Acquired Template question: Weretiger Druid

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

The party druid got cursed with lycanthropy, and is now an infected
weretiger. Not the worst of things, since weretigers are Neutral, but
we seem to have run into some trouble.

At first we thought that this meant he had acquired a +2 LA, but further
investigation seems to reveal that it is actually much more problematic
than this.

If I am reading right, our druid has acquired a +2 LA for being an
infected lycanthrope, and has also gained a number of levels of Animal,
equal to the hit dice of a tiger. In this case, 6.

My question is this. What happens to the druid's effective character
level? He was 8th level when infected. Obviously, the +2 LA is
applied, making him ECL 10. But what of those 6 "levels" of Animal?

Do they each count as an additional level, bringing the druid's ECL to
16? This makes some degree of sense, since a monstrous character like
an ogre with "levels" of giant has those levels factor into its ECL on a
1:1 ratio.

Do they count as less than a character level, since levels in Animal are
inferior to PC class levels?

Does the druid lose levels of druid to keep him in line with the party?
If the animal levels count as character levels, and they add to the +2
LA for the infected lycanthrope template, this means the character would
lose ALL druid levels (and might be able to slowly regain them through
adventuring).

Does the druid retain his 8 druid levels, and become a character with
ECL 16? Does this mean he cannot be in the party anymore, even though
his alignment, etc. would work with the party?

What happens?

- Ron ^*^
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat wrote:
> The party druid got cursed with lycanthropy, and is now an infected
> weretiger. Not the worst of things, since weretigers are Neutral,
but
> we seem to have run into some trouble.
>
> At first we thought that this meant he had acquired a +2 LA, but
further
> investigation seems to reveal that it is actually much more
problematic
> than this.
>
> If I am reading right, our druid has acquired a +2 LA for being an
> infected lycanthrope, and has also gained a number of levels of
Animal,
> equal to the hit dice of a tiger. In this case, 6.
>
> My question is this. What happens to the druid's effective character

> level? He was 8th level when infected. Obviously, the +2 LA is
> applied, making him ECL 10. But what of those 6 "levels" of Animal?
>
> Do they each count as an additional level, bringing the druid's ECL
to
> 16? This makes some degree of sense, since a monstrous character
like
> an ogre with "levels" of giant has those levels factor into its ECL
on a
> 1:1 ratio.
>
> Do they count as less than a character level, since levels in Animal
are
> inferior to PC class levels?

>From the SRD:
"Level Adjustment: Same as the base creature +2 (afflicted) or +3
(natural). In addition, a lycanthrope's character level is increased
by the number of racial Hit Dice the base animal has."

So yes, the druid's ECL is now 16.

> Does the druid lose levels of druid to keep him in line with the
party?
> If the animal levels count as character levels, and they add to the
+2
> LA for the infected lycanthrope template, this means the character
would
> lose ALL druid levels (and might be able to slowly regain them
through
> adventuring).

Not by the book, and although I think this would be an interesting
solution if the player and GM agreed on it, I can't think of a good
rationale for losing the PC class levels. It's not as though
lycanthropy removes the experience from which the character gained
druid levels.

> Does the druid retain his 8 druid levels, and become a character with

> ECL 16? Does this mean he cannot be in the party anymore, even
though
> his alignment, etc. would work with the party?
>
> What happens?

I think the party puts a lot of effort into finding a cure for the
lycanthropy. Or the druid leaves the party. Or the GM gets really
amazingly creative and designs tailors the adventure in such a way that
the other party members are still viable alongside their ECL 16
comrade. Or you say the heck with the rules and give the afflicted
character only a limited amount of the benefits of lycanthropy (no
animal HD, for ex.) so that only the LA +2 applies to him.

Or I get trolled by Ron. :)

--Iss
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat wrote:

> Is it REALLY too many levels for what it gets?
>
> I haven't done the math, exactly, but what would a 12th level human
> ranger look like compared to a 3rd level werebear ranger? Consider
that
> the werebear gets 3 natural weapon attacks per round in hybrid form,
10'
> reach, scent, +7 natural AC, DR 10/silver, +16(!) Str, +2 Dex, and +8
Con.

If I build a character with Werebear Ranger in mind it is probably
worth the LA. But the designers objective was to never have the
LA race be much better than the core races, so it won't be
too great.

