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

[DeTess]

Well, the premise of having it be a valuable class feature is specifically the case where everyone has it. That's why I brought up stealth in the first place.

As to the validity of the comparison, just think larger: you're not scouting the number of orcs guarding the pie in the next room, you're scouting the location and disposition of officers and armament in the invading orc army. Your path will be crossed by orc patrols many times per day, for many sessions.

Stealth is also important for some PCs (the guy on point, and the guy who gets closest to the officers' tents), but everyone would need a way to negate tracking.

That's one example.

In general, it's a feature for a game where you derive some benefit from not being tracked back to your base. IIRC this includes World's Largest Dungeon, so it's not just outdoor adventures. (It is very much also outdoor adventures.)

I agree that there are scenarios in which it is useful. However, it's not always useful, nor is it useful in every game. I'd consider something a generally worthwhile class feature if it'll be useful at least once per session in any given campaign. Things like evasion, or 'hide in plain sight' qualify for this, but something like trackless step won't come up much in most games. It's useful in games build entirely around outdoors survival and stealth, but it won't help you much in a standard dungeon crawl.

It's like a feature that sais '+5 to diplomacy when dealing with Fey'. That's not a useless feature, but unlikely to come up much unless you're playing a campaign focused around the fair folk, so for a general rating of the feature, I wouldn't mind of people dismissed it as 'mostly flavor', because it is indeed just flavor if you're playing a city-intrigue or dungeon crawl in the underdark campaign.

Edit: and then I read your last sentence again properly. It seems we're basically saying the same thing, just slightly disagreeing about the kind of rating such a feature should get.

[javcs]

Well, the premise of having it be a valuable class feature is specifically the case where everyone has it. That's why I brought up stealth in the first place.

As to the validity of the comparison, just think larger: you're not scouting the number of orcs guarding the pie in the next room, you're scouting the location and disposition of officers and armament in the invading orc army. Your path will be crossed by orc patrols many times per day, for many sessions.

Stealth is also important for some PCs (the guy on point, and the guy who gets closest to the officers' tents), but everyone would need a way to negate tracking.

That's one example.

In general, it's a feature for a game where you derive some benefit from not being tracked back to your base. IIRC this includes World's Largest Dungeon, so it's not just outdoor adventures. (It is very much also outdoor adventures.)

Sure, tracking negation is something that can be pretty useful when the entire party has it. The problem is, it's nowhere near enough to push the Bearhound from -0 to +0, especially since there are a whole lot of better/easier/faster/cheaper alternatives to get tracking negation.

[Nifft]

I agree that there are scenarios in which it is useful. However, it's not always useful, nor is it useful in every game. I'd consider something a generally worthwhile class feature if it'll be useful at least once per session in any given campaign. Things like evasion, or 'hide in plain sight' qualify for this, but something like trackless step won't come up much in most games. It's useful in games build entirely around outdoors survival and stealth, but it won't help you much in a standard dungeon crawl.

It's like a feature that sais '+5 to diplomacy when dealing with Fey'. That's not a useless feature, but unlikely to come up much unless you're playing a campaign focused around the fair folk, so for a general rating of the feature, I wouldn't mind of people dismissed it as 'mostly flavor', because it is indeed just flavor if you're playing a city-intrigue or dungeon crawl in the underdark campaign.

Edit: and then I read your last sentence again properly. It seems we're basically saying the same thing, just slightly disagreeing about the kind of rating such a feature should get.

I feel like LA needs to be an adjustment on a reasonable representation of the best case, not on the average case.


As an example of why: in the average case, getting +4 Intelligence is mildly decent. You get +2 skill points, that's nice. You get +2 to Knowledge checks (which many classes don't have), so that's not great. Rogues get +2 to Search, I guess that's okay.

But an intelligent player won't pick a +4 Int race for a class where that benefit is only mildly decent. An intelligent player will choose +4 Int on a class that uses Int for casting, such as a Wizard. In this non-average case, the benefit of +4 Int is not merely decent.


Similarly, for class abilities which are campaign-dependent, I think it's reasonable to talk about the benefits in those campaigns, not across the average of all campaigns. The core Dwarf gets a bonus to dodging giants -- how often are giants an antagonist? Not that often on average, but if you're playing Against The Giants, then it's worth something.


So, what sort of campaign would showcase Trackless Step? Off the top of my head, the first game which I played in -- Keep on the Borderlands -- would have benefited from the ability to use strategic misdirection, pointing the humanoids at each other's throats instead of leaving a trail back to the keep. That wasn't strictly wilderness exploration, nor was it strictly a dungeon crawl.

[Nifft]

Sure, tracking negation is something that can be pretty useful when the entire party has it. The problem is, it's nowhere near enough to push the Bearhound from -0 to +0, especially since there are a whole lot of better/easier/faster/cheaper alternatives to get tracking negation.

Yep, what moves it from -0 to +0 is the combination of +16 Str, +10 Con, the other +stats, Trip, Improved Grab, speed, natural armor, Wild Empathy, ki strike (magic), and also Trackless Step.

Trackless Step alone would not be enough -- but the fact is, it's not alone.

[javcs]

I feel like LA needs to be an adjustment on a reasonable representation of the best case, not on the average case.


As an example of why: in the average case, getting +4 Intelligence is mildly decent. You get +2 skill points, that's nice. You get +2 to Knowledge checks (which many classes don't have), so that's not great. Rogues get +2 to Search, I guess that's okay.

But an intelligent player won't pick a +4 Int race for a class where that benefit is only mildly decent. An intelligent player will choose +4 Int on a class that uses Int for casting, such as a Wizard. In this non-average case, the benefit of +4 Int is not merely decent.


Similarly, for class abilities which are campaign-dependent, I think it's reasonable to talk about the benefits in those campaigns, not across the average of all campaigns. The core Dwarf gets a bonus to dodging giants -- how often are giants an antagonist? Not that often on average, but if you're playing Against The Giants, then it's worth something.


So, what sort of campaign would showcase Trackless Step? Off the top of my head, the first game which I played in -- Keep on the Borderlands -- would have benefited from the ability to use strategic misdirection, pointing the humanoids at each other's throats instead of leaving a trail back to the keep. That wasn't strictly wilderness exploration, nor was it strictly a dungeon crawl.

Yep, what moves it from -0 to +0 is the combination of +16 Str, +10 Con, the other +stats, Trip, Improved Grab, speed, natural armor, Wild Empathy, ki strike (magic), and also Trackless Step.

Trackless Step alone would not be enough -- but the fact is, it's not alone.

Problem with that is that the Bearhound has too many RHD to be viable in a campaign where mundane tracking is a serious concern, IMO. At level 10, the party's being teleported for long distance travel, and probably has long-term flight options.

Wild Empathy is also hugely situationally dependent, and, again, at level 10 ... it's not that useful anymore. Animals aren't, or shouldn't be, a major concern anymore. Also, there are way better ways of getting it.

Ki strike (Magic) is kind of irrelevant, since you'd want to be packing magical weapons or an item to put weapon enhancements on your natural weapons already anyways. And at level 10, you're going to want more than a +1.

Trip and Improved Grab are keyed to the Bite and Claw natural attacks, respectively.

+16 Strength, +4 Dex, +10 Con. That's not bad, but again, 10RHD, so you're locked into a melee type, and can't use weapons.
+6 Int, +4 Wis, +2 Cha ... Not bad, but not particularly useful, since you have too many RHD to go Caster or skillmonkey.

Speed 40ft isn't a bad thing, but neither is it much of a good thing. It's pretty meh. Lots of ways to get speed.
+11 Natural Armor is good, yes, but again, 10RHD.


The Bearhound has stuff that's good, sure. It just doesn't have enough nice things to be worth 10 RHD.

[Inevitability]

Bearhound has been assigned -0, was found by majority rule to be -0, and will continue to be rated as -0 for the foreseeable future. No, this won't change, please don't ask anymore.

Next entry should be up either today or tomorrow (finals this week, so I'm somewhat occupied with other stuff, my apologies).

[Inevitability]

Boneclaw

Another 10 RHD monster, undead this time. That doesn't bode well...

Boneclaws are large-sized, with reasonably decent ability scores (though the lack of any outstanding ability is somewhat problematic).

They have DR 5/bludgeoning, +2 turn resistance, a few points of natural armor, and a reasonable speed, as well as cold immunity: nothing you wouldn't expect from an intelligent skeletal undead. Unholy Toughness (charisma to HP) is also very nice to have.

More notable is a boneclaw's ability to extend its boney claws, giving it two natural weapons with the damage of Large shortswords and a reach of 20 ft. Given that Combat Reflexes is a thing and the boneclaw has a racial +8 dexterity bonus, this is actually a pretty nice ability.

However, for all that goodness the boneclaw has a number of major flaws. Its RHD are atrociously bad, and make it in fact incapable of getting a third iterative pre-epic. This assumes it can wield weapons at all, which could be difficult with claws that are half a meter in size (and sometimes more). Furthermore, its main selling point (20 ft. reach) isn't exclusive to it: any Large creature that can wield a guisarme is capable of replicating it.

Considering this all, I think -0 is an appropriate assignment here. Do discuss.

[flare'90]

I agree with the -0.
The main thing it has going for it are a net +34 to stats (+10 Str, +8 Dex, + 4 Int/Wis, +8 Cha, counting Con— as +0), a good-ish pair of natural weapons (1d8 claws at Large aren't bad. They go to 2d6 with INA, which the sample already has), natural reach and a way to compensate for Con— (kinda rare for undeads). The main problem is the fact that it's a 10 RHD undead (with CR 5, that's already a bad start) with 1/2 BAB (so at best it goes to +15 at level 20) and no access to Rapidstrike to pile in the claw attacks (and even if it could it ain't happening soon, the feat need BAB +10).
Class-wise with 10 RHD casters are basically out, martial initiators are better but not good (at best it gets 8th level maneuvers at 20th level), maybe Incarnum (it has a feat tax tough)? otherwise it's melee for an option.

[Zaq]

10 poor RHD, nothing on par with scaling class features, no really unique abilities, and no obvious advancement potential once you finally start getting class levels? Easy -0.

[ViperMagnum357]

Undead RHD? This thing really needed to impress me, and it did not. Unholy Toughness is excellent, but that is about where the good news ends-pretty much everything else can easily be replicated by martial dips on an LA 0 race plus an undead template of your choice, probably netting a comparable or better loadout around ECL 8.

Yuck. LA -0.

[Lapak]

This is another monster that's frustrating because it has some potentially interesting abilities to build on but they are dragged down hard by terrible racial HD. There's no way this is anything but -0.

[Falontani]

In another campaign I've used boneclaw as a template, and it was outstandingly good. However as a race it isn't the best. I could do something with it, but not much.

[ZamielVanWeber]

A massive pile of defensive abilities (Huge HP, undead immunities) with sub par hit dice for melee and no good way to transition to a more active role because of its sheer volume of hit dice. -0

[ExLibrisMortis]

N.B. Halberds are one of the few polearms that do not have reach. Go figure.

I think -0 is appropriate. Boneclaws are acceptable within their one niche, but they're difficult to advance fruitfully.

[Nifft]

If it didn't have all those horrible RHD, then I could do something with that reach and some Psychic Warrior levels.

But it does have all those horrible RHD.

Verdict: LA -0, borderline LA --.

[Flickerdart]

Is it just me, or does this book have terrible names?

• Ambush Drake - noun noun
• Arcane Ooze - noun noun
• Armand - ok, fine
• Astral Stalker - adjective noun
• Avalancher - verb-er
• Battlebriar - noun noun
• Bearhound - noun noun
• Boneclaw - noun noun

[Celestia]

If this thing hand, like, four RHD, it might be worth using. It's interesting without having any problematic abilities, and its humanoid shape gives it a strong argument for being able to use all standard equipment to boot. It's just hampered by its awful, awful RHD.

[No brains]

Is it just me, or does this book have terrible names?

• Ambush Drake - noun noun
• Arcane Ooze - noun noun
• Armand - ok, fine
• Astral Stalker - adjective noun
• Avalancher - verb-er
• Battlebriar - noun noun
• Bearhound - noun noun
• Boneclaw - noun noun

I wouldn't go so hard on these naming conventions. Noun/adjective noun in Latin is often how species are named. It's probably how most things are named before a language barrier makes them seem more fancy. Armand is literally just a dude's name, one that means army man, a.k.a. another noun noun. While using different languages and showing off obscure roots is something I totally dig, English noun noun helps get the point of a creature across so people don't die wondering what a gazebo is.

Not to mention... it is strange that you would level this accusation, flicker-dart.

[ViperMagnum357]

It's just hampered by its awful, awful RHD.

The story of these threads. :P

Though I think that might be question we should start considering, which I have with this book: how many RHD would you need to shave off to reach LA +0 ? For this, I would be shaving off a of minimum 4 to reach your 4th iterative, but would still be too weak to consider. If it could use humanoid equipment without a problem, I might say LA +0 at 5 RHD. Nearest comparison would probably be a standard race with Half-Minotaur template to gain size and mostly match up, maybe a couple of class levels to fill out the HD, and sprinkled with Gravetouched Ghoul to get the rest of the way there.

[javcs]

Is it just me, or does this book have terrible names?

• Ambush Drake - noun noun
• Arcane Ooze - noun noun
• Armand - ok, fine
• Astral Stalker - adjective noun
• Avalancher - verb-er
• Battlebriar - noun noun
• Bearhound - noun noun
• Boneclaw - noun noun

Not just you, but for some things, there is no good name.
Plus, after a point, unless you're going to randomly string consonants and vowels together, you're looking at crappy names for things that aren't more or less pulled from pre-existing myths, legends, and/or fictions. And randomized character strings aren't much better.



--

Concur with -0 for the Boneclaw.

[Remuko]

The story of these threads. :P

Though I think that might be question we should start considering, which I have with this book: how many RHD would you need to shave off to reach LA +0 ? For this, I would be shaving off a of minimum 4 to reach your 4th iterative, but would still be too weak to consider. If it could use humanoid equipment without a problem, I might say LA +0 at 5 RHD. Nearest comparison would probably be a standard race with Half-Minotaur template to gain size and mostly match up, maybe a couple of class levels to fill out the HD, and sprinkled with Gravetouched Ghoul to get the rest of the way there.

this seems like it would be good for its own thread. How many LA -0's could be made at least +0 by removing some RHD and nothing else from them, and how many would it take for each LA -0.

[Caelestion]

Arcane is absolutely an adjective, not a noun.

[Inevitability]

Bonedrinker

Another mid-level undead, this one with 11 RHD. Somehow, I don't expect a high LA.

Ability scores are overwhelmingly unimpressive for something with this HD, with +10 strength being the main selling point (y'know, that boost you could get with a race and +1 LA template). The random energy resistances are moderately useful, DR 5/silver or good will probably prevent a fair amount of damage over the course of a campaign, and Unholy Toughness doesn't hurt to have either.

Two 1d10 tentacles and two 1d8 claws (which can probably be used for weapon-wielding) make quite a nice set of natural attacks, and Pounce nicely complements them. Improved Grab is starting to get less useful by this point though, especially on a half-BAB medium creature.

Last is the bonedrinker's signature ability, imaginatively named 'bonedrink', which deals 1d6 constitution damage per round to creatures the bonedrinker pins.

Mediocre ability aside, the design choices made here puzzle me greatly. Why is the damage to constitution, rather than strength or dexterity? Does having your skeleton eroded away in no way impart physical strength or ability to move? Why are creatures that lack constitution scores but do have bones suddenly immune? Truly, this is a mysterious creature.

That said, -0 LA seems most appropriate here.

Lesser Bonedrinker

Created from goblins rather than bugbears, with less HD (7, to be precise), but still bad. Small size on a creature meant to be a grappler doesn't work, especially as lesser bonedrinkers apparently don't get the +4 racial grapple bonus their cousins get.

With the grappling gone, lesser bonedrinkers are just pathetic excuses for a melee brute that arguably don't even outperform human warriors when it comes to combat efficiency. -0 LA once more.

[Celestia]

Small sized grapplers make me cry.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Hey look, LA -0.

[javcs]

I have serious questions about where the concept for the Bonedrinker came from. But I'm not entirely sure I want to know the answers.


No contest, concur with -0 for both variants.

[ViperMagnum357]

BoneDrinker: Undead typing, 4 natural attacks, DR/material or alignment, 3 energy resists of 10, net abilities of +22, Improved Grab, Pounce...oh look, 11 Undead RHD at medium, or 7 at small. With a grappling focus. Yeah...no. LA -0 and move along, nothing to see here.

[Dimers]

I wouldn't say a Bonedrinker necessarily has a grappling focus -- only two of their traits deal with that. Call it a side dish. And pounce plus four natural attacks makes BAB less relevant. You already have your four attacks that other characters wait until at least 16th to get.

Regardless, the lack of a main course to go with that side dish is sad. I'd be willing to try a swordsage or crusader with these stats, preferably refluffed, but I can't honestly say it's better than -0.

[Mike Miller]

Definite consensus here with -0

[Nifft]

Yeah I can't think of any way to justify higher than -0 on this puppy.