|
Author
|
Comment
|
Kylearanon
Here for a while
(4/4/03 1:29 am)
Reply
|
D'Gran big bad evil guy ? Why ?
Hi there,
since I lurk around this board I have read often about D'Gran-Stories and he sounded like a real freak.
Now, for the first time, I really read through his stats and I came up thinking 'So what?'. I can´t really see why this guy is so bad or particularly powerful. His 43 hit points will be gone in mere seconds .. 2 rounds at max. Okay ... resistances are nice but by the time my group will be there, they are not unbeatable.And his regeneration won´t help him against a 2 fighters who do 30+ damage per round.
So can anybody pull me in on this? How do I play D'Gran and make him the ripper I´ve heard of so much ?
Cheers
Kyle
|
madfox
Still here? Wow.
(4/4/03 1:31 am)
Reply
|
Re: D'Gran big bad evil guy ? Why ?
He can cast invisibility at will, which he can cast at everybody in the bridge complex. He has got a relatively high spell resistance, which is always nasty and a cone of cold really hurts. Above all, his resistances against acid and fire make it a bit difficult to kill him permanently.
|
Trithereon
Here quite a while
(4/4/03 3:38 am)
Reply
|
Re: D'Gran big bad evil guy ? Why ?
D'gran has survived both his initial and second encounter with my PCs. The combination of invisibility, fly and gaseous form has served him well ... so far.
I know D'gran has those big clumsy bat wings, but because he's an ogre magi he can cast the fly spell at will which improves both his speed and manuverability. When you combine his flight manuverability (hover) and his extended reach (10 ft) he can melee with flightless warriors with near impunity. A ranged feat focused archer can be his biggest bane, as well as purge invisibility and tanglefoot bags (which he can escape from with gaseous form but only if he succeeds at the Concentration check to cast it). D'gran is a slippery little fellow, but the right combination of attack can bring him down quickly.
Keeping him down, as madfox has pointed out, is another problem.
|
Kylearanon
Here for a while
(4/4/03 4:26 am)
Reply
|
Re: D'Gran big bad evil guy ? Why ?
Ah, well, I see your points.
BUT ... I can´t find anything in his description about fly (the spell) at will.
And another question about killing him. Would it kill him if the players dropped him and then burned him at a stake ? Does that beat fire resistance 20 ? I mean, he´s not immune after all.
Thanks, anyway ... feeling a bit better about him now  !
Kyle
|
Trithereon
Here quite a while
(4/4/03 4:35 am)
Reply
|
Re: D'Gran big bad evil guy ? Why ?
I don't recall if "fly at will" is in the appendix description of D'gran but he IS a ogre magi and therefore IMC he does. Your ruling may vary.
I don't know if there are any hard and fast rules for fire damage per round for being burned at the stake ... but if it doesn't do 20 points of damage per round then I'd say that D'gran smiles at their pathetic attempt to destroy him.
I think it is in the description of the ogre magi in the MM, but if you decapitate D'gran and keep his head separate from his body for at least 10 minutes then he dies. Also, you could tie him up and toss him in the Stalagos ... D'gran might not burn easily but he can drown! Don't forget his gaseous form as it gets him out of many sticky situations ... too bad he can only attempt it once per day.
|
Cordo Crowfoot
Here to stay
(4/4/03 4:57 am)
Reply
|
Re: D'Gran big bad evil guy ? Why ?
It's not "fly at will". It's inherent fly ability. See the MM - fly 40' at good maneuverability. That means that D'Gran can hover. Since he has a reach of 10', D'Gran should basically NEVER hover down into melee range, he should be 10' above the floor at all times. That makes it much harder to deal melee damage to him for obvious reasons, but he can still strike out with his greatsword.
With his high elemental resistances and SR, it is hard to hurt him with spells.
Also, with invisibility at will, gaseous form, and polymorph self, it is fairly easy for D'Gran to escape if things start to go poorly. And he only needs 20 rounds to heal back up to full.
Also, with his invisibility, it is quite likely that he will be able to catch the majority of the party in a cone of cold, for 9d6 damage as his first move each time he is encountered.
Finally, if you read the errata you will see that he is missing a feat. The errata recommends Combat Reflexes. That's a decent choice because he can hover 10' in the air and threaten a 15' x 15' area. Other feats to think about are blind-fight (goes well with his darkness at-will ability, this is what I went with) or flyby attack.