The problem is adding the werebear to an existing full caster as
a sudden involuntary multiclass makes him almost unplayable.

The synergies are all wrong. And multiclassing is all about
synergies. Maybe after he advances a couple of levels he can
fix it with a prestige class or some new feats. But right now
the character is screwed and unlikely to live long enough to
advance.

DougL
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Johnston wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 23:28:41 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
> <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:

>> What he has *read* - which is what we all have - is that the monsters
>>are defined for the game according to their perception in the culture that
>>originally produced them -

Ah, but which culture "originally produced" them?

For some lycanthropes this is relatively easy to answer, but for others
(those with no myths in the real world) it is difficult because we are
creating them whole cloth.

- Ron ^*^
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:42222f01.115056069@news.telusplanet.net...
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 02:48:39 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
> >> And if you had actually pointed out why it was wrong with your first
> >> response you would have looked clever, or at least knowledgeable.
> >
> > I did,
>
> Memory problems? Alzheimers, perhaps?

So, tell us, bitch. Do you really think you're fooling anyone by
snipping out the bulk of a person's comments and pretending they weren't
made?

-Michael
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <6DuUd.34035$755.3527@lakeread05>,
Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote:
>David Johnston wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 23:28:41 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
>> <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> What he has *read* - which is what we all have - is that the monsters
>>>are defined for the game according to their perception in the culture that
>>>originally produced them -
>
>Ah, but which culture "originally produced" them?
>
>For some lycanthropes this is relatively easy to answer, but for others
>(those with no myths in the real world) it is difficult because we are
>creating them whole cloth.

Then it's the cultural perception of the author of the MM entry.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <NzuUd.34034$755.4521@lakeread05>,
Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote:
>Ordinarily I would agree with you wholeheartedly, and even in this odd
>case I tend to side with your belief. I'm just saying that depending on
>how far the DM chose to run with the concept of local societal
>perceptions influencing lycanthropic alignment, the argument *could* be
>made that a werecreature from an area that considers its animal
>phenotype to be "evil" might have a shift in alignment if brought into
>an area where the animal phenotype in generally thought of as "good".
>Why? The same magical force that influences him to shift in alignment
>to match the alignment tendency of the creature in myth and folklore
>from the first culture.

I think the book meant the societal perceptions of the *real-world* culture
that originated the myth. Not game world.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:19:24 -0500, Werebat wrote:
> Of course a werebat on a ship to Kara-Tur wouldn't change alignment
> somewhere along the way -- that's silly. Or is it? I mean if the
> alignment comes from some mystical connection of the perception most
> people have of the animal in question -- it COULD happen.

That would be a strange campaign, but maybe interesting.
Ship your werwolves to Kara-Tur for a change of perspective.

> I guess the
> question is -- WHY do lycanthropes have alignments in line with what
> most people in the area think of their animal sides?

Maybe people think wolves are evil, because of the werewolves?
Which would answer half of the question. Why do lycans have those
alignments? In some mythologies the gods have 'holy animals'.
If lycanthropy is a gift or curse of some gods, the alignment
could match the god's alignment.

LL
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:35:34 -0500, Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net>
wrote:

>Ordinarily I would agree with you wholeheartedly, and even in this odd
>case I tend to side with your belief. I'm just saying that depending on
>how far the DM chose to run with the concept of local societal
>perceptions influencing lycanthropic alignment, the argument *could* be
>made that a werecreature from an area that considers its animal
>phenotype to be "evil" might have a shift in alignment if brought into
>an area where the animal phenotype in generally thought of as "good".
>Why? The same magical force that influences him to shift in alignment
>to match the alignment tendency of the creature in myth and folklore
>from the first culture.
>
>It's not how I'd personally run it, but it is a possibility.
>

I don't think it's an acceptable one though. The question really
arises of where lycanthropy comes from in the first place.
Historically, lycanthropy is the mythology arising out of all those
people who used to wear animal skins to magically put off their
identity and identify with what they thought those animals to be.
Something like that, only actually working in a world with real
magic could start the "curse" and set it's mental characteristics.
After that it would continue onward into your descendants and people
they infected with their magic regardless of how society's views of
the animal question changed from time to time and place to place.
Of course having werecreatures around would tend to change how people
viewed their respective animals. If werewolves are stealing and
eating babies all over the place, you're going to lose the love for
regular wolves even if there was some in the first place.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Out from under a rock popped Werebat and said

> Ha ha ha! You're an irascible old devil, Michael.

Nice one Ron. You got the Dims fighting each other rather than flinging
poo at bystanders. You've probably got Michael drooling all over his
annotated core rule books.

--
Rob Singers
"All your Ron are belong to us"
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:37:49 +1300, Robert Singers wrote:

> Out from under a rock popped Werebat and said
>
>> Ha ha ha! You're an irascible old devil, Michael.
>
> Nice one Ron. You got the Dims fighting each other rather than flinging
> poo at bystanders. You've probably got Michael drooling all over his
> annotated core rule books.

You mean, more than usual?
Ewww.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Out from under a rock popped Lorenz Lang and said

>> Nice one Ron. You got the Dims fighting each other rather than
>> flinging poo at bystanders. You've probably got Michael drooling all
>> over his annotated core rule books.
>
> You mean, more than usual?
> Ewww.
>

Well he wouldn't want to obscure where he's corrected it would he.

--
Rob Singers
"All your Ron are belong to us"
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
news:eek:FuUd.34037$755.10740@lakeread05...
> > Ie; DR 5 against *almost every monster and NPC in the game*. Silver
> > weapons aren't that common.
>
> Oh I recognize that -- it's just that after a certain level the damage
> you'll be taking from physical attacks makes those 5 points per hit
> pretty paltry.

That logic suggests that we shouldn't care about hit dice, either.

-Michael
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Johnston wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:35:34 -0500, Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Ordinarily I would agree with you wholeheartedly, and even in this odd
>>case I tend to side with your belief. I'm just saying that depending on
>>how far the DM chose to run with the concept of local societal
>>perceptions influencing lycanthropic alignment, the argument *could* be
>>made that a werecreature from an area that considers its animal
>>phenotype to be "evil" might have a shift in alignment if brought into
>>an area where the animal phenotype in generally thought of as "good".
>>Why? The same magical force that influences him to shift in alignment
>>to match the alignment tendency of the creature in myth and folklore
>
>>from the first culture.
>
>>It's not how I'd personally run it, but it is a possibility.
>>
>
>
> I don't think it's an acceptable one though. The question really
> arises of where lycanthropy comes from in the first place.
> Historically, lycanthropy is the mythology arising out of all those
> people who used to wear animal skins to magically put off their
> identity and identify with what they thought those animals to be.
> Something like that, only actually working in a world with real
> magic could start the "curse" and set it's mental characteristics.
> After that it would continue onward into your descendants and people
> they infected with their magic regardless of how society's views of
> the animal question changed from time to time and place to place.
> Of course having werecreatures around would tend to change how people
> viewed their respective animals. If werewolves are stealing and
> eating babies all over the place, you're going to lose the love for
> regular wolves even if there was some in the first place.

OK, but what if someone on the other side of the world in a different
culture with different views of different animals pulled the same stunt?
Culture X has "good" bears and "evil" snakes, so the first werebears
and weresnakes from there were "good" and "evil". Culture Y is the
other way around. Wouldn't the alignments of their first lycanthropes
be reversed?

The whole thing is pretty problematic. I know the REAL reason why they
made the alignments absolute, which is that they wanted to justify why
infected lycanthropes keep gravitating to one alignment or another...
It's just that their reasoning causes problems in a world with more than
one culture.

- Ron ^*^
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Michael Scott Brown wrote:

> "Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:eek:FuUd.34037$755.10740@lakeread05...
>
>>> Ie; DR 5 against *almost every monster and NPC in the game*. Silver
>>>weapons aren't that common.
>>
>>Oh I recognize that -- it's just that after a certain level the damage
>>you'll be taking from physical attacks makes those 5 points per hit
>>pretty paltry.
>
>
> That logic suggests that we shouldn't care about hit dice, either.

Beyond a certain point, you don't.

- Ron ^*^
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 01:04:59 -0500, Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net>
wrote:


>
>I never said that the rules specifically stated this, I only suggested
>it as a possible interpretation -- and not even one that I would use.
>OTOH, I disagree with the "always" descriptor for lycanthropic
>alignment. Personally I think it might have been better to stick with
>"usually" and then give infected lycanthropes a sort of "rabid madness".
> Otherwise you get silliness like werebears kidnapping evildoers and
>infecting them with Lawful Goodness. Peh.

My preference was to assume that if you had an alignment in conflict
with the kind of theriomorph that you are, you'd get a split
personality. A werewolf would be able to detect as good in the day
and be himself oblivious to the way she turns into an evil ravening
monster on full moons, or whatever other cycle they follow. Thats
assuming I bothered with infectious therianthropy.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 00:44:24 -0500, Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net>
wrote:

>
>
>David Johnston wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:35:34 -0500, Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ordinarily I would agree with you wholeheartedly, and even in this odd
>>>case I tend to side with your belief. I'm just saying that depending on
>>>how far the DM chose to run with the concept of local societal
>>>perceptions influencing lycanthropic alignment, the argument *could* be
>>>made that a werecreature from an area that considers its animal
>>>phenotype to be "evil" might have a shift in alignment if brought into
>>>an area where the animal phenotype in generally thought of as "good".
>>>Why? The same magical force that influences him to shift in alignment
>>>to match the alignment tendency of the creature in myth and folklore
>>
>>>from the first culture.
>>
>>>It's not how I'd personally run it, but it is a possibility.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I don't think it's an acceptable one though. The question really
>> arises of where lycanthropy comes from in the first place.
>> Historically, lycanthropy is the mythology arising out of all those
>> people who used to wear animal skins to magically put off their
>> identity and identify with what they thought those animals to be.
>> Something like that, only actually working in a world with real
>> magic could start the "curse" and set it's mental characteristics.
>> After that it would continue onward into your descendants and people
>> they infected with their magic regardless of how society's views of
>> the animal question changed from time to time and place to place.
>> Of course having werecreatures around would tend to change how people
>> viewed their respective animals. If werewolves are stealing and
>> eating babies all over the place, you're going to lose the love for
>> regular wolves even if there was some in the first place.
>
>OK, but what if someone on the other side of the world in a different
>culture with different views of different animals pulled the same stunt?

Then they'd be a different kind of monster. You might call them a
wolfrunner, or have an evil bear monster known as a berserker.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <5jTUd.29002$SF.6300@lakeread08>,
Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote:
>OK, but what if someone on the other side of the world in a different
>culture with different views of different animals pulled the same stunt?
> Culture X has "good" bears and "evil" snakes, so the first werebears
>and weresnakes from there were "good" and "evil". Culture Y is the
>other way around. Wouldn't the alignments of their first lycanthropes
>be reversed?

I already said this once, but maybe you missed it: The reference to the
"originating culture" is the culture where the legends used by the writer of
the MM entry came from. Real world cultures, not game world cultures. Had
the MM entry author come from (or chose to use) culture Y instead of X, the MM
would read differently.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <4223c8c7.34562336@news.telusplanet.net>,
rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote:

> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 01:04:59 -0500, Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >I never said that the rules specifically stated this, I only suggested
> >it as a possible interpretation -- and not even one that I would use.
> >OTOH, I disagree with the "always" descriptor for lycanthropic
> >alignment. Personally I think it might have been better to stick with
> >"usually" and then give infected lycanthropes a sort of "rabid madness".
> > Otherwise you get silliness like werebears kidnapping evildoers and
> >infecting them with Lawful Goodness. Peh.
>
> My preference was to assume that if you had an alignment in conflict
> with the kind of theriomorph that you are, you'd get a split
> personality. A werewolf would be able to detect as good in the day
> and be himself oblivious to the way she turns into an evil ravening
> monster on full moons, or whatever other cycle they follow. Thats
> assuming I bothered with infectious therianthropy.

There could me an amusing one-off adventure as the evil minions of an
evil overlord stalk a werebeast that is a normal (evil) person by day,
but by night stalks the streets helping people and being nice to them.

Can they stop the werebeast, before it turns the whole city into
friendly bears?

Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Kevin Lowe wrote:

> In article <4223c8c7.34562336@news.telusplanet.net>,
> rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 01:04:59 -0500, Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I never said that the rules specifically stated this, I only suggested
>>>it as a possible interpretation -- and not even one that I would use.
>>>OTOH, I disagree with the "always" descriptor for lycanthropic
>>>alignment. Personally I think it might have been better to stick with
>>>"usually" and then give infected lycanthropes a sort of "rabid madness".
>>> Otherwise you get silliness like werebears kidnapping evildoers and
>>>infecting them with Lawful Goodness. Peh.
>>
>>My preference was to assume that if you had an alignment in conflict
>>with the kind of theriomorph that you are, you'd get a split
>>personality. A werewolf would be able to detect as good in the day
>>and be himself oblivious to the way she turns into an evil ravening
>>monster on full moons, or whatever other cycle they follow. Thats
>>assuming I bothered with infectious therianthropy.
>
>
> There could me an amusing one-off adventure as the evil minions of an
> evil overlord stalk a werebeast that is a normal (evil) person by day,
> but by night stalks the streets helping people and being nice to them.
>
> Can they stop the werebeast, before it turns the whole city into
> friendly bears?

With cute pictures on their tummies?

The horror, the horror...

- Ron ^*^
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
news:seiVd.24922$7z6.15975@lakeread04...
>
>
> Kevin Lowe wrote:
>
> > In article <4223c8c7.34562336@news.telusplanet.net>,
> > rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 01:04:59 -0500, Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>I never said that the rules specifically stated this, I only
suggested
> >>>it as a possible interpretation -- and not even one that I would use.
> >>>OTOH, I disagree with the "always" descriptor for lycanthropic
> >>>alignment. Personally I think it might have been better to stick
with
> >>>"usually" and then give infected lycanthropes a sort of "rabid
madness".
> >>> Otherwise you get silliness like werebears kidnapping evildoers and
> >>>infecting them with Lawful Goodness. Peh.
> >>
> >>My preference was to assume that if you had an alignment in conflict
> >>with the kind of theriomorph that you are, you'd get a split
> >>personality. A werewolf would be able to detect as good in the day
> >>and be himself oblivious to the way she turns into an evil ravening
> >>monster on full moons, or whatever other cycle they follow. Thats
> >>assuming I bothered with infectious therianthropy.
> >
> >
> > There could me an amusing one-off adventure as the evil minions of an
> > evil overlord stalk a werebeast that is a normal (evil) person by day,
> > but by night stalks the streets helping people and being nice to them.
> >
> > Can they stop the werebeast, before it turns the whole city into
> > friendly bears?
>
> With cute pictures on their tummies?
>
> The horror, the horror...

"Are you a care bear?"

"Not quite, I'm an intensive care bear."
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat wrote:

>
>
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>
>> "Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:eek:FuUd.34037$755.10740@lakeread05...
>>
>>>> Ie; DR 5 against *almost every monster and NPC in the game*. Silver
>>>> weapons aren't that common.
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh I recognize that -- it's just that after a certain level the damage
>>> you'll be taking from physical attacks makes those 5 points per hit
>>> pretty paltry.
>>
>>
>>
>> That logic suggests that we shouldn't care about hit dice, either.
>
>
> Beyond a certain point, you don't.
>
> - Ron ^*^

I'll take your lack of a reply to be a complete, unconditional admission
that everything I have said so far is true. Thank you, Michael.

- Ron ^*^
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9IvUd.7345$MY6.5630@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote:

>> Werebears are evil now? Why not just step aside and leave this
>> discussion to people who actually know the game rules, Michael. :^)
>
> Find me a legend of a werebear, and you might have a point.

The Hobbit. That seems to be the source that was originally used.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Malachias Invictus wrote:
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:9IvUd.7345$MY6.5630@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > "Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> Werebears are evil now? Why not just step aside and leave this
> >> discussion to people who actually know the game rules, Michael.
:^)
> >
> > Find me a legend of a werebear, and you might have a point.
>
> The Hobbit. That seems to be the source that was originally used.

Tolkien would certainly have been aware of some Norse Berserker's
supposed ability to actually turn into a bear. But this bears
little resemblance to Beorn's ability to turn into a bear, which
bears little resemblance to the D&D3.x werebear (Beorn was
probably charotic good or chaotic neutral, the Berserkers are
normally seen as evil, and none of them are infectious).

DougL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom