If only for consistency's sake, I think we should carry on with that interpretation.

The (psionic) couatl gets an LA +3 from me too. As far as gishes go, an LA +2 Couatl safely trounces a Battle Sorcerer 6/Swiftblade 5 on combat abilities alone while having the same caster level. Its combination of Cha bonus and natural abilities also make up for the lower number of spell slots by saving the need to cast Fly, Mage Armor, Plane Shift etc when compared to a Sorcerer 11, and its access to Cleric spells means it can get some Sorcerer spells at a discount for spell levels, like Animate Dead, reducing the impact of having one whole spell level behind.

[OgresAreCute]

I gotta agree with Covenant. The Magic Item Compendium should probably be considered an/the authoritative source on magic items, and it says clearly that all creatures are assumed to have all slots. Anything else is presented as a variant rule, and this thread canonically does not use variant rules (if it did, I'd argue LA buyoff is a bit more relevant than item slot shenanigans).

Item Slots are also very hard to quantify for ratings. Is the feet slot worth a +10 to land speed? A 60 ft. fly speed? +8 to strength? Item slots also increase in value as WBL goes up, meaning that a 3 RHD ooze won't really feel the item slot loss that much since it can only afford one item, but at level 20 missing even one slot can be a really big deal.

I think we'll get the most fair and consistent results from assuming that all creatures have all slots. If a DM is a stickler about limbs and wants to deprive someone of their body slots, that's their prerogative and their responsibility to compensate for.

[danielxcutter]

Though to be fair, Couatls don't need that many slots, since they can cherry pick spells from two of the most supported lists in the entire edition. Need deflection bonus? Shield of Favor(or maybe Scintillating Scales). Immunity to [Death] effects? Death Ward. And so on.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Though to be fair, Couatls don't need that many slots, since they can cherry pick spells from two of the most supported lists in the entire edition. Need deflection bonus? Shield of Favor(or maybe Scintillating Scales). Immunity to [Death] effects? Death Ward. And so on.

Agreed, item slots are more of an issue for beatsticks, and less for full casters.

I don't think the MiC ruling fits most tables, so it isn't useful for our purposes. Like multiclass XP penalties, or drown healing. It's in the rules, perhaps, but many people either aren't aware of it or ignore it on purpose.

[Remuko]

I have to say I agree with Covenant and Ogres. Also I always figured the "all creatures have all body slots" bit was more meant to read like they have an equivilent. So yeah a Coatl doesnt have a foot slot, but it has a "slot" that can equip gear that is considered foot slot gear but would obviously be fit to its anatomy. Basically I just always assumed every creature has the same number of slots and the same type of slots, but what those slots look like was specific to each creatures anatomy. A dragons foot slot isnt gonna look like a humans foot slot or an Oozes foot slot, but they all have a magic item slot for "boot-like" magic items (in effect not in appearance).

[lord_khaine]

I though this was the way it should be played even before it turned out to be RAW.
And well. It is the official rule. Its even sensible. And not a stupid technical qu
So we should indeed assume that people play with it. Even if it means informing them its the official rule.

[Blue Jay]

I gotta agree with Covenant. The Magic Item Compendium should probably be considered an/the authoritative source on magic items, and it says clearly that all creatures are assumed to have all slots. Anything else is presented as a variant rule, and this thread canonically does not use variant rules (if it did, I'd argue LA buyoff is a bit more relevant than item slot shenanigans).

Huh. That default ruling never registered in my mind, even though I've read that section lots of times.

I personally prefer flexibility on the issue, but I am one of those "detail-oriented" DMs/players who would want to hash out exact body slot rules for a monster PC at the beginning of the game.

I'm also fighting some mental inertia here: we've been assuming unique body slots for the entire time, and it feels like it would be inconsistent and inconvenient to change that now.

On the other hand, I think I agree with you completely that item slot configurations are unlikely to be a major deciding factor for most monsters; so I don't think it will make much difference now.

So... okay, I'm changing my vote. I vote that we go with the default rule that item slots are not dependent on body type.

[Thurbane]

Not only do I think this (the restrictive take on item body slots) is what is used/would be used by most DMs encountering this issue, but also this has been largely adopted by contributors to this thread for past monsters. If only for consistency's sake, I think we should carry on with that interpretation.

It's certainly been a factor in how I rated some non-humanoid creatures (assuming they won't have certain slots).

I think we need a ruling from Inevitability, to make sure we're all using the same metric moving forward.

[javcs]

Other than that one or two lines in MIC, that you have to carefully look for in order to find, especially since it turns around and gives you information on body shape/type affecting available body slots in the same paragraph, all other applicable rules and precedents indicate body shape/type affects what slots you have.
Plus, even if you take the position that you get an equivalent set of slots, there's no argument that you'd need to make variant items for those non-physically mapping equivalent slots. You're still going to have trouble with getting gear for those non-mapping equivalent slots.



In addition, IMO, the most important factor of body shape/type usually isn't item slots (can always get slotless or combo items, after all), but the associated physical capabilities. Ie, hands/opposable thumbs/equivalent manipulator capability. The ability to put things into and take them out of containers.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Implying that isn't the default of most cultures in general in D&D murderhobos, but yeah.

It's more problematic when it's part of a tradition of usually treating indigenous cultures as "lesser," something that is only important in how it relates to the (white-by-default) "important" characters, than when it exists alongside depictions of similarly-coded cultures which are usually treated as...cultures.

Seriously, is there something you can seriously use to link snakes and psionics? Because the Yuan-ti got psionic conversions in this book too. I mean, I get vaguely defined, terrifying tentacled aberrations, but snakes?

Snakes are creepy, I guess. And their lack of eyelids means they always stare, which...makes it look like they're concentrating? I dunno, there's probably some cultural connection I'm missing.

I'm going to have to strenuously disagree with your conclusion. This is based on your excerpts being outright contradictory to what the section is actually saying.

As a default rule, treat creatures of any shape as having all the body slots available. Creatures never gain extra body slots for having extra body parts (for example, a marilith still has only one hand body slot and two rings body slots). For unusual cases, here are some guidelines to help a DM particularly dedicated to details:
(Amorphous creatures):
(Armless creatures):
(Fingerless creatures):
(Headless Creatures):
Legless Creatures: Creatures without hind limbs, such as lillends, don't have the feet body slot.
(Multilegged Creatures):

The *default* rule, the RAW, is everybody gets everything. Including snakes and oozes. (from a prior section, armor, shields, and weapons are not body slots in this context)

In unusual cases, like snakes and oozes, DMs who are particularly dedicated to details can do something different. And have narrow rules for different categories. These are guidelines for unusual DMs who decide to go above and beyond. These are unusual rules for unusual DMs, and are not default, standard, or RAW.

I'm not convinced that "default" means what you think it means. Especially when it's followed up with a list of rules for non-default body plans (remember, specific trumps generic), and especially when it lets you wear boots without feet.

"you...dingus"

Past!Me, is such language really required? But he has a point—I suspect that only more "dingus-ey" DMs would be so lax about details as to let snakes wear shoes. (Rings and the like would take a higher level of detail-orientation; not all item slots are created equally.)

In addition, IMO, the most important factor of body shape/type usually isn't item slots (can always get slotless or combo items, after all), but the associated physical capabilities. Ie, hands/opposable thumbs/equivalent manipulator capability. The ability to put things into and take them out of containers.

Hold on now, javcs. The PHB says that you can draw weapons, retrieved stored items, pick up items, and even sheathe weapons as a move action. There's not even a variant rule that says creatures without hands can't do any of this! Thus, RAW indicates that all characters can do all of these things, and we can't assume any DMs would be playing by your house rules.
Though there don't seem to be any rules about who can store objects...

[Inevitability]

Psi!Couatl will remain at +3 in light of majority support.

Also, regarding the debate of 'do snakes have leg slots?', I'm inclined to agree with the side that claims unusual body shapes may come at a cost of body slots, especially in cases where there's simply no equivalent body part at all (for example, an ooze wearing eyeglasses).

Considering the example slot layouts for aberrations in LoM, it seems like at the very least the intention was to have body slots be dependent on body shape.

At the very least, even if a creature has all slots regardless of shape, it's not going to have the capability to wear the items that a humanoid is going to be filling those slots with. Even if couatls can use tailbands with the exact same properties as boots, they're still not going to be capable of using those Boots of Speed the party found in the dungeon. D&D official adventures (which imo are our only guideline for what a 'regular' game will be) tend not to hand out tentacle-clamps as loot much.

So I'm arguing, if this is a concern: put one "*", at the start. "If you can't decide on non-humanoid body slots, just don't allow non-humanoids. If you are permissive, feel free to use this thread's ratings."

I like this suggestion.


Currently, I'm considering a vote, which'd have the following options:

A: All creatures have all body slots, except in cases where the book explicitly says different (like the LoM critters). A gelatinous cube has a face slot, a couatl has a feet slot, and so on.

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.

In both cases, people are free to submit monsters for re-evaluation if they feel like the shifting metrics would impact their rating.

Finally, note that even option A would still let equipment remain a factor: it's great if Cxlar the Floating Globe can wear a custom-made Ring Of Fire Resistance, but actually getting that ring is going to take time, money, and effort.


Either way, I don't think the couatl cares much because, as said above, it's a full caster with tons of additional tricks.

[javcs]

I'd say option B. I'm pretty sure that's more or less what most of us have been running with anyways.

And I expect that there's not going to be much impact on ratings - most of the creatures it would affect either don't really care because they have significant racial casting (like the coatl/variants), or already got knocked down, because a lot of us think things like hands and the ability to approach towns/move through civilized areas without being shot on sight are useful qualities to have - or they, like so many monsters, had enough other problems to deal with that they would up as -0s before we even considered may of the intricacies of their body shape/type issues.


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


Also, option B because ignore the issues in a coatl wearing boots, there's no way I'll accept that the flying head that is a vargouille has the same item slots as human. Specially made headware (normally, heads don't have wings sticking out the side), eyes, maybe a couple rings, sure ... maybe a specially made throat slot item (depending which picture you use, and how much "neck" is attached to the head).

[No brains]

I had always thought that slots being dependent on body shape was baked into the system. There are horseshoe items that can be thought of as feet slot, but work better as a 'hooves' slot. Furthermore, there's a big clash in 'not being able to use weapons' and 'has all the body slots of a human'; magic weapons can make just as big an input as any other slot. So we're either letting lantern archons use Holy Avengers or we're keeping couatls from wearing shoes.

I'm not going to make an official vote until I read some more arguments.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Currently, I'm considering a vote, which'd have the following options:

A: All creatures have all body slots, except in cases where the book explicitly says different (like the LoM critters). A gelatinous cube has a face slot, a couatl has a feet slot, and so on.

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.

I think I've made my opinion on snakes wearing boots, and my reasoning for it, clear. B

[Efrate]

B. Makes more sense.

[Mike Miller]

I vote B. That is how I have been thinking about this the entire time.

[Remuko]

I vote A. As Inevitability said, there's still issues, its not giving boots to a coatl its giving a boot-equivilent slot to them, which would still have its hoops to jump thru as they couldnt wear shoe-shaped boot slot items. Also IIRC early in the discussion about all of this the rules stating that all creatures had all slots were claimed to explicitly be not counting weapons and shields (and maybe armor as well? cant be arsed to go double check) when talking about "magic item slots" so creatures without hands to wield weapons and armor still have that to contend with and there were already rules for how armor is handled for unusual body types.

I seriously can't see why anyone wouldnt vote A given all of the above info.

[Zaq]

I feel like we’ve more or less been going with B already, so I vote that we continue to do so (explicitly, now).

[Lapak]

I vote A. As Inevitability said, there's still issues, its not giving boots to a coatl its giving a boot-equivilent slot to them, which would still have its hoops to jump thru as they couldnt wear shoe-shaped boot slot items. Also IIRC early in the discussion about all of this the rules stating that all creatures had all slots were claimed to explicitly be not counting weapons and shields (and maybe armor as well? cant be arsed to go double check) when talking about "magic item slots" so creatures without hands to wield weapons and armor still have that to contend with and there were already rules for how armor is handled for unusual body types.

I seriously can't see why anyone wouldnt vote A given all of the above info.

I'm voting B, because it's the only option that makes any kind of sense to me, so right there you can see that it's entirely possible to vote otherwise with all that information. 'Things without feet don't have a boot slot' seems transparently obvious to me, and trying to make it otherwise seems like elaborate and downright weird hoop-jumping. What is this theoretical boot slot for a coatl? The '24th through 32nd vertebrae' slot?

I mean, you can always potentially combine items or pay more for slotless items, but if you don't have hands you can't wear gloves; if you don't have feet you can't wear boots. Though I'm amused to discover that I probably *would* buy the all-slots argument for something like a gelatinous cube that could 'wear' the items by engulfing them, for the entertainment value along if for no other reason, so I'm not perfectly consistent either.

[OgresAreCute]

I vote for option A, the slot system already makes no sense and non-anthrotypical creatures get punished unfairly.

[Prime32]

I'm voting for A, because it's the least dependent on DM fiat. And when the rules are ambiguous, picking the option that makes monsters less playable seems to be going against the spirit of the thread. Just as long as it's clarified in the OP.

I also wouldn't be averse to some "suggested houserules" in the archive thread for letting monsters absorb items they couldn't wear normally. There's precedent for these kinds of rulings, like the ghost Savage Progression (which gained an extra ability granting it incorporeal copies of items it was buried with).

I definitely don't want to see a * added to everything remotely non-humanoid. That's a generic problem, where a single ruling from the DM can resolve it for every monster in the game. It's not comparable to gotchas like "I create an army of vampires" or "I am literally immune to damage".

EDIT:

I vote A. As Inevitability said, there's still issues, its not giving boots to a coatl its giving a boot-equivilent slot to them, which would still have its hoops to jump thru as they couldnt wear shoe-shaped boot slot items.

Also worth noting

When an article of magic clothing or jewelry is discovered, most of the time size shouldn’t be an issue. Many magic garments are made to be easily adjustable, or they adjust themselves magically to the wearer. Size should not keep characters of various kinds from using magic items. There may be rare exceptions, especially with racial specific items.

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?

[Blue Jay]

I vote for option A, the slot system already makes no sense and non-anthrotypical creatures get punished unfairly.

I'm voting A with Ogres and Remuko. Option B does make a lot of sense to me, but I feel like the actual slots should only be loosely tied to anatomy. The most important aspect of the different slots is the kind(s) of effects that are associated with it. For example, the "feet" slot is often used for items that allow mobility and movement options, and for most of those options (e.g., "teleport 3/day" or "one extra attack after moving at least 10 feet"), there's really no reason why the monster should have to have feet to gain the benefit.

Certainly, I agree that body type should have some effects, for verisimilitude purposes; but I think the limitation mentioned by Inevitability and Remuko are already sufficient for that: the item still has to be made for the creature's body type.

[Falontani]

I vote B.
With the caveat that if we make homebrew suggestions for weird item slots for every creature who can't wear the normal slots. Things more along the lines of LoM than every creature has normal humanoid slots just weird looking versions, then I would change my vote to A.

[remetagross]

I'm on B. I do feel, like Zaq, that this is what we have been going with from the beginning, what with all the discussions we already have had about the unfortunate side effects of certain body shapes. In addition, I'm in agreement with Prime32 in how he countered Remuko's argument.

[Prime32]

In addition, I'm in agreement with Prime32 in how he countered Remuko's argument.

[lord_khaine]

Im voting A since its the option that actually seems to be RAW.
(with the caveeat that some stuff needs to be custom build)

And because the alternative is just to much trouble.
Else why cant Girallions wear 4 rings and 2 pair of gloves?
Or Ettins 2 headbands?

It seems pretty clear that the item slot limits are more a metagame system
explained away by magical inteference. Else you should be able to wear 8 rings without trouble.
So i dont see any reason to deny monsters body slots.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I vote for option A, the slot system already makes no sense and non-anthrotypical creatures get punished unfairly.

A point which we've been accounting for in literally every level adjustment for every non-humanoid monster which isn't an obvious -0. It's often been a point of contention. Whenever a monster has lacked abilities the game assumes every character has (from opening doors to speech to wearing shoes), we've added that to the list of the monster's drawbacks...and IIRC, there have been at least a few instances of creatures being pushed over the line from one LA to another by lacking these basic humanoid features.
If we're letting snakes wear shoes and gloves, we'd need to re-evaluate (or at least re-examine) every monster without feet or hands, to tailor this thread specifically to the few DMs who let snakes wear shoes.

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?

Because feet have (very) roughly the same proportion on basically anything without hooves or paws, and tails are not shaped like feet. Boots are closer in shape to gauntlets than they would be to tail-covers. If magic items can reshape themselves to fit arbitrary parts of nonhumanoids' bodies, why can't they reshape to other parts of humanoid bodies? (Or, for that matter, tail-covers for humanoid creatures?)
Also because that argument doesn't extend to gloves. No, you can't have them turn into wing covers, that would cover up the part that lets them fly.

What is this theoretical boot slot for a coatl? The '24th through 32nd vertebrae' slot?

It seems like you'd need to divide the coatl's slots up by vertebrae, since it has so many item slots (because snakes can wear boots apparently) and so few body parts to put them on.

And when the rules are ambiguous, picking the option that makes monsters less playable seems to be going against the spirit of the thread.

This thread is not intended to remake monsters to make them viable PCs. This thread is intended to evaluate races to figure out where they make viable PCs. The distinction is small, but important.



I kinda wish someone had replied to my point about stowing and retrieving objects, because it is important.
First off, its basis in the rules is as undeniable as the basis for "all creatures have all slots, so snakes can wear shoes". It's also something that seems as ridiculous.
Second, it's another way monster PCs are being held back relative to humanoid ones. Not being able to get things out of containers is a big weakness for any PC, both for personal agency ("Doors...my one weakness! Hey, George, I need your help...") and for in-combat effectiveness (no potions).
Finally, people have been throwing around justifications for letting creatures wear magic items even if they don't have a place to put them, and I was hoping I could make some justifications for letting any random creature draw a weapon or retrieve a potion. After all, basically anything worth calling a creature has some kind of limb. The argument that a snake can grab something out of a container with its mouth is far, far less ridiculous than the argument that a boot that turns into different-sized boots must also be able to turn into something that isn't a boot.

[Blue Jay]

Because feet have (very) roughly the same proportion on basically anything without hooves or paws, and tails are not shaped like feet. Boots are closer in shape to gauntlets than they would be to tail-covers. If magic items can reshape themselves to fit arbitrary parts of nonhumanoids' bodies, why can't they reshape to other parts of humanoid bodies? (Or, for that matter, tail-covers for humanoid creatures?)
Also because that argument doesn't extend to gloves. No, you can't have them turn into wing covers, that would cover up the part that lets them fly.

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.