# Special Conversion Thread: Finishing off the oozes



## Shade (Apr 24, 2008)

By request, this special conversion thread will attempt to finish off the remaining oozes.

Here are the remaining creatures Echohawk has identified as being possible oozes:


Marble Pudding; Dragon #251


----------



## Shade (Apr 24, 2008)

Note: In the adventure from which the wrigglies come, the characters have been reduced to one 36th of their usual size, and the creature's stats are relative to these miniature PCs. If used for normal sized characters, these would be the stats for a giant wriggly.

---
Many magical substances have slowly been deposited in this section of pipe over the years. These substances have given birth to the wrigglies, a peculiar and ever-hungry life form.

*Bright orange light illuminates the pipe ahead and a sweet sickly smell hangs heavy in the air. Ahead at the top of a slope many strange and brightly coloured blobs wriggle in unison, becoming more agitated as they slowly advance towards you.*

Upon sensing the party's presence the wrigglies will lose their blob-like shape and become elongated. They will writhe about, waving their bodies as they move towards the party. Wrigglies attack by hitting characters with their elongated heads. When a wriggly kills a victim it will envelope it and slowly digest it. If a wriggly is killed it will spray out a sweet and sticky sap over anyone within 5 feet. The sap has a pungent odour and is difficult to remove; even alcohol will not shift it. Its only significant effect in this adventure is to attract the bluebottles at encounter 11.

10 wrigglies: AC 8; MV 1"; HD 1; hp 5 each; #AT 1; D 2-5; SA Nil; MR Std; Int: Non; AL N; Size: M; xp 15 each; Special monster

The orange light comes directly from the wrigglies. It will become dimmer and dimmer as more of the wrigglies are killed, disappearing when they are all dead.

From Imagine Magazine #15 (1984).


----------



## freyar (Apr 24, 2008)

Hehe.   So, I guess the question is, do we stat these as Medium or Fine?  If we go with Fine, I think we may have to make them into a swarm.  What do you think?


----------



## Shade (Apr 25, 2008)

We could do both a swarm of Fine creatures and a "giant wriggly".


----------



## freyar (Apr 25, 2008)

Shade said:
			
		

> We could do both a swarm of Fine creatures and a "giant wriggly".



 Double conversions are even better.   Which one do you want to do first?


----------



## Shade (Apr 25, 2008)

Let's start with the big one, since the swarm will add additional abilities.


----------



## freyar (Apr 25, 2008)

Ok.  1HD, Medium ooze.  The only Medium ooze in the SRD is the gray ooze, which has Str 12, Dex 1, Con 21, Int -, Wis 1, Cha 1.  Since this has 2 fewer HD, do you want to drop Con a little?  Say Con 16?  Dex should probably be higher, though, since these crawl around.  Maybe Dex 7?

Str 12, Dex 7, Con 16, Int -, Wis 1, Cha 1?


----------



## Shade (Apr 25, 2008)

Sounds good.




> If a wriggly is killed it will spray out a sweet and sticky sap over anyone within 5 feet. The sap has a pungent odour and is difficult to remove; even alcohol will not shift it. Its only significant effect in this adventure is to attract the bluebottles at encounter 11.




Death Throes (Ex):  When slain, sweet, sticky sap sprays out of a wriggly's body, covering all adjacent creatures unless they succeed on a DC X Reflex save.  This sap is considered a strong scent for purposes of creatures with the scent ability.  Additionally, it is so attractive to insects and other pests that all creatures of the vermin type are considered to have the scent ability in relation to the victim.   This sap loses its potency in 24 hours.  It cannot be washed off, and even alcohol cannot remove it.   (Can you think of anything that might remove it, or simply leave it up to the DM?)


----------



## freyar (Apr 25, 2008)

Universal solvent would be a good candidate to get rid of this.

Seems like we should give these a slam attack.  I could see going with engulf, but the original text makes that sound mostly like flavor (since it only engulfs dead opponents).  



> The orange light comes directly from the wrigglies. It will become dimmer and dimmer as more of the wrigglies are killed, disappearing when they are all dead.




Haven't we had some other glowing critter recently?  Should these shed light equivalent to a torch or something?


----------



## Shade (Apr 25, 2008)

Added to Homebrews.

I kept the gray ooze's acid, but lessened the damage to 1d4.



			
				freyar said:
			
		

> Haven't we had some other glowing critter recently?  Should these shed light equivalent to a torch or something?




Yep.  Some of the deep sea fishes had bioluminscence, but I believe we kept that as flavor text.

There's also this:

Bioluminescence (Ex): A firefriend's abdomen gives off light equal to a torch. It can suppress this illumination or restore it once per round as a free action.

We gave something similar to the seaclaimed creature template:

Bioluminescence (Ex) Numerous patches of bioluminescent matter dot the seaclaimed creature, giving off light equal to a torch. It can suppress this illumination or restore it once per round as a free action.


----------



## freyar (Apr 26, 2008)

Hmm, I like the acid damage on the slam attack, but I think maybe the acid damage to equipment is a little much for 1HD.  What do you think?

Bioluminescence (Ex): A giant wriggly gives off light equal to a torch.

I dropped the suppression bit because it's mindless.


----------



## Big Mac (Apr 27, 2008)

Shade said:
			
		

> By request, this special conversion thread will attempt to finish off the remaining oozes.
> 
> Here are the remaining creatures Echohawk has identified as being possible oozes:
> 
> ...




I've let the SJML know about your conversion project, so hopefully you will get some help with these three monsters. And hopefully BtM can get a full set of SJ monsters! My SJ Appendix II is up in the loft at the moment, but I'll go hunt for a ladder and check out the three Silatics.


----------



## Shade (Apr 28, 2008)

freyar said:
			
		

> Hmm, I like the acid damage on the slam attack, but I think maybe the acid damage to equipment is a little much for 1HD.  What do you think?




It is high, but it fits the acid format of the other oozes.  Basically, the acid damage to objects equals the save DC of the acid ability.   We could limit it to organic material, thus preventing metal weapons and armor from being damaged.  Alternatively, we could just have it deal acid damage to living creatures, and be harmless to objects.  Thoughts?


----------



## freyar (Apr 28, 2008)

Hmmm, let's limit it to organic material.  That will still be some threat to equipment of low-level characters but not overwhelming.


----------



## demiurge1138 (Apr 28, 2008)

freyar said:
			
		

> Hmmm, let's limit it to organic material.  That will still be some threat to equipment of low-level characters but not overwhelming.



Agreed.

Demiurge out.


----------



## Shade (Apr 28, 2008)

Updated.

Look better?


----------



## freyar (Apr 28, 2008)

Looks good.

Organization: Solitary or Clump (2-10)
CR: 1
Advancement: 2-3 HD (Medium), 4-5 HD (Large)

How's that?


----------



## Shade (Apr 28, 2008)

Updated.

Since these things are usually found in pipes and sewers amid magical runoff, and since oozes need to breathe, should we make them amphibious and give them a slow swim speed?


----------



## Big Mac (Apr 28, 2008)

Shade said:
			
		

> It is high, but it fits the acid format of the other oozes.  Basically, the acid damage to objects equals the save DC of the acid ability.   We could limit it to organic material, thus preventing metal weapons and armor from being damaged.  Alternatively, we could just have it deal acid damage to living creatures, and be harmless to objects.  Thoughts?




I actually just read up on the three types of Silatics and they work in the opposite way to what you are suggesting for this creature. They excrete a liquid that is harmless to organic beings but disolves metal. (Each Silactic is a metal eating creature, so couldn't get the same changes you are proposing for *this* creature.)



