The LA-assignment thread III: Now in HD!

[Inevitability]

Animals (1)

It's the dire animals all over again, except six times as bad. Better get started.

Ape

Dire apes were the sole animal to get a LA over +0 so far. Will this change now?

Compared to their dire cousins, apes have 2 less RHD, 2 less points of strength but otherwise identical stats, a higher climb speed, a point of natural armor less, and a slightly weaker bite attack. They also lack a dire ape's Rend.

To be honest, I think +1 LA would fit here. At the very least, I couldn't give this one +0 without also lowering the dire ape's, because I believe these are just plain better.

Baboon

1 RHD, so no awful animal levels. They almost definitely can wield weapons, and their stats are respectable: +4 strength, +4 dexterity, and +2 constitution. Speed is above-average, and a climb speed is a welcome further addition. Low intelligence hurts, though.

I'm not sure if I'd play these at +1 LA, in spite of the neat stats. +0 LA for now, with the intelligence serving as a balancing factor compared to, say, orcs.

Badger

Small size, but three natural attacks, a burrow speed, and Track and Weapon Finesse for free. In addition, by RAW badgers have what's essentially perma-rage, with no drawbacks other than -2 AC.

I am honestly quite hesitant to place a +2 str, +6 dex, +8 con race that gets three natural attacks and a great bonus feat at the same level of play as dwarves and halflings. Maybe it's balanced out by the lack of thumbs and the low mental stats, but for now I'll play it safe and assign +1 LA.

Bat

Less than one RHD, 40 ft. fly speed, blindsense, and... that's it. Not even a natural weapon. That said, hengeyokai demonstrate that there's definitely uses for +0 LA diminutive fliers (warlock seems interesting), so I'll assign +0 LA here.

Bear, Black

3 RHD, 40 ft. land speed, two weak claws, a somewhat stronger bite, and respectable stats. That said, I'm not sure if it's worth it compared to a well-built melee class. +0 LA, perhaps -0.

Bear, Brown

Continuing the proud tradition of 'Monster X with more HD'.

Brown bears have twice the RHD of their dark cousins, but get a whopping 27 strength in return. They also have Improved Grab, which pairs well with their Large size.

That said, I'm not sure why you'd be a brown bear when you could also be something like a Divine Minion barbarian 4 and have the same BAB, strength, and natural attacks, but also actual class features and the option to be humanoid. -0 LA.

Bear, Polar

It's a brown bear with two more HD, a swim speed, and an environmental Hide bonus. Still -0 LA.

Bison

22 strength is nice, but 5 RHD, only a single natural attack, and no Mouthpick option just kills any chance of this being a viable PC. If you really want to be a bison, just play a divine minion of Hathor. -0 LA.

Boar

Rating all of these similar animals is quite boar-ing.

No? Not funny? Yeah, that's fair.

3 RHD, medium size, comparatively low ability scores (15 strength, 10 dexterity, 17 constitution), some natural armor, and a single gore attack. They also possess the power to continue fighting at negative HP, or as I like to call it: 'making yourself a target when you are most vulnerable'.

I fail to be convinced these will make good PCs. Just be a druid and get one at level four: or don't. -0 LA.

Camel

3 RHD, a single secondary natural attack that deals awful damage (but can at least be used for mouthpick). Physical ability scores are surprisingly good (especially with the two-humped variant), and Large size is useful as well.

+0 LA could be argued here, especially with mouthpick weapons in play.

Cat

I'm going to go ahead and assume that anyone looking at this can't play tibbits for whatever reason. If you can, do that instead.

No RHD issues, bad stats, three natural weapons, free Weapon Finesse, and Tiny size, as well as access to the oddball but useful Feline feats (yes, those are an actual thing).

+0 LA, I suppose. Tibbits are still better.

Cheetah

Three natural attacks that all let you make trip attempts, good physical stats, a high base speed, and access to feline feats. That's worth +0 LA in my opinion, even if their special quality is mostly a good way to put several hundred meters between you and the remainder of the party.

Crocodile

Another 3 RHD animal.

Good physical stats, medium size, one natural bite attack (which has improved grab), and a more damaging tail slap (which does not). Inexplicably enough, a crocodile can't attack with both in one full attack, if the statblock is to be believed. I suppose you could still combine tail slaps with a mouthpick weapon, though.

+0 for now, with -0 being considered too.

Crocodile, Giant

Huge size, the strength of a polar bear, devastating natural attacks, and the continued inability to use both at once.

Impressive as this package of strength is, I'm not sure if it stacks up to other ECL 7 options, and the lost points of BAB are sucky too. -0 LA.

[Celestia]

I'd say -0 for the giant croc. Seven animal HD really are that bad. Otherwise, I completely agree with your assessments.

[Malimar]

At least Animals are more interesting than True Dragons and Elementals, with maybe one +0 at the smallest end and then a long strings of -0. Most Animals are actually playably ok!

The thing about Animals is that many of them are a min-maxer's dream -- huge buckets of physical ability scores, one or two tanked mental ones -- but not an optimizer's dream.

The thing is that Animals are pretty boring in that they get a heap of ability scores, a natural weapon or two, some skill bonuses, and maybe something as fancy as Scent, and that's it. No interesting racial traits or features. BUT! Being boring does not necessarily equal being weak.

So a question arises: do we judge them on the basis of their strengths (in most cases, high ability scores), or on the basis of their strengths balanced by their weaknesses (-8 Int, often tanked Cha, "charismatic megafauna" notwithstanding)? A Str-based character doesn't generally care if they've tanked Int. It's not like tanking Int penalizes you mechanically on anything other than skills (a good RPer will play a low-Int character with less ability to comprehend tactics and whatnot than a high-Int one, but expecting good RPers opens up a whole new kettle of purple worms). In any event, I lean towards taking weaknesses into account, even if they're just ability score weaknesses that a BSF isn't really going to care about.

The main one so far where I had a twinge of disagreement was Baboon, but nah, their decent physical scores are pretty well balanced by their poor mental scores. +0 is fine for them.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Rating all of these similar animals is quite boar-ing.

Not as boaring as it would be if you didn't add some lame jokes in here and there. I get it.

...as well as access to the oddball but useful Feline feats (yes, those are an actual thing).

Yeah, but I'm not sure any DM would accept April Fool's material. (Not that that sort of consideration is within the scope of this thread. Or matters particularly.)

...even if their special quality is mostly a good way to put several hundred meters between you and the remainder of the party.

Sounds useful to me. Not in combat, of course, but hey, sometimes you just need some alone time and your party's being a bunch of jerks.

[No brains]

I hate to get all Discovery Channel about the issue, but I don't think baboons can 'wield' weapons. They do have grasping limbs, but I'm pretty sure that they can't move or manipulate objects as well as a human's arms and hands can. This might be perpetuating the 'baboon at the gym' fallacy, but real primates can't go Sun Wukong with power poles.

[ExLibrisMortis]

The thing about Animals is that many of them are a min-maxer's dream -- huge buckets of physical ability scores, one or two tanked mental ones -- but not an optimizer's dream.

This is accurate, I agree. Also, animals are probably the easiest creatures to get as companions, summons, familiars, shapeshifting forms, and whatnot. Only moderate optimization will make most of their native physical advantages worthless.

I'll agree with -0 on the giant croc, the rest is fine.


Fun fact: for 900 gp you can buy a magebred war camel. 2 kicks +6 (1d6+5) and bite +4 (1d4+2), 42 hp and 4 HD, +10/+8/+12 physical stats, and 60' speed.

[Zancloufer]

Despite being an "April Fools" joke the Feline skills/feats are actually more balanced and flavorful than much of the core material. The Dex based tripping seems especially good as it lets you, as a cat, essentially trip any sized creature. Bigger creatures actually become easier to trip.

Also do remember that Badgers technically have -2 str base. Yes with Rage they perpetually have +2 effectively in combat, but not being able to turn off rage and lack of hands makes me question if they are really worth +1 LA.

[Celestia]

Despite being an "April Fools" joke the Feline skills/feats are actually more balanced and flavorful than much of the core material. The Dex based tripping seems especially good as it lets you, as a cat, essentially trip any sized creature. Bigger creatures actually become easier to trip.

Also do remember that Badgers technically have -2 str base. Yes with Rage they perpetually have +2 effectively in combat, but not being able to turn off rage and lack of hands makes me question if they are really worth +1 LA.

Just don't try being a badger Psion, and you'll be fine.

[Inevitability]

Also do remember that Badgers technically have -2 str base. Yes with Rage they perpetually have +2 effectively in combat, but not being able to turn off rage and lack of hands makes me question if they are really worth +1 LA.

Sure, but as I said, they suffer none of the drawbacks from Rage other than the -2 AC. They can still use mental skills, they can still choose to deal nonlethal damage, they can still use SLAs or activate magic items...

You might argue that -2 AC is rough, but:

1. Badgers have +6 dexterity, +1 natural armor, and a +1 size bonus to AC. With custom-made armor being a thing, I wouldn't be surprised if a raging badger still had more AC than a human of equal level.

2. Literally any melee class would take -2 AC in exchange for +4 strength and constitution. There are people taking three feats to get Shock Trooper, which still only offers a weaker version of the effect. If it's free, I can't see why you wouldn't want to have it on all the time.

[Celestia]

Sure, but as I said, they suffer none of the drawbacks from Rage other than the -2 AC. They can still use mental skills, they can still choose to deal nonlethal damage, they can still use SLAs or activate magic items...

You might argue that -2 AC is rough, but:

1. Badgers have +6 dexterity, +1 natural armor, and a +1 size bonus to AC. With custom-made armor being a thing, I wouldn't be surprised if a raging badger still had more AC than a human of equal level.

2. Literally any melee class would take -2 AC in exchange for +4 strength and constitution. There are people taking three feats to get Shock Trooper, which still only offers a weaker version of the effect. If it's free, I can't see why you wouldn't want to have it on all the time.

I was about to argue the can take mental actions thing, but no. You're completely right. The ability is called "Rage," but it doesn't actually reference the barbarian class feature. So, according to RAW, at least, badgers are totally able to act normally while raging. I'm guessing that's an oversight as they probably didn't expect badger wizards.

Edit: I suppose the downside, then, is that a badger's rage can't benefit from any barbarian material such as feats or prestige classes. No badger bear warriors, sadly.

Unless, of course, the badger takes a level of barbarian. Then it can rage while raging. Man, could you imagine the psychiatry bills for those anger management issues?

[The_Iron_Lord]

Unless, of course, the badger takes a level of barbarian. Then it can rage while raging. Man, could you imagine the psychiatry bills for those anger management issues?

Yo dawg, I heard you like rage, so I put rage on your rage so you can rage while you rage!
kill me now


I am sorry for the lack of meaningful contribution to this thread.

[No brains]

I wonder how many rages a creature could stack on. Barbarian rage, badger range, frenzy, maybe sahuagin frenzy too? What's the best way to throw a rager?

[GreatWyrmGold]

I hate to get all Discovery Channel about the issue, but I don't think baboons can 'wield' weapons. They do have grasping limbs, but I'm pretty sure that they can't move or manipulate objects as well as a human's arms and hands can. This might be perpetuating the 'baboon at the gym' fallacy, but real primates can't go Sun Wukong with power poles.

Of course not, Sun was a snub-nosed monkey. Baboons are African.
But seriously, given the kinds of limbs people have tried to argue as grasping appendages in the past...

I wonder how many rages a creature could stack on. Barbarian rage, badger range, frenzy, maybe sahuagin frenzy too? What's the best way to throw a rager?

Wait...how can a badger be a sahuagin?
(Also, isn't there a spell that grants rage?)

[Inevitability]

I'm guessing that's an oversight as they probably didn't expect badger wizards.

Can I sig this?

Edit: I suppose the downside, then, is that a badger's rage can't benefit from any barbarian material such as feats or prestige classes. No badger bear warriors, sadly.

Prestige classes may not work, but other stuff, like Reckless Rage and Blazing Berserker most definitely does. Intimidating Rage is another option, and can theoretically cause someone to be shaken until you die or otherwise have your rage ended.

I wonder how many rages a creature could stack on. Barbarian rage, badger range, frenzy, maybe sahuagin frenzy too? What's the best way to throw a rager?

There's also the Rage spell, and the Wolverine's Rage and Involuntary Rage feats. Gutworm symbionts also count, as long as you're willing to put a demonic cestoda in your bowels.

[Celestia]

Can I sig this?

Of course. :)

Prestige classes may not work, but other stuff, like Reckless Rage and Blazing Berserker most definitely does. Intimidating Rage is another option, and can theoretically cause someone to be shaken until you die or otherwise have your rage ended.

It seems you are again correct. The wording used is "rage ability," and a badger's rage ability is certainly a rage ability.

[javcs]

Most animals are fairly worthless. Especially since you can get one as a familiar, animal companion, and/or wild shape into one at more or less the same time, if not before, you could start playing as one, and have much better class features. And hands and opposable thumbs.

Or you could be a 'thrope or anthropomorphic, and come out ahead on pretty much everything, at least, for most animals.




Ooh, one option for what to do after MM1 and before MM2 might be doing (some of) the WotC web supplement/enhancement material. At least, the stuff that's not tied to a book, since we should probably do the book-linked stuff when we do the relevant book.
Alternatively, Savage Species would probably be a worthwhile option.

[GreatWyrmGold]

There's also the Rage spell, and the Wolverine's Rage and Invol--

How are you going to be a badger, a sahuagin, and a wolverine at the same time?

[javcs]

How are you going to be a badger, a sahuagin, and a wolverine at the same time?

Option 1: A wizard did it.


I believe that Encyclopedia Arcane: Crossbreeding (admittedly third party) has relevant rules for combining creatures.


Option 2: You're an extremely disturbed Epic Illithid Savant, who ate the brains of the above (or of anthro versions), and claimed the abilities.

[Baby Gary]

Option 1: A wizard did it.

Option 2: You're an extremely disturbed Epic Illithid Savant

Can I sig this?

[GreatWyrmGold]

Option 2: You're an extremely disturbed Epic Illithid Savant, who ate the brains of the above (or of anthro versions), and claimed the abilities.

So, we're talking about an Illithid Savant/Barbarian who ate the brain of a badger, a wolverine, and an anthropomorphic sahuagin, and is now extremely angry? Not as angry as whoever paid his tuition for savant school...

[javcs]

Can I sig this?

Certainly.

So, we're talking about an Illithid Savant/Barbarian who ate the brain of a badger, a wolverine, and an anthropomorphic sahuagin, and is now extremely angry? Not as angry as whoever paid his tuition for savant school...

For the record, by "extremely disturbed", I was more intending the mentally disturbed/unwell/insane meaning, but the other way works too.

Since you're an Illithid Savant, you could have eaten the brain of a barbarian. And the brain of any other creature with a racial Rage ability that stacks, or the brain of any creature with with a suitable class ability to Rage.
Either way, it's an extremely niche build.

Mind, it's an appalling waste of Illithid Savant levels and abilities.

[Celestia]

Option 1: A wizard did it.


I believe that Encyclopedia Arcane: Crossbreeding (admittedly third party) has relevant rules for combining creatures.


Option 2: You're an extremely disturbed Epic Illithid Savant, who ate the brains of the above (or of anthro versions), and claimed the abilities.

I believe Bastards and Bloodlines also has rules for creating a half-something template of any creature.

[javcs]

I believe Bastards and Bloodlines also has rules for creating a half-something template of any creature.

I'm entirely confident that that sort of material exists in multiple places, and I know that I don't know all of them.

I do know that Crossbreeding has rules for how a wizard (or any caster, really) could take an owl, and a bear, and use a magical ritual to combine them into an proto-Owlbear (for example).

Or, in our case, a wizard could take a badger, a wolverine, a sahuagin, and roll them and their abilities desired (and none of the downsides) into one creature. If this wizard was feeling particularly ambitious, he could then combine that creation with a human, and have the resultant creation look like and pass for a human, but with all the best abilities (and ability scores) of the badger-wolverine-sahuagin.
Now, this would likely require several attempts before the entire process was a complete success, but since every failed attempt grants a (stacking) bonus on the next attempt ... it's entirely doable.

However, it's probably simpler/faster, and easier, just to take a few of the sahuagin you were going to be experimenting with and instead ritually sacrifice them to get an Efreeti for a Wish to combine the relevant abilities into the beneficiary you want to have all of these abilities.

[Celestia]

However, it's probably simpler/faster, and easier, just to take a few of the sahuagin you were going to be experimenting with and instead ritually sacrifice them to get an Efreeti for a Wish to combine the relevant abilities into the beneficiary you want to have all of these abilities.

So this is why D&D settings exist for thousands of years with no significant technological advancement. It's easier to just summon evil outsiders to do everything for you.

[Inevitability]

How are you going to be a badger, a sahuagin, and a wolverine at the same time?

Wolverine's Rage is actually a feat that lets you expend Wild Shape uses for a rage-like effect. Like most of the Wild feats, it's only useful in very specific situations.

As for the sahuagin thing... I guess you could be a sahuagin druid who turns into a badger, then uses Wolverine's Rage?

[javcs]

So this is why D&D settings exist for thousands of years with no significant technological advancement. It's easier to just summon evil outsiders to do everything for you.

I mean, you do have to kill at least one person, probably more if you're unfortunate with your rolls on the Knowledge(religion) check, but yeah.

A sufficiently motivated Level 1 Commoner with cross-class ranks, or even 1/2 a rank, in Knowledge(Religion) could successfully summon an Efreeti for wishes through enough ritual sacrifice attempts. If that's not a widely accessible shortcut to power ... I'm not sure what it would take to qualify. Actually, I'd probably call that a terrifyingly accessible shortcut.


Besides, I think a lot of the major settings have undergone relatively significant amounts of upheaval.

Also, let's be realistic - most of the people who either could or would be inclined towards advancing scientific/technological knowledge, well, they're likely to be wizards or artificers, and spend their time towards developing magic/magic items, and they've got a vested interest in suppressing technological advancement - technology can be used by (essentially) anyone (who knows how), and anyone can be used to create technological items (with the right training/know-how), whereas with magic, they have the power, and they (mostly) can keep it out of the hands of people who would oppose their monopoly on power. The status quo works for them; advancing the non-magical sciences

When nearly anyone (who's sufficiently evil) can ritual sacrifice people to summon Efreeti for Wishes, or attempt to do so with reasonable certainty that they just need to try it enough times to succeed, even while only level 1, well ... two things happen (1) a lot of people get sacrificed, which means there'll be a significant population drop, and the attendant loss of potential, and (2) eventually some jackass is going to screw things up for everyone.
Including the asshat who wasn't that good at fighting, but Wished to be the best fighter who would ever live - the Wish got twisted - he didn't get any better, but everybody else got screwed. That's why noncasters suck - incompetent asshats who screwed things up for everyone else.

[Celestia]

I mean, you do have to kill at least one person, probably more if you're unfortunate with your rolls on the Knowledge(religion) check, but yeah.

A sufficiently motivated Level 1 Commoner with cross-class ranks, or even 1/2 a rank, in Knowledge(Religion) could successfully summon an Efreeti for wishes through enough ritual sacrifice attempts. If that's not a widely accessible shortcut to power ... I'm not sure what it would take to qualify. Actually, I'd probably call that a terrifyingly accessible shortcut.


Besides, I think a lot of the major settings have undergone relatively significant amounts of upheaval.

Also, let's be realistic - most of the people who either could or would be inclined towards advancing scientific/technological knowledge, well, they're likely to be wizards or artificers, and spend their time towards developing magic/magic items, and they've got a vested interest in suppressing technological advancement - technology can be used by (essentially) anyone (who knows how), and anyone can be used to create technological items (with the right training/know-how), whereas with magic, they have the power, and they (mostly) can keep it out of the hands of people who would oppose their monopoly on power. The status quo works for them; advancing the non-magical sciences

When nearly anyone (who's sufficiently evil) can ritual sacrifice people to summon Efreeti for Wishes, or attempt to do so with reasonable certainty that they just need to try it enough times to succeed, even while only level 1, well ... two things happen (1) a lot of people get sacrificed, which means there'll be a significant population drop, and the attendant loss of potential, and (2) eventually some jackass is going to screw things up for everyone.
Including the asshat who wasn't that good at fighting, but Wished to be the best fighter who would ever live - the Wish got twisted - he didn't get any better, but everybody else got screwed. That's why noncasters suck - incompetent asshats who screwed things up for everyone else.

I thought wizards became overpowered because Vecna is an asshat.

But, yeah. That makes sense. The powerful use their power to maintain their power. It's just like real life.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Besides, I think a lot of the major settings have undergone relatively significant amounts of upheaval.

Wars and empires falling, maybe, but the way of life doesn't change that much. I've been reading through Rise of the Runelords, and it keeps irking me that the author(s) seem ignorant of just how long 10,000 years is. Thassalonia seems to have been almost

Also, let's be realistic - most of the people who either could or would be inclined towards advancing scientific/technological knowledge, well, they're likely to be wizards or artificers, and spend their time towards developing magic/magic items, and they've got a vested interest in suppressing technological advancement - technology can be used by (essentially) anyone (who knows how), and anyone can be used to create technological items (with the right training/know-how), whereas with magic, they have the power, and they (mostly) can keep it out of the hands of people who would oppose their monopoly on power. The status quo works for them; advancing the non-magical sciences

1. You kinda left your sentence unfinished. I hate when I do that.
2. Magic and technology are not mutually exclusive. Ever hear of magitek?
3. Technology levels giving power to the people have long since been surpassed. The first weapon which empowered the common man was not the musket, but the longbow.
4. Anyone with an Intelligence score above 8 who thought about it for more than a minute would realize that creating technology to be used by your minions would make you stronger, not weaker. That's why real-world nobles invested in new and better longbows, guns, and so on, even though that sort of technology would ultimately render their role in society useless. People don't care about the standing of their class, they care about the standing of themselves and their family/friends/allies, and that gets advanced by advancing technology--by making yourself better than the rest of your class, even if you incidentally undermine them.
5. It just takes one. One wizard or artificer who wants to make the world a better place invents a technology, and it spreads as everyone with half a brain starts using it. There are enough people like that that the world shouldn't remain static over thousands of years without someone actively suppressing technological advancement. We don't have any historical examples of that, but the closest historical parallels (people who forbid foreign technology and influence) tend not to work too well in the long run.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Guys, you're forgetting that the species creation mechanism already exists. It's called fusion + astral seed and it's extremely broken awesome .

[Malimar]

Wars and empires falling, maybe, but the way of life doesn't change that much. I've been reading through Rise of the Runelords, and it keeps irking me that the author(s) seem ignorant of just how long 10,000 years is. Thassalonia seems to have been almost

A lot of settings are based on medieval Europe, right down to a powerful Rome-esque empire having fallen in the past and left lots of conveniently explorable ruins behind. But you're right, Golarion is extremely bad for this trope. The only one I know a lot about that compares (is actually much worse) is Eberron, with a history going back 10 million years, and the "current age" alone going back 5,000.

My setting's history is much more compressed -- less than 2000 years since the gods fished the world out of primordial nexus -- but with a much more devastating upheaval -- a recent 500 of those years was spent with the world completely underwater.