Gold Community Okay -- Your Turn
    > Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil
        > 3.5: OF 28-50 (Prison, Ukemil, Varachan, Cornugon, and Drow)
New Topic    Add Reply

Page 1 2 3

<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
Author Comment
ZansForCans 
Cherub
(11/14/03 1:56 pm)
Reply
Tentacle Trap
Just getting started here...

Quote:
Another thing to note is that the touch attack to grab the target is made at +13 as the tentacles are treated as large.


My reading of the v3.5 spell is that the tentacles don't need the touch attack. They start with the grapple check to hold. I'm not sure why, but perhaps it's that they cover the area affected.


Group Editing & Authoring Support
flexible campaign management for the web
info :: demo

ZansForCans 
Cherub
(11/14/03 10:33 pm)
Reply
Vister
Added this to her comment box:

Quote:
In v3.5, Vister has the option to summon her mount once per day after being freed from the cell (it would be useless or in danger while she is imprisoned). If you don’t want to add this component to her, assume her mount died less than thirty days ago (say, when she was captured). She can then not summon a new one yet, but she takes a –1 penalty on attack and damage rolls. On the other hand, her summoned mount appears with the gear it had when it left last, which could include some minor equipment for her. This might make her slightly more useful as an NPC deep in the Outer Fane.


Group Editing & Authoring Support
flexible campaign management for the web
info :: demo

arcane12
Memunite
(11/16/03 12:04 pm)
Reply
Re: Vister
Nice call on the mount :)

I would have to disagree on the tentacles though. Here is a post from the 3.5 SRD:
Quote:

Every creature within the area of the spell must make a grapple check, opposed by the grapple check of the tentacles. Treat the tentacles attacking a particular target as a Large creature with a base attack bonus equal to your caster level and a Strength score of 19. Thus, its grapple check modifier is equal to your caster level +8. The tentacles are immune to all types of damage.

Once the tentacles grapple an opponent, they may make a grapple check each round on your turn to deal 1d6+4 points of bludgeoning damage. The tentacles continue to crush the opponent until the spell ends or the opponent escapes.
Any creature that enters the area of the spell is immediately attacked by the tentacles. Even creatures who aren’t grappling with the tentacles may move through the area at only half normal speed.



So by the wording on this I would say they get an attack when the spell is cast to grapple anyone in the area of effect - there is no real mention of the spell saying the creatures are automatically grappled. (the fluff at the start of the spell seems more like a desciption of how the spell works rather than an attempt to give an automatic grapple.)

Edited by: arcane12 at: 11/16/03 12:09 pm
ZansForCans 
Cherub
(11/16/03 8:49 pm)
Reply
Re: Tentacles
Well, I wasn't implying they were automatically grappled. Initiating a grapple requires an AoO, the grab (touch attack), the hold (grapple check), and then a maintain (move into square). The first and last are not relevant here, of course. The wording that you quoted (particularly the first line) suggested to me that the grab is not needed for the spell's effect since a defender only makes a grapple check if the grab (touch attack) succeeds.


Group Editing & Authoring Support
flexible campaign management for the web
info :: demo

arcane12
Memunite
(11/17/03 11:22 am)
Reply
Re: Tentacles
Hmm, you are right, it could be read that way, but it is a bit unclear (wow like that has never happened before in the 3.5 system :P ). I still am unsure as to the intent here... but I guess as final colator it is your call :) Maybe a note saying it could be either way? or posing the question in the magic section of this site?

---edit---
after a few more reads I thought yes you are right, then no - its hard to say. The spell mentions attacking anything that enters which would suggest making touch attacks (in does not mention haing improved grapple). However in the other paragraph it says you have to make grapple checks with no mention of the tentacles attempting to grab - it reads as assuming an automatic touch attack.

Personally this almost seems a bit harsh and I would run it as having to make a touch attack (basically you have summoned a large very strong invunerable fighter with as many attacks as opponents, that has a 1d6 crush attack!) At 20th level it can do up to 20d6+80 damage(edit: over the course of the spell duration - 20 rounds. Of course as there is no duration on the room it will last until the player escapes or dies). The touch attack would not throw things off too much as with the minimum of +10 should be almost automatic anyway ;) Hard call on this one I think, and any descision would also effect how this spell runs in a persons game. hmm....

---edit---
added in clarification of where damage comes from.

With a total bonus of +18 and no duration a rogue (with no escape artist) or a wizard would probably die before wriggling free without help. (after some quick math the Wizard has a 10% chance to get free before he is dead, and the rogue 15%) Actually come to think of it with +13 to touch attacks this would really only help a monk, and maybe the rogue. Still...

It is hard to choose. I will leave it to you. If you want I will edit my mention of touch attacks to reflect what has gone on here. It is hard to figure the intent as a grapple attack involves a touch attack, but it also talks specifically about making grapple checks rather than attacks (attack comes later). Perhaps a note metioning both ways it could be taken and let the GM decide?

Edited by: arcane12 at: 11/20/03 12:16 pm
ZansForCans 
Cherub
(11/17/03 1:21 pm)
Reply
Re: Tentacles
I'll definitely add a comment. I agree it could be much clearer one way or the other. We'll let the DM decide! :) Thanks for giving it some thought!

Edit: "At 20th level it can do up to 20d6+80 damage."

The way I read the 3.5 spell, it's only 1d6+4 per opponent. Since it's a "field" now, there's no scaling with level. The grapple is done by multiple tentacles in 3.5 (flavor really), but the damage is still only 1d6+4.

Edit #2: ::slaps forehead:: Duh (on duration). Got your meaning now. And yes, I did include the option and numbers for the touch attack in the conversion doc. Onward!


Group Editing & Authoring Support
flexible campaign management for the web
info :: demo

Edited by: ZansForCans  at: 11/20/03 1:01 pm
ZansForCans 
Cherub
(11/20/03 11:12 pm)
Reply
Ukemil
Ukemil has one skill point too many in the original 3.0 stat block, likely in Concentration (5 Clr ranks + 2 Con is what it should be). He also gets a few more skill points in v3.5 to be spent as a trog. I put 1 into Hide and 2 into Listen making them +16 and +11, respectively.

Random room comments:

OF 37: bumped the Ogre hp up 3 each due to Toughness (new in v3.5).

OF 40: changed protection from elements to protection from energy not endure elements.


Group Editing & Authoring Support
flexible campaign management for the web
info :: demo

Edited by: ZansForCans  at: 11/20/03 11:22 pm
ZansForCans 
Cherub
(11/21/03 1:33 pm)
Reply
Varachan
It looks like Varachan is missing skill points in the original, but someone might want to double check for me. I think he should have 60 spent. Here's my take on his block:

Quote:
Varachan: Male human (ex-)Clr12; CR 12; Medium humanoid (human); HD 12d8+24; hp 80; Init +4; Spd 20 ft.; AC 21, touch 10, flat-footed 21; Base Atk +9; Grp +10; Atk +11 melee (1d8+1, masterwork heavy mace) or +9 ranged (1d8/19-20, light crossbow); Full Atk +11/+6 melee (1d8+1, masterwork heavy mace) or +9 ranged (1d8/19-20, light crossbow); AL NG; SV Fort +11, Ref +7, Will +12; Str 13, Dex 10, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 17, Cha 14.

Skills and Feats: Bluff +9, Concentration +17, Diplomacy +4, Intimidate +4, Knowledge (arcana) +16, Knowledge (religion) +16, Spellcraft +3; Brew Potion, Craft Wand, Improved Initiative, Lightning Reflexes, Scribe Scroll, Still Spell.

Spells Prepared: None currently.
Deity: None (formerly Tharizdun).

Possessions: +1 full plate armor, cloak of resistance +1, wand of cure light wounds (15 charges), wand of silence (42 charges), potion of neutralize poison, divine scroll of true seeing, summon monster III, and flame strike, masterwork heavy mace, heavy steel shield, light crossbow, 10 bolts, iron key (opens chest in area 41 of the Outer Fane).