"They were immediately and absolutely recognizable as adventurers. They were hardy and dangerous, lawless, stripped of allegiance or morality, living off their wits, stealing and killing, hiring themselves out to whoever and whatever came... They were scum who died violent deaths, hanging on to a certain cachet among the impressionable through their undeniable bravery and their occasionally impressive exploits" China Mieville, Perdido Street Station Edited by: Cordo Crowfoot at: 4/4/03 4:58:50 am
|
Andorax
Still here? Wow.
(4/4/03 7:11 am)
Reply
|
Re: D'Gran big bad evil guy ? Why ?
I would have to agree that "burning at the stake" isn't going to get the job done. It's exceedingly rare that you see mundane fire anywhere short of the Elemental Plane of Fire doing that kind of damage. Best solution is a decapitation and putting it out of reach (if the party just decapitates him and doesn't sit on the body, it WILL get up and go in search of it's head).
The main things that make him deadly are the flight and invisibility, as mentioned.
You mention him not standing up long against the tank fighters. If he's facing them, he's already blown it. He should come up behind the party while they're engaged with Trolls, Gnolls, or even the Giants, and should be blasting away at rear-guard and smacking down mages.
Feel free to open with Cone of Cold from behind, follow it up with an Unholy Blight, then bugger off, go invis, and sneak up on them again later.
And while it's technically *legal* by the rules, I do NOT recommend allowing his "invisibilty at will" to apply to others. It really does imballance things when he can simply go 'round making trolls and giants invisible all the live-long day. Heck, he can do that WHILE invisible and flying near the roof, and need not come visible himself at all if you allow that. Imagine how hard it would be to take down the Hill Giant(s) if D'Gran holds action until after the giant, turning him invisible right after each of his attacks!
Not a good thing. Too easily DM-abused.
"Whadda ya mean, Orcs get levels too?!?" |
 Infiniti2000
Still here? Wow.
(4/4/03 8:03 am)
Reply
ezSupporter
|
Re: D'Gran big bad evil guy ? Why ?
Andorax, that is one nasty tactic. Love it! That would definitely make the encounter much more difficult. I'm not sure I would categorize it as abuse, though, because I know my group would think of it. After all, a simple invisibility purge would eliminate the tactic.
|
deafdungeonmasterRIT
Here to stay
(4/4/03 9:40 am)
Reply
|
Hmm
And.. do you REALLY believe that D'Gran would share invisiblity with anyone else? He is a vain vain creature.
|
Cordo Crowfoot
Here to stay
(4/4/03 8:17 pm)
Reply
|
Unholy Blight
Remeber with Unholy Blight that D'Gran must have good reason to suspect that the PCs are good before it is worthwhile for him to use it. It will have very little effect on most CRM inhabitants, evil as they are, so D'Gran is probably not in the habit of using it at all.
IMC he thought they were hired by another temple and assumed they were evil, so only got around to trying this out on the fourth assualt on the Fire Bridge Complex.
|
Caedrel
Here for a while
(4/7/03 11:33 pm)
Reply
|
Re: D'Gran
Ouch, my party just took down D'Gran on the weekend (after a big exciting battle), but I forgot about his fire resistance making him immune to burning - it's not too bad, though, as they were definitely hacking off his head and kicking it down the hall...
I just thought I'd revive this thread by mentioning one tactic I did use against those pesky archer types - IMC, D'Gran lurked around invisibly watching the battle for a while before acting. After seeing the Order of the Bow Initiate carve up lots of the opponents (I really needs to review that prestige class!), he came up to her and attacked her bow, casting darkness on it. He then turned invisible again and left the darkness...
A few rounds later, she resorted to throwing away her mighty composite longbow+2 (Str +2) and borrowing someone else's longbow...
It was one of the more satisfying moments in my DMing career
|
Siobharek 
Still here? Wow.
(4/8/03 2:38 am)
Reply
|
Re: D'Gran
But... Since her bow was in her possession at the time, didn't it get a save as if the darkness spell had been cast on her? I just ask because it would be a very compelling tactic to use later on.
But I understand the joy you felt when the bow got the boot. My archer has a +1 holy mighty (+3) composite longbow. With GMW from his 11th level buddy who uses a bead of karma, so it's +5.
Ouch.
Siobharek
...it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing. |
madfox
Still here? Wow.
(4/8/03 6:24 am)
Reply
|
Re: D'Gran
Yep, she would get a saving throw against the effect and it would constitute as an attack. Of course, you could cast the darkness on a stone and ask one of the gnolls to stay close to the archer. In fact, I just realized one great use for a bat familiar 
Madfox,
whoes PC was a victim of this tactic last thursday when one ghoul caused the whole party to stay out of the conflict for four rounds before we even realized something was following us with the darkness... then again, he had the luck we were too afraid to split up
|
Caedrel
Here for a while
(4/8/03 6:23 pm)
Reply
|
Re: Darkness
Um, I didn't think that darkness allowed a saving throw.
