D&D 5E Why do 5e lycanthropes get their powers in human form?

[Micah Sweet]

My stab at the 'why' part: -- I just checked my old games, and while Lycanthropes lose their immunity to non-silvered, non-magical weapons while in human form in the basic/classic line, but AD&D does not follow suit. 5e was designed, at least in part, to recapture lapsed TSR-era gamers who had drifted away in 3e or 4e (or earlier), since they had no notion that 5e would be such a hit with new gamers (and their ambitions for the game were more than just 'keep they buyers we have'). Thus, there are lots of little nods, winks, and throwbacks to the way things once were. Not sure if emulating AD&D rather than (for example) B/X has any meaning, or it was just a 'had to chose one way or the other' situation.

Beyond that, near invulnerability (but only when in a specific mode/stance/configuration/form) works better for narratives than games. It's great in comic books (Hulk/Bruce Banner, who in the comics usually can be killed while in human form), tv shows (Dinobots in the original Transformers), or the books (there's a scene in Clive Barker's Cabal where the quasi-undead/lycanthrope protagonist is about to face the main antagonist 'as a man,' and then has a 'what on Earth am I doing?' moment before turning into his neigh-invulnerable form and greasing him). It allows the otherwise scene-ruining character to be taken out as needed by the plot, but the author will always give them enough warning to transform when necessary. In a game, it just incentivizes characters to stay in the invulnerable form at all times 'just in case.' Mind you, the game/DM could make that hard (similar to druid forms and spellcasting) and that be part of the fun, but I suspect that the devs expected less of that and more of the old 'novice DM insists that this town does not allow adventurers to wander around with weapons and armor when and only when they they want to spring a PCs-captured-and-in-jail-cell scenario, and everyone hates it' situation.


I would have preferred that not be there. That said, it does mean that it is the DM deciding to include this portion of the adventure, and a DM that does so had best be prepared for the fallout. It's a step less 'communicated norm' than having werecreature as a PC race option for building new characters (although DMs should be comfortable vetoing both events in an adventure and unbalancing character-creation options). Given that plenty of newer DMs are the ones who run modules, I would prefer that options that can easily cause problems were presented and suggested. Let the PCs decide to experiment with subjecting themselves to lycanthopy on their own. My own recollection of my early gaming experience suggests it won't take too long for most groups.

Fundamentally, I think D&D (from a very early stage) mishandled lycanthropy*, vampirism, and being a lich. They are 3 qualities that the PCs clearly can acquire. They are acquirable through relatively clear means (the first two by capturing an existing one and saying 'make me a vampire/werewolf'), so it is harder (short of just saying 'I don't want to run that') for the DM to keep them from it (compared to say, membership in a secret society or the like). Yet the power level of the specific implementation of the base concepts are so far towards the upper end (vampires get a huge array of powers from the folklore, werewolves are low-tier invulnerable, liches are low-tier immortal). It could have been that vampires gave a bite attack and one other vampirish ability (the Dhampir lineage option is a good example), Werewolves could resemble the Shifter race, and Liches could be like 3e Necropolitans. IMO that would have worked much better for things PCs could (relatively) easily get, and reserve the higher-power abilities for things easier to gatekeep (an 'Elder Vampire' MM entry would be easy to say "sorry, your character will get these powers in a few centuries if they stay as a vampire, but we won't be playing that any time soon").
*the curse gained from a bite, being a native-born one can work however they need.

The problem is, players don't want soft-serve lycanthropes. There are plenty of werewolf and vampire characters in popular fiction, and locking those out for reasons as gamist and immersion-breaking as "game balance" is just irritating. Shifters are an excellent example of this. I don't want to play a "kinda-werewolf", and I don't know anyone else who does either.

 

[Bedrockgames]

My stab at the 'why' part: -- I just checked my old games, and while Lycanthropes lose their immunity to non-silvered, non-magical weapons while in human form in the basic/classic line, but AD&D does not follow suit. 5e was designed, at least in part, to recapture lapsed TSR-era gamers who had drifted away in 3e or 4e (or earlier), since they had no notion that 5e would be such a hit with new gamers (and their ambitions for the game were more than just 'keep they buyers we have'). Thus, there are lots of little nods, winks, and throwbacks to the way things once were. Not sure if emulating AD&D rather than (for example) B/X has any meaning, or it was just a 'had to chose one way or the other' situation.

Beyond that, near invulnerability (but only when in a specific mode/stance/configuration/form) works better for narratives than games. It's great in comic books (Hulk/Bruce Banner, who in the comics usually can be killed while in human form), tv shows (Dinobots in the original Transformers), or the books (there's a scene in Clive Barker's Cabal where the quasi-undead/lycanthrope protagonist is about to face the main antagonist 'as a man,' and then has a 'what on Earth am I doing?' moment before turning into his neigh-invulnerable form and greasing him). It allows the otherwise scene-ruining character to be taken out as needed by the plot, but the author will always give them enough warning to transform when necessary. In a game, it just incentivizes characters to stay in the invulnerable form at all times 'just in case.' Mind you, the game/DM could make that hard (similar to druid forms and spellcasting) and that be part of the fun, but I suspect that the devs expected less of that and more of the old 'novice DM insists that this town does not allow adventurers to wander around with weapons and armor when and only when they they want to spring a PCs-captured-and-in-jail-cell scenario, and everyone hates it' situation.


I would have preferred that not be there. That said, it does mean that it is the DM deciding to include this portion of the adventure, and a DM that does so had best be prepared for the fallout. It's a step less 'communicated norm' than having werecreature as a PC race option for building new characters (although DMs should be comfortable vetoing both events in an adventure and unbalancing character-creation options). Given that plenty of newer DMs are the ones who run modules, I would prefer that options that can easily cause problems were presented and suggested. Let the PCs decide to experiment with subjecting themselves to lycanthopy on their own. My own recollection of my early gaming experience suggests it won't take too long for most groups.

Fundamentally, I think D&D (from a very early stage) mishandled lycanthropy*, vampirism, and being a lich. They are 3 qualities that the PCs clearly can acquire. They are acquirable through relatively clear means (the first two by capturing an existing one and saying 'make me a vampire/werewolf'), so it is harder (short of just saying 'I don't want to run that') for the DM to keep them from it (compared to say, membership in a secret society or the like). Yet the power level of the specific implementation of the base concepts are so far towards the upper end (vampires get a huge array of powers from the folklore, werewolves are low-tier invulnerable, liches are low-tier immortal). It could have been that vampires gave a bite attack and one other vampirish ability (the Dhampir lineage option is a good example), Werewolves could resemble the Shifter race, and Liches could be like 3e Necropolitans. IMO that would have worked much better for things PCs could (relatively) easily get, and reserve the higher-power abilities for things easier to gatekeep (an 'Elder Vampire' MM entry would be easy to say "sorry, your character will get these powers in a few centuries if they stay as a vampire, but we won't be playing that any time soon").
*the curse gained from a bite, being a native-born one can work however they need.

Lycanthropy was pretty awesome in 2E in my memory. Especially if you include stuff like Van Richter's guide to Lycanthropes and all the variants they had in the monster manuals

 

[Willie the Duck]

The problem is, players don't want soft-serve lycanthropes. There are plenty of werewolf and vampire characters in popular fiction, and locking those out for reasons as gamist and immersion-breaking as "game balance" is just irritating. Shifters are an excellent example of this. I don't want to play a "kinda-werewolf", and I don't know anyone else who does either.

When the game was first envisioned, they could have done all sorts of things with each of these monsters*. The folklore is very open to interpretation -- a silver bullet is the way to kill a werewolf, but is that because they are immune to everything else**, or because silver does extra damage and they are 4 HD creatures (meaning it's the only likely way a 1 hd commoner is ever going to win against them)? Both werewolves and vampires vary from story to story in how badass they are, and it would have been perfectly possible for a badass werewolf to have been one with a small amount of innate power and a large number of levels or HD.
*among many others. Trolls, for instance, even when specifying the Three Hearts and Three Lions version, could have been anything representing rapid healing. The version we got (regenerate any non-fire/acid HP damage) is super-specific and could have easily been anything else.
**counterpoint: most D&Ds have rules for higher level monsters being able to bypass silver or magic weapon resistance based on HD, even if their attacks aren't specifically coded as magical.

Regardless, that's a reasonable position to take, but then be prepared for the downstream consequences. Game balance, in general, is a priority that gets disproportionate digital ink on forum discussions and gaming think-pieces and the like. The PC that gets great stat rolls or is the one Str-based melee character when the Vorpal greatsword drops is also going to be, to a lessor or greater degree, more powerful (especially if compared to the other PC that rolled a 1 on their most recent level up HP roll). The game keeps running with imbalances. However, I understand the desire to keep those imbalances to a dull roar and why the huge benefit* of these new forms can be seen as an issue.
*it should also be said that immunity/regeneration to damage from non-silvered, non-magical weapons isn't as overpowered as the thread has implied. There is a lot of damage out there not of that type (especially as level goes up) -- there are just a lot of cases where that damage does come up, and it's notable when they stop being a threat (especially to only some of the PCs).

D&D has made a number of decisions that could have gone multiple ways, went with one, and now has to lie in the bed it made. Individual groups can choose to adhere to those decisions, or come up with alternate solutions.

We don't play in the same circles, but I know plenty of people who would like a 'playable' werewolf race (balanced against other PC race options, that is. Probably not identical to the shifter, but in the same vein. I also know a number of groups that have had werewolves and such and not had an issue.

 

[Micah Sweet]

When the game was first envisioned, they could have done all sorts of things with each of these monsters*. The folklore is very open to interpretation -- a silver bullet is the way to kill a werewolf, but is that because they are immune to everything else**, or because silver does extra damage and they are 4 HD creatures (meaning it's the only likely way a 1 hd commoner is ever going to win against them)? Both werewolves and vampires vary from story to story in how badass they are, and it would have been perfectly possible for a badass werewolf to have been one with a small amount of innate power and a large number of levels or HD.
*among many others. Trolls, for instance, even when specifying the Three Hearts and Three Lions version, could have been anything representing rapid healing. The version we got (regenerate any non-fire/acid HP damage) is super-specific and could have easily been anything else.
**counterpoint: most D&Ds have rules for higher level monsters being able to bypass silver or magic weapon resistance based on HD, even if their attacks aren't specifically coded as magical.

Regardless, that's a reasonable position to take, but then be prepared for the downstream consequences. Game balance, in general, is a priority that gets disproportionate digital ink on forum discussions and gaming think-pieces and the like. The PC that gets great stat rolls or is the one Str-based melee character when the Vorpal greatsword drops is also going to be, to a lessor or greater degree, more powerful (especially if compared to the other PC that rolled a 1 on their most recent level up HP roll). The game keeps running with imbalances. However, I understand the desire to keep those imbalances to a dull roar and why the huge benefit* of these new forms can be seen as an issue.
*it should also be said that immunity/regeneration to damage from non-silvered, non-magical weapons isn't as overpowered as the thread has implied. There is a lot of damage out there not of that type (especially as level goes up) -- there are just a lot of cases where that damage does come up, and it's notable when they stop being a threat (especially to only some of the PCs).

D&D has made a number of decisions that could have gone multiple ways, went with one, and now has to lie in the bed it made. Individual groups can choose to adhere to those decisions, or come up with alternate solutions.

We don't play in the same circles, but I know plenty of people who would like a 'playable' werewolf race (balanced against other PC race options, that is. Probably not identical to the shifter, but in the same vein. I also know a number of groups that have had werewolves and such and not had an issue.

Shifters just seem like too much of a half-measure to me. And as an aside, I'm impressed by your story of players who want PC choices that are fair to other PCs. Not my player experience (or my human experience, really)

 

[Voadam]

The problem is, players don't want soft-serve lycanthropes. There are plenty of werewolf and vampire characters in popular fiction, and locking those out for reasons as gamist and immersion-breaking as "game balance" is just irritating. Shifters are an excellent example of this. I don't want to play a "kinda-werewolf", and I don't know anyone else who does either.

I had two players in my 5e game play a World of Darkness style werwolf and werebear. One used a wildshaping druid as the mechanical chasis for his spirit binding werewolf and the other used a shifter barbarian for his werebear. Narrative reskinning of the shifting and rage powers worked well and I felt comfortable with the mechanical game balance.

It felt much better than just giving the barbarian 19 strength and non-silver weapon immunity that the 5e MM werebear PC entry suggests.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I had two players in my 5e game play a World of Darkness style werwolf and werebear. One used a wildshaping druid as the mechanical chasis for his spirit binding werewolf and the other used a shifter barbarian for his werebear. Narrative reskinning of the shifting and rage powers worked well and I felt comfortable with the mechanical game balance.

It felt much better than just giving the barbarian 19 strength and non-silver weapon immunity that the 5e MM werebear PC entry suggests.

I'm not saying it can't be done in different ways. I do hate re-skinning though. It feels like a game design crutch.

 

[Faolyn]

Except that were-ravens are presented as pc options in both Strahd and Candlekeep.

As a monster I don’t care but as a pc? That’s ridiculous.

You should probably avoid inflicting lycanthropy on your PCs unless you're going to take control of them when they change shape--and realize that, even though wereravens are good aligned, it's still a curse and a newly-infected wereraven should act bestially violent and probably suffer as well even when in human form.

 

[Hussar]

You should probably avoid inflicting lycanthropy on your PCs unless you're going to take control of them when they change shape--and realize that, even though wereravens are good aligned, it's still a curse and a newly-infected wereraven should act bestially violent and probably suffer as well even when in human form.

There’s nothing in the description of the monster that even hints at that.

And there’s pretty much zero chance of me ever npc’ ing a PC. That’s just not going to happen, like, ever. I don’t even do that for mind control.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Shifters just seem like too much of a half-measure to me. And as an aside, I'm impressed by your story of players who want PC choices that are fair to other PCs. Not my player experience (or my human experience, really)

To be clear, I think most* every player would secretly love to have their favorite thematic character choice (race, class, weapon of choice, etc.) have been the winner of the pack in the design lottery**. At the same time, I think most gamers recognize that it is unlikely that an unfair game will serendipitously consistently favor their preferences, and a game that is fairly even-handed is better than one were picking something else is far and away a more optimal strategy.
*and most of the exceptions are because they don't want to be seen as coddled/needing a leg up to succeed (although I don't want to suggest people having opinions based on genuine principles are rare, either).
**example: I've always had a fondness for half-elves, halberds, and paladins. Coming into 5e and finding out that all three of these ended up being awesome selections was kinda nice... excepting that now if I take them I wonder if people think I am just power-gaming.

Shifters are a half-measure at least in that they are a half-measure to the werecreatures we actually get in D&D (which, a the OP mentions and with which I agree, are powerful enough to potentially imbalance a group). If they were powered up to be one of the more optimal race choices (but still in the general power level of character-creation race choices), I think they would be a reasonable option for a native-born lycanthrope.

For curse-based lycanthrope, maybe it would help to have abilities which increase as character level increased. Non-silvered weapon immunity is huge at L1, by tier 2 or 3, it is a nice little perk.

There’s nothing in the description of the monster that even hints at that.

And there’s pretty much zero chance of me ever npc’ ing a PC. That’s just not going to happen, like, ever. I don’t even do that for mind control.

Taking away player agency is tricky at best. Confusion or other 'this combat round instead of what you want to do, you do ______' effects, I am all on board. For Charm or Dominate or the like, I ask the players to play their PCs as if they are under mind control. It has not yet happened that someone fails to play them at least similar to how they would act if I had taken them over. If it did, I don't know... probably just 'c'mon, your character is mind controlled. That enchanter is now a good friend.'

 

[dave2008]

I'm not saying it can't be done in different ways. I do hate re-skinning though. It feels like a game design crutch.

You have quite a few issues with homebrewing don't you? I just feel that type of creativity is the heart of what makes D&D great. If your're just using the books as written your're not playing D&D IMO!