Varachan has 1 missing skill point. Assumed to be cross classed into bluff to make for 7.5 ranks.

His turning ability has been removed, and probably should not have been there in the original since an ex-Cleric looses all class features until he atones or successfully switches deities (or commits to two domains). He can not presently use his wands or scrolls since he has no spell casting ability.

neutralize poison has the new ability to protect from poison in v3.5. A potion of it has a duration of 50 minutes (CL 5th).



Group Editing & Authoring Support
flexible campaign management for the web
info :: demo

Edited by: ZansForCans  at: 11/23/03 10:14 pm
arcane12
Memunite
(11/21/03 5:53 pm)
Reply
Re: Varachan
Yup you are right. I missed the +2 knowledge:arcana synergy. Darn 3.5! I think I only became aware of that a few weeks ago. I will have to check Dirass and others too :/

---edit---
Here's my breakdown of skill points for Ukemil:

Stats: Str 12 +1, Dex 18 +4, Con 14 +2, Int 11, Wis 16 +3 (14 +2), Cha 14 +2
Skills: Trog 10, Cleric 10, Rogue 32.

Stat+Trog Ranks+Clr Ranks+Rog Ranks+Bonus=Skill name +total bonus

2+0+0+4+0=Bluff +6
1+0+0+1+5=Climb +7
2+0+5+1+0=Concentration +8
0+0+0+4+0=Disable device +4
4+5+0+2+4=Hide +15
1+0+0+1+5=Jump +7
0+0+0+0+0=Knowledge(religion) +5
2+5+5+2+0=Listen +9
4+0+0+4+5=Move silently +13
0+0+0+4+0=Search +4
2+0+0+4+0=Spot +6
2+0+0+3+0=Use Magic Device+5

Which gives 10 trog, 10 cleric, and 31 rogue. Concerntration is crossclass for a rogue, but the cleric did not have enough points to put it to the level it was supposed to be. Also remember that wisdom is 14 due to insanity. Finally I spent 1 point crossclass in concentration to keep the origional skill ranks.

Does all this gel?

Edited by: arcane12 at: 11/22/03 11:54 pm
ZansForCans 
Cherub
(11/21/03 9:56 pm)
Reply
Re: Dirass
Some of his elven/drow qualities were left out of the original block: immunity to sleep and both +2 save bonuses. And the synergy bonus for Spellcraft did look to be missing, but it's trivial (although the big fat +20 does make him look pretty studly ;) )

A random comment from your notes: the extra modifier points for Hide and Move Silently were indeed cross-class ranks. I got his skill points (v3.0-91) to come out exactly right with only the tweak to Con (i.e. unbuffed Dex). It's very strange though. The extra Fort/Concentration of +1 in the (original) main stat block would go with the +10 hp from endurance in the buffed bit of his block. But then they are both incremented again there. I think the Con adjustment is a good call to leave little doubt :)


Group Editing & Authoring Support
flexible campaign management for the web
info :: demo

ZansForCans 
Cherub
(11/21/03 10:19 pm)
Reply
Re: Maracla
Added elven/drow SA/SQ's again. Added the turn undead bonus to her block since she has the Knowledge (religion) ranks. Fixed typo in the Full Atk line (+8/+3).

Woah. OF 28-50 (Prison, Ukemil, Varachan, Cornugon, and Drow) has been added.


Group Editing & Authoring Support
flexible campaign management for the web
info :: demo

arcane12
Memunite
(11/23/03 12:42 am)
Reply
Ukemil and Varachan
Please see the above editted post on Ukemil.

Also : Varachan: He is fine as is. Bluff is cross class and therefore he has spent 7 of the 8 missing skill points there. Also I put the last one in bluff as a .5 bonus to keep close to the original stat block.

Have added in all the other suggestions you have made :)

In OF 37 should we leave the possibility of MW greatswords up to the DM or add it in and make a note? I would lean toward adding it as there is a lot of MW stuff floating around the ToAC.

---edit---
Just been going over the Tentacle trap. My original assumption of it being permanent may be flawed. Any comment on that? I think I based this off of the fact that it states a tentacle rod can be used to drive the tentacles back into the ground and there is no duration. Maybe we should use a duration of 10 rounds and treat it exactly like the spell? (it is caster level 10 as the attack bonus is 10) Once again it is hard to judge original intent. :/

Of course there is nothing stopping the glyph being recast :evil

Dirass: he has no spell book!! Want me to whip one up? He would be perfect for casting the tentacles with a cleric for the tentacle trap :)

Edited by: arcane12 at: 11/23/03 12:59 am
ZansForCans 
Cherub
(11/23/03 10:49 pm)
Reply
Re: Ukemil and Varachan
Varachan: Doh! Thanks for the catch.

Ukemil: I had assumed the extra rank in Concentration was a mistake since I didn't have enough Rog points then for the original 3.0 version. But yours is good for 3.5, so let's go with it. How about we throw that last Rog point into Listen for +10 total?

OF37: Going on the principle of least change, I think dropping the Atk one is best, but then again maybe 300 gp is pretty trivial at this stage. For now, I've left the comment in that they may have well been intended to be masterwork, though. Anyone else have leanings on this?

Tentacles: The plot thickens... your comment made me realize for the first time that this is a glyph with an arcane-only spell in it! The reading to me sounds more like a permanent effect, so maybe just the wording about the glyph should be removed.

Dirass: That would be great. I'd really like to push on to the IF, so if you would do that, I'd really appreciate it!


Group Editing & Authoring Support
flexible campaign management for the web
info :: demo

arcane12
Memunite
(11/24/03 6:55 pm)
Reply
Re: Ukemil and Varachan
OK, spellbook added. If you are interested I can give you a break down of why I chose what spells ;)

left over skill points: Ok. Doesn't worry me. :P

swords and glyphs: I will leave as is for now, and wha tis put in final can be the final say :)

ZansForCans 
Cherub
(11/24/03 9:37 pm)
Reply
Re: Ukemil and Varachan
Great! Thank you for doing that!


Group Editing & Authoring Support
flexible campaign management for the web
info :: demo

msherman
Kalkydrite
(11/27/03 12:10 pm)
Reply
Potions in Naquent's chamber
In the book, Naquent's chamber contained two Protection From Elements potions. In the conversion, they've been changed to Resist Energy. IMO, they should be Protection From Energy instead -- there's no real reason to reduce the effectiveness of these potions.

arcane12
Memunite
(11/27/03 1:51 pm)
Reply
Re: Potions in Naquent's chamber
Doh! *slaps forehead* You know after slaving over all the NPC's you think I could have got such a little detail right... Twice now I have stuffed it up ;)

ZansForCans 
Cherub
(11/27/03 8:30 pm)
Reply
Re: Potions in Naquent's chamber
Yup, missed that too. Thanks!


Group Editing & Authoring Support
flexible campaign management for the web
info :: demo

Infiniti2000
Cherub
(12/4/03 6:34 pm)
Reply
ezSupporter
Re: OF 30
Another errata: there should be 4 glyphs of warding. There are 3 chests and a wardrobe and the text says that all of them have the glyphs.

Siobharek!

Edit: Area 32. The text should read, "When something is placed in the right-hand circle..."

Edited by: Infiniti2000 at: 12/4/03 9:12 pm
ZansForCans 
Cherub
(12/9/03 9:05 pm)
Reply
Re: OF 30
Both in the doc now.


Group Editing & Authoring Support
flexible campaign management for the web
info :: demo

Page 1 2 3 << Prev Topic | Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Email This To a Friend Email This To a Friend
Topic Control Image Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies Click to receive email notification of replies
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies Click to stop receiving email notification of replies
jump to:

- Okay -- Your Turn - Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil - Home -



Powered By ezboard® Ver. 7.32
Copyright ©1999-2005 ezboard, Inc.