I know about objects in hand getting a saving throw when unattended objects don't, but isn't that normally listed in the spell description? eg. shatter has the line "Saving throw: Will negates (object)", whereas darkness says "Saving Throw: None".
Also, as the spell can only be targeted on an object touched (not a creature!) the caster would have to make a touch attack against an object in the creature's possession - this would allow the creature an attack of opportunity (unless the caster had the Sunder feat).
I did think this was an attack, so D'Gran dropped out of invisibility, but I also thought (being invisible) he wouldn't provoke the AoO...
I'd like to know if people think I got something wrong here... and if I should move this question over the D&D Rules forum at this point and ask over there...
Thanks!
|
ZansForCans 
Here for a while
(4/8/03 8:14 pm)
Reply
|
Re: Darkness
I think that's right per the RAW, Caedrel. That's a great tactic! The only iffy thing is when the invisibility kicks off for the AoO. I rule that it happens as a result of the action, so I'd agree with you that there's no AoO. I think there are/were some threads about this on the Rules board within the last month or so, if you want to hunt them down.
Group Editing & Authoring Support
flexible campaign management for the web
info :: demo |
Siobharek
Still here? Wow.
(4/8/03 11:44 pm)
Reply
|
Re: Darkness
I'd missed the bit about saving throw: none. That's a wicked tactic! In all fairness, I'd have to house rule a save, I think. Otherwise, my players would revolt.
Siobharek
...it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing. |
Infiniti2000
Still here? Wow.
(4/9/03 6:53 am)
Reply
ezSupporter
|
Re: Darkness
Caedrel, I agree with you. Siobharek, why would you houserule suddenly that darkness has a saving throw? It specifically says "No". Is there any reason why you think this is unfair? I think it is just a very clever tactic.
|
Siobharek
Still here? Wow.
(4/9/03 7:08 am)
Reply
|
Re: Darkness
I'd do it because otherwise darkness becomes a very, very powerful spell. What's to keep me from slapping a darkness spell on my opponent's armour, for instance?
Also, while I know that it says Save: None, I've read somewhere that attended objects should get a save. Why should the Big Bad Guys Wand get a save vs. disintegrate, but not vs. darkness?
It just seems wrong to me, but I'm open for arguments - the above are mine
Siobharek
...it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing. |
Rayal17
Looking around
(4/9/03 7:24 am)
Reply
|
Re: Darkness
I think that objects shouldn't get a save vs. Darkness, which is vastly different than Disintergrate. Disintergrate is an attack with the intent to damage or destroy an object. Darkness isn't. That's one argument against the save.
|
ZansForCans
Here for a while
(4/9/03 8:58 am)
Reply
|
Re: Darkness
{I'd do it because otherwise darkness becomes a very, very powerful spell. What's to keep me from slapping a darkness spell on my opponent's armour, for instance?}
Being smacked by being close to them, most likely. The touch attack isn't automatic and if you cast outside of the threatened area and then move in for the attack, you're going to end your turn right next to them. They know that and then only have the 50% miss chance to hit you with a full attack next round. If you instead cast next to them (and by starting that round next to them would have probably gotten attacked last round), touch, and move away, you get the AoO for casting and risk losing the spell. That's a pretty big tradeoff you have to make for any touch spell.
If you want a milder (IMHO) house ruling, add an AoO for the melee touch with a non-damaging spell. Unlike shocking grasp or inflict, I might rule that you're not armed here and subject to an AoO. The SRD doesn't support that division, but I think it's a better option than applying a save.
Group Editing & Authoring Support
flexible campaign management for the web
info :: demo |
Siobharek
Still here? Wow.
(4/9/03 10:47 am)
Reply
|
Re: Darkness
No, the touch attack isn't automatic, but in most cases, it's pretty darn close to being so. Especially if I'm a cleric casting the spell.
As to the AoO: I must admit I don't like th eidea of distinguishing between touch spells that treat the caster's touch as an armed attack and spells that don't. That would, I think, add a level of needless complication. And taking the chance with the full attack next turn: That 50% chance seems good enough to me!
However: I forgot that darkness is so easily removed (light spells, in addition to dispel magic). So as it then becomes a fairly weak attack spell, and I've decided that it won't get a save, after all.
Thanks for making me reconsider a ruling that would have been too harsh.
Siobharek
...it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing. |
Okay -- Your Turn
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies