The rule WOTC missed & Olwbears

[smetzger]

New feats and such should be in house rules. . . I'll move it over for you.

No.......

Its not a House Rule this is an officially released d20 rule. If you want to move it to the Rules Forum thats ok.

 

[smetzger]

In defense.

1) Its too easy.
I wanted to make it backward compatable with previous evidence of Wizards creating creatures. in A2 Markessa is a 5th level Wizard and is creating creatures. The Illithid example - perhaps I should have added something saying that you cannot create naturally occuring creatures.

2) The lab costs are too low.
The lab costs for making a Golem is the same.

3) There are some things PCs shouldn't be able to do.
I don't agree with this one. But, I did design the feat so that NPCs would actually follow the rules.

4) The type of creatures.
I looked at all the things in the MM and MonF and used only types that had examples of being created by mortals. I threw out Dragons(Ibrandlin) and Giants(Phaerlin) because those type just didn't seem to fit as well and I thought people would be less likely to accept the feat if they were included.

5) Why Knowledge(nature) ?
All the creature types listed as possibilities have a Biology. I felt that the creator should know how to combine biology science with magic. I also, didn't want to create a new skill.

 

[rankarrog]

I like the feat (from a "Mad Scientists" point of view) but I'd like to make the checks to create a beast based upon an own skill (neither Arcane Knowledge nor Knowledge of nature usually cover this and the whole process becomes a bit more "complicated/resourcefull for PC's" by making a new skill requiered. The both other skills may give a synergy bonus when it come to some of the monster types).

The lab costs are to low! The lab costs for making a Golem are the same, but you don't have to keep a golem alive while you build it, so you might want to either higher the Lab costs or add costs for mantaining the Lab.

What about making the DC for the checks based upon what you create?
Sonmething like:
Animal: DC=10+HD(or CR whichever is higher)
Plant: DC=10+HD(or CR whichever is higher)
Beast: DC=15+HD(or CR whichever is higher)
(Monstrous) Humanoid: DC=20+HD(or CR whichever is higher)
Magical Beast: DC=20+HD(or CR whichever is higher)
Aberration: DC=25+HD(or CR whichever is higher)

(Then you could add additional modifiers, something akin to:
Able to reproduce DC+5
Creature is weaker than base creature DC-3
Creature is stronger than base creature DC+3
Creature retains intelligence(>2) DC+int Bonus(If any)
)

Casting charm monster each day to get a loyal servant is (IMHO) far to easy. What about that this works only for creatures with low intelligence(up to 3), but something else is required for intelligent beasts.

What about XP-cost? Nearly to all Create(Whatever) feats require them(especially golems which make loyal servants,too).

 

[sigfried]

From the NBOF

Sory it took so long to get it out there Scot. It almost made it last time, and then we had forever before making a new one.

I realy think you were right in that it was a missing feat from the item creation rules, but as reflected in our ratings its hard to do as a feat. After all it tries to put in all the rules when the others are supported by the rules in the items rules from the DMG.

I'm not sure what peoples concerns are. Creating creatures isn't much different than creating items, especialy considering creatures won't always obey you as items would, so from a balance standpoint its not realy a problem.

 

[Tonguez]

Re: From the NBOF

I'm not sure what peoples concerns are. Creating creatures isn't much different than creating items, especialy considering creatures won't always obey you as items would, so from a balance standpoint its not realy a problem.

The MAJOR difference between items and creatures is that a +2 Sword does not go out and reproduce and give you a rampaging herd of +2 Swords.

There is the issue of divine jealousy - do the gods really want mortals making monsters (or otherwise muscling in on their turf)?

Then there is the whole ethical ickiness of it all.

IMHO the gods need something to differentiate them from mortals (other than mega-munchkin stats) and giving them a Divine Only ability list (like Create Living Creature for instance) would be nice (hence my Epic PrC suggestion earlier - an ability for gods and the near-divine only.

 

[smetzger]

What about XP-cost? Nearly to all Create(Whatever) feats require them(especially golems which make loyal servants,too).

The XP cost are there.

I disagree about the lab costs. Your variable DC stuff is interesting. I may update the feat to say you can only create new creatures or creatures which have been previously created (i.e. no creating an Illithid).

The costs to create the creature are pretty high considering that you don't have guarenteed success.

As far as leaving this sort of things for the god's; this doesn't fit in with the rest of the D&D rules. The rules are quite clear that mortals have created monsters and there are even a few spells that can create monsters.

I also don't think any PC will realistically take this feat. But, it does allow you to have nefarious NPC spellcasters doing nasty things.

*:> Scott

 

[The Sigil]

FWIW...

FWIW, here are my reactions...

1) Its too easy.
I wanted to make it backward compatable with previous evidence of Wizards creating creatures. in A2 Markessa is a 5th level Wizard and is creating creatures. The Illithid example - perhaps I should have added something saying that you cannot create naturally occuring creatures.

The backwards-compatible issue is a good one. Wizards and even alchemists of nearly all skill levels, from master to neophyte, have been depicted as "playing God" in fantasy texts. Gaining the Feat ought to be comparatively easy, even if producing the desired results is not.

2) The lab costs are too low.
The lab costs for making a Golem is the same.

There is one important difference here, and that is the ability to procreate. Create 2 golems and you have 2 golems. Create 2 magical beasts and you have... potentially unlimited magical beasts (assuming you created male/female ;-) ).

3) There are some things PCs shouldn't be able to do.
I don't agree with this one. But, I did design the feat so that NPCs would actually follow the rules.

There are many things PCs shouldn't be able to do. While morally this may be one of them, I would suggest that anything modern man is capable of with technology, fantasy man should be capable of with magic (after, all, "sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - and I might add that sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology).

4) The type of creatures.
I looked at all the things in the MM and MonF and used only types that had examples of being created by mortals. I threw out Dragons(Ibrandlin) and Giants(Phaerlin) because those type just didn't seem to fit as well and I thought people would be less likely to accept the feat if they were included.

Not entirely happy with that, but I see your reasoning. Arbitrary exclusion, though, seems, well, arbitrary. ;-)

5) Why Knowledge(nature) ?
All the creature types listed as possibilities have a Biology. I felt that the creator should know how to combine biology science with magic. I also, didn't want to create a new skill.

Seemed reasonable to me. I would probably add a Synergy bonus for a high Profession: Alchemy skill, myself.

As far as the successes/failures go, tough to adjudicate. I would probably bump all the DCs up by 5, with a critical success (only) indicating the creation of a creature that can procreate (i.e., mixing the parts is easy, getting the genetic code right is tough).

Gonna have to let this one bang around in my head a bit longer before I have more to say, but that's my "gut reaction." I do like the Feat, though I think it may require a few tweaks before it reaches a point that I want to allow it IMC. YMMV.

--The Sigil

 

[CRGreathouse]

First I want to say that I hyave great respect foryour knowledge of the rules and the work you've done; that won't stop me from critiquing, though.

1) Its too easy.
I wanted to make it backward compatable with previous evidence of Wizards creating creatures. in A2 Markessa is a 5th level Wizard and is creating creatures. The Illithid example - perhaps I should have added something saying that you cannot create naturally occuring creatures.

I was hoping to fix past mistakes, actually.

2) The lab costs are too low.
The lab costs for making a Golem is the same.

I have no real problems with this, though the lab could be more expensive.

3) There are some things PCs shouldn't be able to do.
I don't agree with this one. But, I did design the feat so that NPCs would actually follow the rules.

I have no problem here; if DMs don't like it they can disallow it.

4) The type of creatures.
I looked at all the things in the MM and MonF and used only types that had examples of being created by mortals. I threw out Dragons(Ibrandlin) and Giants(Phaerlin) because those type just didn't seem to fit as well and I thought people would be less likely to accept the feat if they were included.

Addressed in #1.

5) Why Knowledge(nature) ?
All the creature types listed as possibilities have a Biology. I felt that the creator should know how to combine biology science with magic. I also, didn't want to create a new skill.

Knowledge (nature), Knowledge (arcana), Heal, and the non-standard Knowledge (anatomy) could all apply.

 

[rankarrog]

The XP cost are there.

Sorry completly overlocked that (But read it twice, perhaps I get old).

 

[Tonguez]

Knowledge (nature), Knowledge (arcana), Heal, and the nonstandard Knowledge (anatomy) could all apply

.

I agree that all the above 'knowledges should apply.

I've also given further consideration and would suggest the following changes

1. Allow only the combining of Animal types and Vermin

2. Increase the DC to 5+(Cr1+Cr2+Cr3)+modifiers
*Cr1+Cr2+Cr3 is the tota CR (or HD) of the creatures being combined (eg Owl+Bear)

*Modifiers
Size
+5 for each difference in size category (so Dire owl (Small) + Bear (Large) earns a +10 DC mod)

Creature type mod
Vermin-Aquatic-Reptile-Bird-Mammal-Bird-Reptile-Aquatic-Vermin
+5 per increment from creature type (eg Owl (Bird) + Bear (mammal) = +5)

ergo an Owlbear has a DC of 29 (10+(4+0.25)+15

Special Abilities
+5 for each special ability/quality of the new creature not inherited directly from 'parent creatures (including loyalty to creator, increased size, improved grab etc)

I agree too that only on a critical success should the creature be fertile