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> Since these things are usually found in pipes and sewers amid magical runoff, and since oozes need to breathe, should we make them amphibious and give them a slow swim speed?




Do all oozes need to breath? Because Silactics seem to like to hang around in "uninhabitable places".

Does it matter if some of these creatures don't follow the pattern of the others?


----------



## Shade (Apr 28, 2008)

Big Mac said:
			
		

> Do all oozes need to breath? Because Silactics seem to like to hang around in "uninhabitable places".




By the base creature type, yes, but...



			
				Big Mac said:
			
		

> Does it matter if some of these creatures don't follow the pattern of the others?




...it's easy enough to make exceptions with a short special ability or even flavor text.


----------



## Big Mac (Apr 28, 2008)

Shade said:
			
		

> By the base creature type, yes, but...
> 
> ...it's easy enough to make exceptions with a short special ability or even flavor text.




In that case my concerns are not important to this monster. Let the wriggly-ness continue.


----------



## freyar (Apr 29, 2008)

Shade said:
			
		

> Updated.
> 
> Since these things are usually found in pipes and sewers amid magical runoff, and since oozes need to breathe, should we make them amphibious and give them a slow swim speed?



 I'd agree with all that.  Then should we move on to the swarms?


----------



## Shade (Apr 29, 2008)

Updated.

For the swarms, we'll need to decide on Hit Dice.


----------



## freyar (Apr 29, 2008)

Hmm, somewhat arbitrarily, how about 4HD Fine Ooze swarm?


----------



## Shade (Apr 29, 2008)

Str 1, Dex 13, Con 14, Int —, Wis 1, Cha 1?


----------



## Shade (Apr 29, 2008)

Added to http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=224622]Homebrews[/URL].

How much damage should the swarm deal?  1d6 seems about the norm for a swarm of that HD range.

Should we drop the death throes?



> The orange light comes directly from the wrigglies. It will become dimmer and dimmer as more of the wrigglies are killed, disappearing when they are all dead.




Should the bioluminscence diminish at say, half hit points, to that of a candle?


----------



## freyar (Apr 30, 2008)

Missing that homebrews link...

1d6 sounds ok, add some acid?

Dropping death throes and diminishing the bioluminescence are good ideas.


----------



## Shade (Apr 30, 2008)

Sorry.  Try this link to Homebrews.


----------



## freyar (Apr 30, 2008)

Ok,

swarm (1d6+1d4 acid)
blob (4 swarms) ?
CR 3?

Make the couple changes mentioned above, and is this done?


----------



## Shade (Apr 30, 2008)

One last thing:

Individual wrigglies are about X inches long.


----------



## freyar (May 1, 2008)

If we guess that Medium is about 5 ft and these are 32x smaller, that gives us 2-3 inches.


----------



## Shade (May 1, 2008)

Sounds good.

Shall we tackle the Silatics next, since there's some interest in them?


----------



## freyar (May 1, 2008)

Sure!


----------



## Shade (May 2, 2008)

*Silatic, Platinum*
CLIMATE/TERRAIN: Space
FREQUENCY: Rare 
ORGANIZATION: Solitary 
ACTIVITY CYCLE: Any
DIET: See below
INTELLIGENCE: Low (5)
TREASURE: L (x10)
ALIGNMENT: Neutral
NO. APPEARING: 1 
ARMOR CLASS: 3 
MOVEMENT: 6
HIT DICE: 10+1
THAC0: 11
NO. OF ATTACKS: 2
DAMAGE/ATTACK: 1d6+7
SPECIAL ATTACKS: See below 
SPECIAL DEFENSES: +1 or better weapons to hit
MAGIC RESISTANCE: 30% 
SIZE: M (6')
MORALE: Steady (12)
LEVEL/XP VALUE: 4,000

*Silatic, Gold*
CLIMATE/TERRAIN: Space
FREQUENCY: Rare 
ORGANIZATION: Solitary 
ACTIVITY CYCLE: Any
DIET: See below
INTELLIGENCE: Low (5)
TREASURE: M (x10)
ALIGNMENT: Neutral
NO. APPEARING: 1 
ARMOR CLASS: 9 
MOVEMENT: 12
HIT DICE: 9+1
THAC0: 11
NO. OF ATTACKS: 3
DAMAGE/ATTACK: 1d6+4
SPECIAL ATTACKS: See below 
SPECIAL DEFENSES: +1 or better weapons to hit
MAGIC RESISTANCE: 30% 
SIZE: M (6')
MORALE: Steady (12)
LEVEL/XP VALUE: 3,000

*Silatic, Iron*
CLIMATE/TERRAIN: Space
FREQUENCY: Rare 
ORGANIZATION: Solitary 
ACTIVITY CYCLE: Any
DIET: See below
INTELLIGENCE: Low (5)
TREASURE: J (x10)
ALIGNMENT: Neutral
NO. APPEARING: 1 
ARMOR CLASS: 5
MOVEMENT: 6
HIT DICE: 6+1
THAC0: 15
NO. OF ATTACKS: 3
DAMAGE/ATTACK: 1d6+7
SPECIAL ATTACKS: See below 
SPECIAL DEFENSES: +1 or better weapons to hit
MAGIC RESISTANCE: 75% 
SIZE: M (6')
MORALE: Steady (12)
LEVEL/XP VALUE: 975

Silatics are amorphous blobs, 5-7' in diameter, that eat metal.  Continuously shifting and quivering, they use their two pseudopods to test substances for edibility.  The silatic's diet consists solely of the metal they are made of.  For example, a platinum silatic eats only platinum.  Silatics innately detect the metal they eat within a 100' range.

Silatics hide well, for they can stretch as thin as 1" thick.  They need no air to survive and prefer wildspace to planets.  In wildspace they are almost graceful, fanning their thinned bodies to move slowly.  As soon as gravity takes hold, though, gracefulness disappears; their pseudopods pull them along the ground.

Combat:  The silatic's two pseudopods administer bludgeoning damage of 1d6+4.  Each adult silatic's pseudopod can extend to 50'.  They attack only if disturbed while eating or prevented from feeding.  Usually, one pseudopod remains attached to the food while the other attacks an opponent.  If injured, the silatic detaches from the food source and attacks the offender with both pseudopods.

There are three known types of silatics: gold, platinum, and iron.  (A fourth, silver, is rumored.)  Each has a special attack.

Iron:  +3 bonus to damage; high magic resistance.
Gold: Moves faster than other silatics, gaining one extra attack per round.
Platinum:  +3 bonus to damage; also, the platinum silatic coats its pseudopod with acid.  

If it hits, the character takes an additional 2d8 damage (save vs. poison for half damage). A silatic eats by attaching a pseudopod to its meal, excreting a liquid that dissolves the metal, and absorbing it through the skin.  IT takes three rounds to administer the liquid and three to absorb the liquefied metal.  The liquid is harmless to living beings.  Metal of the silatic's type saves vs. acid at -5.  Metal not of the silatic's type saves at -2.

If a silatic senses metal within a wooden-hulled ship, it first tries to sneak aboard.  If this fails, it batters a hold in the ship near the metal inside.  Against metal ships, a silatic inflicts 1 hull point per turn; against wood, it inflicts normal damage.

Habitat/Society: Silatics are solitary, avoiding other beings by hiding in "uninhabitable" places.  Silatics of the same type exhibit instant hostility and fight to the death.

Gravs and most space miners kill silatics on sight.  Residents of inhabited worlds hunt down silatics relentlessly.  Once a gold silatic got into the gold reserves of a major city, reproduced, and soon dozens were oozing around, searching for more gold to devour. The entire city's economy collapsed because gold became too scarce--all because of one hungry silatic.

Ecology:  Silatics have no spelljamming ability.  To move from world to world, they stow away on ships, often on the outer hull.

When a silatic absorbs enough metal (around 100 lbs), it seeks out an uninhabited area and splits in two.  The two new silatics, each 3-1/2' wide, are dazed and instinctively move in opposite directions.  Five hours after splitting, they regain their senses and search for food. If the reproduction occurs in a confined space, the two silatics fight to the death upon regaining their senses.

If a silatic is killed, only the metal eaten in the last week can be recovered (usually 1d10 lbs. per Hit Die).  All other material dissolves into a jelly-like substance.

From MC9 (1991).


----------



## freyar (May 2, 2008)

Ooh, these seem fun.  Shall we do them separately, and do we want to fill in the rumored fourth silatic?


----------



## Shade (May 2, 2008)

We can probably work on them in tandem a bit, as so little changes between types.  We should probably nail down all the special abilities first, then work on Homebrewing based on Hit Dice and so forth.

Yeah, we can do the silver's if you'd like.


----------



## freyar (May 3, 2008)

Sure, we can add something to spelljammer lore! 

The first common trait I see is the pseudopod attack.  Each silatic has two, and they seem to do 1d6+1-1/2 Str bludgeoning and 2d8 acid damage each (or maybe the acid should be poison?).  Want to stick with those numbers?


----------



## Big Mac (May 5, 2008)

Shade said:
			
		

> Shall we tackle the Silatics next, since there's some interest in them?




Yay! At last something I actually have some sort of knowledge about!  

The following Beyond the Moons pages might be helpful:
Monsters in Spelljammer (from Chapter 5 of the forthcoming SJ monster conversion book)
Monster Skills and Feats

I would like to eventually see the Silatics done as separate monsters, but there are so many similar things that I think that parallel conversions might help.

Looking at the blurb, it says they don't spelljam. So  I don't think that these creatures should get BtM's Natural Spelljammer (Su). I see them swimming *slowly* across wildspace over periods of years.

The blurb says: "In wildspace they are almost graceful, fanning their thinned bodies to move slowly." So it would be nice for them to have the Tactical Rating (Su) while in space. As soon as they hit gravity, that SU becomes useless and they would fall to the deck of a ship (or the surface of a planet) and become the more blob like creatures that people fight.



			
				freyar said:
			
		

> Sure, we can add something to spelljammer lore!
> 
> The first common trait I see is the pseudopod attack.  Each silatic has two, and they seem to do 1d6+1-1/2 Str bludgeoning and 2d8 acid damage each (or maybe the acid should be poison?).  Want to stick with those numbers?




Don't forget that these guys are *obsessed* with eating the metal they are made from. They only attack with both pseudopods if actually damaged. Otherwise they will do one attack and carry on eating. I'm a bit doubtful of the 1d6 + 4 damage quoted in the original blurb as all three silactics have different damage listed in the stats above the blurb. Does your 1d6+1-1/2 Str equasion work for all three types? (I'm assuming you will design Str scores to make the equasion work.)

The blurb says: "A silatic eats by attaching a pseudopod to its meal, excreting a liquid that dissolves the metal, and absorbing it through the skin. It takes three rounds to administer the liquid and three to absorb the liquefied metal. The liquid is harmless to living beings." So I'm not too sold on the "2d8 acid damage". I think that instead these guys should do 2d8 acid damage *to metal only*.

*EDIT:* My mistake - Platinum Silactics (but _not_ the others) do make acid attcks.

Alternatively they could do double damage or critical hits to any metalic cretures.

You might also want to give them an ability similar to sunder that lets them grab and start to eat metal weapons, (instead of acid damage against living creatures).

_I actually think it would be more fun if instead of being disolved alive, a heavily armored knight ended up practically naked and bashing the silactic with rocks, chairs and anything else they couldn't eat before his eyes. I think this is an area where these creatures really feel different to other oozes._

*EDIT:* If you are actually thinking about making the _legendary_ silver silactic, I wonder if it might be worth making a Silactic Template that allows you to use various metals to create new variants. That way DMs could make creatures that eat any sort of metal that is important in their campaigns. (A Dragonmetal Silactic on Krynn would be something that could be a "doomsday weapon".)


----------



## Big Mac (May 5, 2008)

I've been thinking about the "replacement" for the Silactic's acid. 

How about we change this:



			
				Ooze entry in SRD said:
			
		

> Acid (Ex)
> The creature secretes a digestive acid that dissolves organic material and metal quickly, but does not affect stone. Any melee hit or constrict attack deals acid damage, and the opponent’s armor and clothing dissolve and become useless immediately unless they succeed on DC 21 Reflex saves. A metal or wooden weapon that strikes a black pudding also dissolves immediately unless it succeeds on a DC 21 Reflex save. The save DCs are Constitution-based.
> 
> The pudding’s acidic touch deals 21 points of damage per round to wooden or metal objects, but the ooze must remain in contact with the object for 1 full round to deal this damage.




Into something more like this:

_*Digest Metal (Ex)*
The creature secretes a digestive fluid that dissolves metal quickly as if it was acid, but does not affect organic material or stone. Any melee hit or constrict attack deals acid damage, and the opponent’s armor dissolves and become useless immediately unless they succeed on DC 21 Reflex saves. A metal weapon that strikes a silactic also dissolves immediately unless it succeeds on a DC 21 Reflex save. The save DCs are Constitution-based. 

The silactic’s acidic touch deals 21 points of damage per round to metal objects, but the ooze must remain in contact with the object for 1 full round to deal this damage._

*EDIT:* I've just noticed that the Platinum Silactic *does* get an acid attack. *Maybe* we just need a non-acid attack for the other types of Silactic.

We could give the Platinum Silactic an acid attack that is more like the Black Pudding and give the other two Silactic's a more watered down Digest Metal ability. (Unless the Black Pudding acid attack is too much. If that is the case, I'd stick with giving them all Digest Metal and go with freyar's idea for something that only the Platinum Silactic does.)

I think that each creature could probably get a different DC for the saving throws. I'm not sure what the numbers should be, but given that the Platinum Silactic has the highest XP value (and HD) and can disolve non-metal objects, I'd be inclined to make that highest. The Gold Silactic could have a slightly lower DC and the Iron Silactic should have a much lower DC.


----------



## Shade (May 5, 2008)

Digest Metal looks good.

Before I forget, I think only the gold is supposed to have two attacks, despite the stat block stating the iron has two as well, since the text indicates "Gold: Moves faster than other silatics, gaining one extra attack per round".


----------



## demiurge1138 (May 5, 2008)

The text refers to all silatics as getting two pseudopod attacks. A gold should get a third, or, since it moves faster, always be under the effect of a haste spell.

Demiurge out.


----------



## Big Mac (May 5, 2008)

Shade said:
			
		

> Digest Metal looks good.




I've just found one of your monster conversions, where you did a creature called the Khargra:
http://www.enworld.org/cc/converted/outsider/khargra.htm

It is an outsider from the elemental plane of earth that eats weapons. It also has a *Digest Metal (Ex)*. On top of that it has a *Break Weapon (Ex)* ability. It might be worth looking at that, in case it works better than what I just wrote.



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> Before I forget, I think only the gold is supposed to have two attacks, despite the stat block stating the iron has two as well, since the text indicates "Gold: Moves faster than other silatics, gaining one extra attack per round".




All Silatics have *two* pseudopods. They can attack with both, but prefer to attack "one handed" while "eating" with the other "hand". The begining of the combat section has the important text:



			
				Silatic - Combat section said:
			
		

> The silatics's two pseudopods administer bludgeoning damage of 1d6 + 4. Each adult silatic's pseudopod can extend to 50'. They attack only if disturbed while eating or prevented from feeding. Usually, one pseudopod remains attached to the food while the other attacks an opponent. If injured, the silatic detaches from the food source and attacks the offender with both pseudopods.




_I've now got a mental picture of a monster fighting while eating a sandwich!_  

As Demiurge said, the Gold Silatic must be fast to get an extra attack in.

Erm....

Hang on a moment...

Something *is* wrong in the original stats.

When you said "...I think only the gold is supposed to have *two* attacks, despite the stat block stating the iron has *two* as well..." did you actually mean: "...I think only the gold is supposed to have three attacks, despite the stat block stating the iron has three as well...".

The Iron Silatic is listed as "3" attacks in the stats, but doesn't get the same "extra attack" that the Gold Silatic gets in the combat section. So this *is* a bug. I would knock the Iron Silatic down to 2 attacks.

BTW: I've also got the Silatic stats typed up and had the same number of attacks for the Iron Silatic. I double checked the actual MC entry, *just in case* we had both made the same typo. This *is* a TSR error. (I'd guess it is a copy & paste error.)

Actually, both the other types of Silatics get +3 damage, but the Gold "looses" this +3 damage. Maybe its speed makes it do less damage.



			
				demiurge1138 said:
			
		

> The text refers to all silatics as getting two pseudopod attacks. A gold should get a third, or, since it moves faster, always be under the effect of a haste spell.




Both the Platinum and Iron Silatics have a Movement of 6, while the Gold has a Movement of 12, so I'd say it was moving twice as fast at the other Silatics. (I actually wonder why they didn't give it 2 attacks while feeding with one pseudopod and 4 attacks when attacking with both "hands".)

I'll have a hunt around for a monster that acts as if under a haste spell.

PS: I'd make Platinum/Iron Silatic speed and number of attacks the "default" speed and attacks and put the Silver Silatic down to their speed, so that it can have +3 damage and a new special attack/defence.


----------



## freyar (May 5, 2008)

Ok, let's try to summarize what we have so far:

Two pseudopod attacks for each, and the gold gets a third (as if hasted).  These should be primary natural attacks (slam-like) and do 1d6 base damage and I figure +1-1/2 Str.

Platinum should get some kind of acid (sorry, think the paragraph breaks there confused me), and all of them should get Digest Metal (which looks good to me).  For the save DCs, should there be a penalty for objects made of the corresponding metal?

I'm on board for the tactical rating but no natural spelljamming.

I agree with making these separate monsters.  A template would be interesting, but I think you'd have to choose 1 from a list of abilities for each type, much like a ghost picks from a list.  Anyway, we can see about the silver as we finish with the others.


----------



## demiurge1138 (May 5, 2008)

Big Mac said:
			
		

> I'll have a hunt around for a monster that acts as if under a haste spell.



Just from the SRD, the choker gets an extra action, which is similar. The mithril golem (from the Epic section) is perma-hasted.

Demiurge out.


----------



## Shade (May 5, 2008)

Big Mac said:
			
		

> When you said "...I think only the gold is supposed to have two attacks, despite the stat block stating the iron has two as well..." did you actually mean: "...I think only the gold is supposed to have three attacks, despite the stat block stating the iron has three as well...".




Yep, that's what I meant.  

We've also given a few other creatures alacrity, most recently...

Alacrity (Su): When making a full attack action, a mantabungal may make one extra gore attack.


----------



## freyar (May 5, 2008)

Shall we pick one to work on first?  

A related question: do we want the gold to have an extra attack with each pseudopod (ie, two attacks if it's holding onto food) or just with a full attack of both pseudopods?


----------



## Big Mac (May 5, 2008)

Big Mac said:
			
		

> _*Digest Metal (Ex)*
> The creature secretes a digestive fluid that dissolves metal quickly as if it was acid, but does not affect organic material or stone. Any melee hit or constrict attack deals acid damage, and the opponent’s armor dissolves and become useless immediately unless they succeed on DC 21 Reflex saves. A metal weapon that strikes a silactic also dissolves immediately unless it succeeds on a DC 21 Reflex save. The save DCs are Constitution-based.
> 
> The silactic’s acidic touch deals 21 points of damage per round to metal objects, but the ooze must remain in contact with the object for 1 full round to deal this damage._




I've just re-read the blurb and I'm not happy with this. The Khargra Digest Metal doesn't work for me either.

I'm happy with chaining this off of an acid like digestive fluid (that only effects metal), but I think that 21 points of damage is too much and I think that the damage is too fast. I think that the DC also needs looking at.



			
				Silatic said:
			
		

> A silatic eats by attaching a pseudopod to its meal, excreting a liquid that dissolves the metal, and absorbing it through the skin. It takes three rounds to administer the liquid and three to absorb the liquefied metal. The liquid is harmless to living beings. Metal of the silatic's type saves vs. acid at -5. Metal not of the silatic's type saves at -2.




Looking at this again, it actually takes 3 rounds for a Silatic to start to disolve something and another 3 to absorb the goo it creates. So my original ability would push up the CR of the Silatics.

I think that perhaps we should give it a Digest Metal ability that can be used only if one of its pseudopods touches metal for 3 rounds. I don't especially think that the creature needs to grapple to do this. I think that after three rounds its pseudopods will be coated with digestive fluid that gets onto the next thing the pseuodopod touches.

People are not going to hit the creature's pseudopods, so I've made any metal weapon that hits the creature get digested.

Finally, I've looked at the damage to metal again:



			
				Silatic said:
			
		

> Against metal ships, a silatic inflicts 1 hull point per turn; against wood, it inflicts normal combat damage.




In SJ combat 1 hull point is approximately the same as 10 hit points. And the conversion manual says that 1 turn is 10 minutes. So that is 1 hit point per minute. With 6 combat rounds being a minute, I'd say that a 3 rounds to excrete and 3 rounds to absorb cycle fits in well with a minute. But 1 hit point every 6 rounds is probably a bit low. (21 hit points is obviously too high, but I think that 1 hp per round is the lowest we could make this.)

Take 2:

_*Digest Metal (Ex)*
Three rounds after a silatic first comes into contact with metal, its psuedopods automatically secrete a digestive fluid that disolves metal as if it was acid. Silatic digestive fluid is targeted towards a specific metal, but is also damaging to any other types of metal. The liquid does not affect living beings or non metallic objects, but when it gets on the surface of living beings and non-metallic objects it will then start to digest metalic items that they later touch.

Any melee hit deals metal digestion damage, and the opponent’s armor dissolves and become useless immediately unless they succeed on DC ?? Reflex saves. A metal weapon that strikes a silatic that has secreted digestive fluid also disolves immediately unless it succeeds on a DC ?? Reflex save. 

The silactic’s digestive touch deals 1 points of damage per round to unattended metal objects, but the ooze must remain in contact with the object for 3 full rounds to start dealing this damage. Once a silatic's digestive fluid has disolved a metal object the creature will spend the next 3 rounds reabsorbing the fluid, and the metal it contains. A silatic that is interupted while eating cannot detect its own digestive fluids, but if the digestive fluid disolves and absorbs metal, the silatic can detect the metal contained within the fluid._

I think this is a bit more true to the original, but its a bit long.


----------



## Big Mac (May 5, 2008)

freyar said:
			
		

> Shall we pick one to work on first?




That might help avoid confusion between variant abilities if we did one first. How about doing the Iron Silatic first as it has *less* special attacks than the other cretures (despite what the blurb says). Better magic resistance (than other Silatics) *should* be easy and the +3 damage can be recycled for the Platinum Silatic.



			
				freyar said:
			
		

> A related question: do we want the gold to have an extra attack with each pseudopod (ie, two attacks if it's holding onto food) or just with a full attack of both pseudopods?




I was wondering this myself, but isn't this just like a person fighting with two weapons and getting a full attack with their main hand and one attack with the other hand?


----------



## Big Mac (May 5, 2008)

*Iron Silatic (1st draft)*

The 2e stats has these all down as being 5-7 feet in diameter, which would make all three Medium Oozes.

Are we going to stick with that or scale them up in size in proportion to their HD?

I'll assume (for now) we are sticking with Medium Ooze. Is this bestie an "Iron Silatic" or a "Silatic, Iron"?

Here is a first pop at the Iron Silatic stats:

*Iron Silatic*

Medium Ooze (Wildspace)
Hit Dice: 6d10+?? (?? hp) _[note:10 bonus hp above constitution bonus]_
Initiative: ?
Speed: 20 ft. (4 squares)
Armor Class: 15 (? Dex), touch 15, flat-footed 15
Base Attack/Grapple: +4/?
Attack: Slam +4 melee (1d6+?) _[note:+3 bonus damage above strength bonus]_
Full Attack: Slam +4 melee (1d6+?) _[note:+3 bonus damage above strength bonus]_
Space/Reach: 5 ft./50 ft.
Special Attacks: Digest Metal
Special Qualities: Detect Metal, blindsight 60 ft., ooze traits
Saves: Fort +2, Ref +2, Will +2 _[note:no good saves for oozes - ability adjustments not added in]_
Abilities: Str ?, Dex ?, Con ?, Int ?, Wis ?, Cha ? _[note: most oozes have high str, low dex, mid-high con, no int, low wis and low cha]_
Skills: —
Feats: —
Environment: Any land and space
Organization: Solitary
Challenge Rating: ?
Treasure: None _[note:6d10 lbs of iron scrap]_
Alignment: Always neutral
Advancement: ?-? HD (Medium) _[note:adult silatics are 5-7 feet in size - they then split into 3.5 feet creatures - this could be 5 foot size]_
Level Adjustment: -

The 2e Silatics actually have an excessivly long reach (50 foot). Do we need to make that a special attack (or special quality) or can we just explain it in the blurb text?


----------



## Big Mac (May 6, 2008)

*Aggressive nature of silatics - CR of silatics*



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> Silatics are amorphous blobs, 5-7' in diameter, that eat metal.  Continuously shifting and quivering, they use their two pseudopods to test substances for edibility.  The silatic's diet consists solely of the metal they are made of.  For example, a platinum silatic eats only platinum.  Silatics innately detect the metal they eat within a 100' range.




...and...



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> Habitat/Society: Silatics are solitary, avoiding other beings by hiding in "uninhabitable" places.  Silatics of the same type exhibit instant hostility and fight to the death.




...and...



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> When a silatic absorbs enough metal (around 100 lbs), it seeks out an uninhabited area and splits in two.  The two new silatics, each 3-1/2' wide, are dazed and instinctively move in opposite directions.  Five hours after splitting, they regain their senses and search for food. If the reproduction occurs in a confined space, the two silatics fight to the death upon regaining their senses.




...and...



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> If a silatic is killed, only the metal eaten in the last week can be recovered (usually 1d10 lbs. per Hit Die).  All other material dissolves into a jelly-like substance.




I've just realised why silatics of the same type are hostile, but silatics of other types are not hostile. They don't actually dislike each other. They just want to eat each other!

Each silatic is made of the metal it is named after. Each one leaves 1d10 lbs of that metal if it is destroyed. Each one innately detects that metal within a 100 foot range. Each one will move towards that metal it is detecting and try to eat it. Each one will respond to the damage (of being eaten alive), by attacking the thing that is attacking it.

I don't even think these guys need to know that they are fighting another silatic. I figure that if an Iron Silatic and a Gold Silatic ever meet, they would ignore each other and go about the business of eating.

I even think that living beings *could* hang around with silatics without being attacked (as long as they didn't have any metal stuff).

These things only attack if you stop them eating, or you are made from the same metal as them.

Do you think this would affect the CR these guys get?


----------



## Shade (May 6, 2008)

Whew...that's alot to digest!

I'll try to get a Homebrews going on these fellas later today.


----------



## freyar (May 6, 2008)

Shade said:
			
		

> Whew...that's alot to digest!
> 
> I'll try to get a Homebrews going on these fellas later today.



 Yeah, I think homebrews would be helpful for this.  It's a bit hard to keep track of all this!  Where are we, actually?


----------



## Echohawk (May 6, 2008)

Adrift in the phlogiston!


----------



## Big Mac (May 6, 2008)

Shade said:
			
		

> Whew...that's alot to digest!




...as one silatic said to the other! 

...before he ate him!


----------



## Hellraider (May 6, 2008)

In order to decide the scores, you need a target CR... I´d recommend a target CR around their HD. Those guys are permanent underminers (metal is about all we use), and special attack users (unsunderable 50 feet reach...!), their CR should be around their HD +1. From there, you give them the scores you think they will need to live up to the task.


----------



## Shade (May 6, 2008)

OK, to get these guys going, let's figure out ability scores for them, as they are usually the key to unlocking the rest of the creature.

First, we know Int is 5.  Cha should probably be 1, as a few other intelligent oozes still have Cha 1 (like the assassin jelly).  Wis is probably average (10-11). 

Str would appear to be 18-19 for the gold (based on +4 dmg), and since the other two deal +3 damage over that, probably 24-25 for the platinum and iron.

Dex could be high to achieve the AC of 15.   The assassin jelly, for example, bucks the usual ooze trend of low Dex and no natural armor, going with +2 Dex, +3 natural.

Oozes generally have decent Con, many 20 or higher.


----------



## freyar (May 6, 2008)

Why don't we go with Dex 14-15 for Iron and Platinum and 16-17 for Gold (since it's alacritous).


----------



## demiurge1138 (May 6, 2008)

I can see these guys getting a natural armor bonus, what with the metal in them.

Demiurge out.


----------



## Shade (May 6, 2008)

So, for iron silatic...

Str 24-25, Dex 14-15, Con 20+, Int 5, Wis 10-11, Cha 1
+3 natural armor or higher


----------



## Shade (May 6, 2008)

OK, I tried to gather up some of this and start the iron up in Homebrews.

Since we try to present the monsters as usable with only the official rules, I've moved the spelljammer.org specific material to a "sidebar" at the bottom.


----------



## Big Mac (May 7, 2008)

Shade said:
			
		

> OK, to get these guys going, let's figure out ability scores for them, as they are usually the key to unlocking the rest of the creature.
> 
> First, we know Int is 5.  Cha should probably be 1, as a few other intelligent oozes still have Cha 1 (like the assassin jelly).  Wis is probably average (10-11).




I can't see any problems with that. We know that the silatics like to stow away on spelljamming ships to hitch a ride from one place to another, so they must have some brains to be able to where to find a ship.



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> Str would appear to be 18-19 for the gold (based on +4 dmg), and since the other two deal +3 damage over that, probably 24-25 for the platinum and iron.




The +3 was presented as a special attack, rather than increased strength. If the Platinum and Iron Silatics had a bonus to their attacks and damage (with their pseudopods), they could have the same Str score as the Gold. If you push up their strength you make them better at grappling and anything else that involves strength.

Would they work if they had something similar to the Greater Weapon Specialization [General] feat?



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> Dex could be high to achieve the AC of 15.   The assassin jelly, for example, bucks the usual ooze trend of low Dex and no natural armor, going with +2 Dex, +3 natural.




I agree with demiurge1138, that the metal inside the creature could form part of their natural armor. You could probably use the hardness of the metal as a guide to the sort of AC it could give. I can find rules on special materials, but not on "not-so-special" materials. I know that Iron would make better armor than gold and would guess that platinum would go in the middle, but am not sure where each could go. Does anyone have a useful source for strengths of different metals?



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> Oozes generally have decent Con, many 20 or higher.




From what I could see, they also get a chunk of *bonus* hp, based on their size.



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> OK, I tried to gather up some of this and start the iron up in Homebrews.
> 
> Since we try to present the monsters as usable with only the official rules, I've moved the spelljammer.org specific material to a "sidebar" at the bottom.




OK. I suppose the fact that they can move slowly through space would also need to go into the sidebar. I'd give them a Tactical Speed of 1 and a Glide ability, rather than a Fly abilty if they become subject to gravity. (Letting them fly on a planet would make them far too powerful, but if they drop out of the sky they would be killed.)

_*EDIT:* Actually having the creatures drop out of the sky and die, could help explain their desire to stay in wildspace and stow away on ships. A tactical speed that didn't translate to a groundling campaign setting could make silatics carry on working for Spelljammer, and create a creature that was rare on planets._

Silatics were not really designed for "groundling" campaigns. They seem to "swim" through space, but the mass of the metal in their body wouldn't be a penalty up there. I'd be hesitant to give them any sort of ability to swim in the sea. (Although as they don't breath, they could walk along the bottom of an ocean.)

When you get to the blurb-text, I think it might be nice for groundling silatics to carry on stowing away on ships. So they might be a creature that is more common in ports. (If they kill crews in mid voyage, they could even be responsible for some of the ghost ships drifting on the seas.)


----------



## freyar (May 7, 2008)

Big Mac said:
			
		

> The +3 was presented as a special attack, rather than increased strength. If the Platinum and Iron Silatics had a bonus to their attacks and damage (with their pseudopods), they could have the same Str score as the Gold. If you push up their strength you make them better at grappling and anything else that involves strength.
> 
> Would they work if they had something similar to the Greater Weapon Specialization [General] feat?




I think whether we bump the Str or given them WS and GWS as bonus feats depends on whether we want to make the silatics basically identical to each other, just swapping out a few Special Abilities, or if we want to distinguish them a little more.



> From what I could see, they also get a chunk of *bonus* hp, based on their size.



Where is this from?  I don't see this in the Ooze Type description in the SRD.


----------



## demiurge1138 (May 7, 2008)

Oozes used to get bonus hp in 3.0. That mechanic got moved to constructs in 3.5.

And I'm all for changing the Str scores of the relevant silatics. It's more flexible and intuitive than a flat bonus to attack and damage.


----------



## freyar (May 7, 2008)

I think I'd like to change ability scores for the different types, as well.  Maybe

Iron: Str 25, Dex 14, Con 24, Int 5, Wis 11, Cha 1
Platinum: Str 24, Dex 15, Con 22, Int 5, Wis 13, Cha 1
Gold: Str 19, Dex 16, Con 22, Int 5, Wis 13, Cha 1

Just a little to distinguish the three from each other.


----------



## Shade (May 7, 2008)

I'm fine with those ability score arrays, except I see no reason to increase Wisdom for the gold and platinum.  OK if we leave that at 11?

Updated based on revised stats.



> I agree with demiurge1138, that the metal inside the creature could form part of their natural armor. You could probably use the hardness of the metal as a guide to the sort of AC it could give. I can find rules on special materials, but not on "not-so-special" materials. I know that Iron would make better armor than gold and would guess that platinum would go in the middle, but am not sure where each could go. Does anyone have a useful source for strengths of different metals?




Natural armor is a bit tricky.  It isn't usually consistent with the hardness of various metals, but more often attributed to the creature's relative CR.  For example, the brass golem has the same natural armor bonus as iron, despite brass being a weaker metal.  

If we use freyar's suggested Dex scores, iron and platinum will have +3 natural, while gold will have +2.  That seems OK to me, since the creature isn't solid metal, but more like a molten metal.  How about the rest of you?


----------



## freyar (May 7, 2008)

The only reason I increased the Wis on those was to differentiate them a little, so it's ok to leave it at 11.

Natural armor suggested here is ok.


----------



## demiurge1138 (May 7, 2008)

Agreed to natural armor.


----------



## Shade (May 7, 2008)

Updated.

Maybe we can modify this for their ability to detect metal?

Metalsense (Ex): All ferrous dragons can sense the location and amount of any non-precious metal (precious metals include adamantine, copper, gold, mithral, platinum, and silver) within a distance of 30 feet x the dragon’s age category. This makes it nearly impossible to sneak up on a ferrous dragon when wearing armor or wielding weapons made from iron or other nonprecious metals. Like blindsense, opponents the dragon can’t actually see still have total concealment against the dragon.


----------



## freyar (May 7, 2008)

What about this?

Metalsense (Ex): A silatic ooze can sense the location and amount of its associated metal within a distance of 100 ft. This includes coins, armor, and weapons. Like blindsense, opponents the silatic senses (for example, carrying gold coins or wearing iron armor) but can’t actually see still have total concealment against the silatic.


----------



## Shade (May 7, 2008)

That outta work.  It will generally rely on blindsight more than metalsense, but the range of metalsense is 40 feet further.


----------



## Big Mac (May 7, 2008)

freyar said:
			
		

> I think whether we bump the Str or given them WS and GWS as bonus feats depends on whether we want to make the silatics basically identical to each other, just swapping out a few Special Abilities, or if we want to distinguish them a little more.




Given that the Iron and Platinum Silatics, both had +3 damage, I would say that cancels out the "specialness" of that ability. So we get left with an Iron Silatic that has high magic resistance vs a Platinum or Gold Silatic that has a low magic resistance. It doesn't look *quite* so special when you look at it that way. (They look more like Big Silatic, Fast Silatic and Slow Silatic.)

I would like to see each Silatic (including the Silver Silatic, if we make it) have something special about it - something that no other Silatic has. So if you can think of distinguishing things that gives each one an advantage, I'd be all in favor of that.

We have had some discussion about giving the Gold Silatic 3 attacks or 4 attacks. How about giving the creature 3 attacks, but also giving it a Monk-style Flurry of Blows that can boost that up to 4 attacks. (We could even build Greater Flurry into an advanced HD version of the Gold.)

It might be nice if the Platinum, with extra HD, could also boost its acid attack and the Iron, with extra HD had some sort of anti-magic boost.



			
				demiurge1138 said:
			
		

> Oozes used to get bonus hp in 3.0. That mechanic got moved to constructs in 3.5.




Thanks for the heads up. It is sometimes hard to keep up with *all* the 3.0-3.5 changes.



			
				demiurge1138 said:
			
		

> And I'm all for changing the Str scores of the relevant silatics. It's more flexible and intuitive than a flat bonus to attack and damage.




Fair enough. I just wanted to throw that alternative out to see how it stood up. I suppose it makes sense for the Str, other abilities and other features, to rise in proportion to the original XP stats.



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> Natural armor is a bit tricky.  It isn't usually consistent with the hardness of various metals, but more often attributed to the creature's relative CR.  For example, the brass golem has the same natural armor bonus as iron, despite brass being a weaker metal.




Fair enough.  (I suppose the counter-argument to the hardness of the metal, would be that softer metal, like gold, could theoretically soak up the impact of blows.)

Is there any chance we could give the Silatics something *else* associated with their metal, even if it is something that is non-combative.



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> If we use freyar's suggested Dex scores, iron and platinum will have +3 natural, while gold will have +2.  That seems OK to me, since the creature isn't solid metal, but more like a molten metal.  How about the rest of you?




I'm mostly onboard with this stat-variation idea. But I wonder if the Gold Silatic is being short changed a little bit. It is down 5-6 Str on the other Silatics, but only gains 1-2 Dex. Shouldn't it have a more similar gain in Dex?


----------



## Big Mac (May 7, 2008)

freyar said:
			
		

> What about this?
> 
> Metalsense (Ex): A silatic ooze can sense the location and amount of its associated metal within a distance of 100 ft. This includes coins, armor, and weapons. Like blindsense, opponents the silatic senses (for example, carrying gold coins or wearing iron armor) but can’t actually see still have total concealment against the silatic.




That is great (and sounds better than Detect Metal). However, I think we ought to mention that Metalsense allows a Silatic to detect another Silatic of the same metal type. How about this?:

Metalsense (Ex): A silatic ooze can sense the location and amount of its associated metal within a distance of 100 ft. This includes coins, armor, weapons _and even other silatics of the same metal type_. Like blindsense, opponents the silatic senses (for example, carrying gold coins or wearing iron armor) but can’t actually see still have total concealment against the silatic.


----------



## freyar (May 7, 2008)

I like the addition to Metalsense.  I also agree that we should try to distinguish the types of silatics a little more and will think about that some.


----------



## Shade (May 8, 2008)

Big Mac said:
			
		

> Is there any chance we could give the Silatics something *else* associated with their metal, even if it is something that is non-combative.




Sure.   Here are some ideas based on info from Wikipedia:

"Gold is the most malleable and ductile metal; a single gram can be beaten into a sheet of one square meter, or an ounce into 300 square feet. Gold leaf can be beaten thin enough to become translucent."

We could allow it to make itself so thin that it gains near-invisibility.

"Heat, moisture, oxygen, and most corrosive agents have very little chemical effect on gold..."

We could give it resistance to acid and fire.

When pure, the metal appears greyish-white and firm. The metal is corrosion-resistant. The catalytic properties of the six platinum family metals are outstanding. For this catalytic property, platinum is used in catalytic converters, incorporated in automobile exhaust systems, as well as tips of spark plugs. Platinum has a cubic crystal structure.

"Platinum possesses high resistance to chemical attack, excellent high-temperature characteristics, and stable electrical properties. All these properties have been exploited for industrial applications. Platinum does not oxidize in air at any temperature, but can be corroded by cyanides, halogens, sulfur, and caustic alkalis. This metal is insoluble in hydrochloric and nitric acid, but does dissolve in the mixture known as aqua regia (forming chloroplatinic acid)."

Resistance to acid, electricity, and fire?

"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, short-term exposure to platinum salts "may cause irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat" and long-term exposure "may cause both respiratory and skin allergies." 

Maybe its attacks require a saving throw or suffer a -1 penalty on some checks?

"Nuclei of iron have some of the highest binding energies per nucleon..."

We could give it a "binding attack" that allows it to essentially have improved grab/attach against creatures wearing metal armor.

"Iron (as Fe2+, ferrous ion) is a necessary trace element used by almost all living organisms."

We could allow the iron's metalsense to also detect living creatures, due to the iron content in their blood.



			
				Big Mac said:
			
		

> I'm mostly onboard with this stat-variation idea. But I wonder if the Gold Silatic is being short changed a little bit. It is down 5-6 Str on the other Silatics, but only gains 1-2 Dex. Shouldn't it have a more similar gain in Dex?




Personally, I think the haste attack more than makes up for the stat variation.


----------



## freyar (May 8, 2008)

I like a lot of these ideas.

Gold: spreading out; acid & fire resistance 10?

Platinum: resistance 10 to acid, fire, & electricity; Fort save or -1 on Dex based checks for 1 hour?

Iron: metalsense animals, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants?  The binding attack idea is cool but a bit of a stretch from the nuclear binding energy standpoint.


----------



## demiurge1138 (May 8, 2008)

Not a fan of ductility for the gold--these are oozes! They can do that anyway!

Aside from that, all of the other suggestions freyar's picked out appeal to me too.


----------



## freyar (May 9, 2008)

demiurge1138 said:
			
		

> Not a fan of ductility for the gold--these are oozes! They can do that anyway!
> 
> Aside from that, all of the other suggestions freyar's picked out appeal to me too.



 Well, the gold can go transparent.  Not all oozes can do that.  But it does mean we'd have to think quite how to write that up.


----------



## Shade (May 9, 2008)

So...

Gold: acid & fire resistance 10?  It's already got the haste attack, so is probably OK without another special ability.  

Platinum: resistance 10 to acid, fire, & electricity; irritating touch = Fort save or -1 on Dex based checks for 1 hour?

Iron: metalsense can sense the iron in the blood of animals, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants (and probably most magical beasts)? 

If we do the silver, I'd suggest its attacks are treated as silver weapons for purposes of overcoming DR.


----------



## freyar (May 9, 2008)

That sounds good.  We should note that the iron silatics will be much more aggressive toward most characters due to the iron metalsense.


----------



## Shade (May 9, 2008)

Updated.

Skills: 9

Feats: 3


----------



## demiurge1138 (May 10, 2008)

Should the iron one overcome DR as cold iron?


----------



## freyar (May 10, 2008)

demiurge1138 said:
			
		

> Should the iron one overcome DR as cold iron?



 I think so.  

What kind of skills do these things need?  Hide?


----------



## Big Mac (May 10, 2008)

Sorry for the delay. I've been busy the last couple of evenings.



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> Sure.   Here are some ideas based on info from Wikipedia:
> 
> "Gold is the most malleable and ductile metal; a single gram can be beaten into a sheet of one square meter, or an ounce into 300 square feet. Gold leaf can be beaten thin enough to become translucent."
> 
> We could allow it to make itself so thin that it gains near-invisibility.




I like this, but it is a bit similar to an existing ability, so maybe we can fold it it. All Silatics can flatten themselves out to a one inch thickness and have improved hide checks. Maybe Gold Silatics could just have improved hide checks.

Perhaps they should all have "hide in plain sight" and the gold should have a higher DC.

The blurb seems to suggest that in wildspace a Silatic can swim through space, but in gravity it needs to change into a more blob like shape and use pseudopods to move. So if Silatics (including Golds) flatten themselves, maybe they should be immobile.



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> "Heat, moisture, oxygen, and most corrosive agents have very little chemical effect on gold..."
> 
> We could give it resistance to acid and fire.




This is good. The non metallic parts of the Silatic would still be vulnerable, but the creature could coat itself with its own metal as a thin layer of armor.

Gold is also a good conductor of electricity. I'm not sure if that would make these creatures less or more prone to damage from spells like lightning bolt.



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> When pure, the metal appears greyish-white and firm. The metal is corrosion-resistant. The catalytic properties of the six platinum family metals are outstanding. For this catalytic property, platinum is used in catalytic converters, incorporated in automobile exhaust systems, as well as tips of spark plugs. Platinum has a cubic crystal structure.




If I am not mistaken, gold is more acid resistant than any other metal.

The catalitic properties sound interesting. I'm not sure if it isn't "too scientific" for D&D, but maybe this could be folded into something else. Maybe Platinum Silatics could "eat" faster than other Silatics (so they take only 2 rounds to produce digestive fluid and only 2 rounds to reabsorb it). I'm not sure on this - I think it needs more thought.



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> "Platinum possesses high resistance to chemical attack, excellent high-temperature characteristics, and stable electrical properties. All these properties have been exploited for industrial applications. Platinum does not oxidize in air at any temperature, but can be corroded by cyanides, halogens, sulfur, and caustic alkalis. This metal is insoluble in hydrochloric and nitric acid, but does dissolve in the mixture known as aqua regia (forming chloroplatinic acid)."
> 
> Resistance to acid, electricity, and fire?




That sounds good. It is pretty similar to the Gold Silatic. Maybe the bonuses could be in proportaion to the metals themselves.



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> "According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, short-term exposure to platinum salts "may cause irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat" and long-term exposure "may cause both respiratory and skin allergies."
> 
> Maybe its attacks require a saving throw or suffer a -1 penalty on some checks?




I like this, but wonder if we could fold this in with the existing acid attack and the catalistic nature of the creature.

How about changing the Platinum Silatics acid coating to a different coating that causes catalitic reactions and irritation? The catalitic reaction could result in acid building up on the surface of the pseudopods and the irritation could be similar to the sort of irritation you get in your eyes when chopping up onions.

How about if the Platinum Silatic scores a hit, their opponant has to make a saving throw to avoid crying for X rounds. Crying could cause a penalty to attck rolls and vision based checks.



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> "Nuclei of iron have some of the highest binding energies per nucleon..."
> 
> We could give it a "binding attack" that allows it to essentially have improved grab/attach against creatures wearing metal armor.




This is nice, although maybe it should only use this grab ability against objects containing iron. (Steel contains iron, so that would be most armor.) This attack would also imply that an Iron Silatic would be able to grab metal/iron/steel weapons. There are other 3rd edition monsters that grab weapons, so I think that could fit in with the rules.

A person who gets "grabbed" by an Iron Silatic should be able to escape by cutting themselves out of their armor (as well as by all other existing methods). And if they don't actually hit the Iron Silatic (or stop it eating their armor) the creature should just digest their armor and let them go.



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> "Iron (as Fe2+, ferrous ion) is a necessary trace element used by almost all living organisms."
> 
> We could allow the iron's metalsense to also detect living creatures, due to the iron content in their blood.




This is logical, but it changes the creature from one that attacks metal to one that might want to eat blood. Rather than feeding with one pseudopod unless disturbed, I could see these creatures ripping all living creatures apart. I'm not sure that would make them feel like the same creature.

But iron in blood probably does need to be built in somehow. How about having something in blood that makes Iron Silatics feel a bit sick. That could give you a reason for them not to eat people (even if they do have "Bloodsense" as well as "Metalsense").

How about rust? Can anyone think of an advantage or disadvantage involving rust? Maybe Iron Silatics could find water repulsive (even if it doesn't actually cause rust damage in combat rounds).

Actually, maybe *all* silatics should be seen as food by Rust Monsters. A Rust Monster should be able to do dX damage to a silatic that fails its saving throw. Maybe the Iron Silatic should get a much lower saving throw than the other types (or maybe it should even have no saving throw against rust attacks).



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> Personally, I think the haste attack more than makes up for the stat variation.




Fair enough. I will bow to your improved knowledge of conversions. Just checking the numbers on the stats.


----------



## Big Mac (May 10, 2008)

freyar said:
			
		

> The binding attack idea is cool but a bit of a stretch from the nuclear binding energy standpoint.




I do share your concerns on this one. I'm not sure we should have too much scientific knowledge in D&D. But you could solve the problem by making this a *magnetic* grapple attack bonus. If an Iron Silatic could magnetise itself (X times per day) it could stick to metals that were magnetic (and get an improved grab), but it couldn't use this special attack on non-magnetic metals. So the ability becomes less powerful and easier to sell to players.

And a magnetic attack form would be good at giving the Iron Silatic a shot at pulling certain metal weapons out of the hands of characters.



			
				demiurge1138 said:
			
		

> Not a fan of ductility for the gold--these are oozes! They can do that anyway!




They can only get one inch thick. I think that the Gold Silatic abilty to do that should just get a boost over other silatics.



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> If we do the silver, I'd suggest its attacks are treated as silver weapons for purposes of overcoming DR.




I like this. It might need a bit more, but that is an excellent start.



			
				freyar said:
			
		

> That sounds good.  We should note that the iron silatics will be much more aggressive toward most characters due to the iron metalsense.




...unless we say they don't like the taste of blood.



			
				demiurge1138 said:
			
		

> Should the iron one overcome DR as cold iron?




I like that, especially if we also have a Silver Silatic that overcomes DR like Shade suggested.

Can anyone think of why an Iron Silatic might have better magic resistance than other Silatics?

I just had a thought. We are personalising Silatics to their metal, but how does that stack up as a defense against metallic dragons? Silatics would probably want to steal the treasure from a dragon and eat the bits of metal stuck in their skin.


----------



## freyar (May 12, 2008)

I think Hide In Plain Sight might be a good ability for gold as a way to represent its transparency.  

Meanwhile, let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.  What else do we need for iron?


----------



## Shade (May 12, 2008)

freyar said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.  What else do we need for iron?




Skills: 9

Feats: 3

Environment: Any?

Challenge Rating: x

Advancement: x

An iron silatic can grow to a diameter of up to 6 feet and a thickness of about x inches. A typical specimen weighs about x pounds.

Should digest metal be Constitution-based save DC?


----------



## freyar (May 12, 2008)

Skills: Still can't think of much that make sense but Hide and/or Move Silently.

Feats: Power Attack, Improved Sunder, Weapon Focus (pseudopod)?

Environment: Any, I guess.

CR: Probably 4, maybe 5

Advancement: 7-12 HD (Medium), 13-18 HD (Large)

Edit: 6 inches and 200lb?  That might be a little low if we're thinking of these as pure metal; that's like 10,000 coins.

Definitely Con based.


----------



## demiurge1138 (May 12, 2008)

I think CR 5 would be reasonable. Improved Sunder, lots of hit points, high SR.


----------



## freyar (May 12, 2008)

demiurge1138 said:
			
		

> I think CR 5 would be reasonable. Improved Sunder, lots of hit points, high SR.



 Fair enough.  Thoughts on skills or feats?  Weight?


----------



## demiurge1138 (May 12, 2008)

Ranks in Climb make as much sense as Hide/Move Silently. Some of each?

The Power Attack/Imp. Sunder combo is good. Weapon Focus isn't doing it for me, though. Improved Initiative?


----------



## freyar (May 12, 2008)

Ok, 3 ranks each of Climb, Hide, and Move Silently.  Sounds fair.  Imp Init is good with me.


----------



## Shade (May 12, 2008)

Updated.


----------



## freyar (May 12, 2008)

I'd say that the iron looks pretty much done.  Anyone else?


----------



## Big Mac (May 13, 2008)

freyar said:
			
		

> Skills: Still can't think of much that make sense but Hide and/or Move Silently.




They seem pretty logical.



			
				freyar said:
			
		

> Feats: Power Attack, Improved Sunder, Weapon Focus (pseudopod)?




Sounds good, but should Improved Sunder only work against metal weapons? What is the basis behind the sundering? Is the silatic supposed to be good at disarming people or is it supposed to be good at grabbing metal weapons out of the hands of characters? I'd say the second sounds a bit more true to its metal-chomping nature.



			
				freyar said:
			
		

> Environment: Any, I guess.




The original blurb says silatics prefer to hang out in uninhabitable places where they are less likely to face attack.



			
				freyar said:
			
		

> CR: Probably 4, maybe 5
> 
> Advancement: 7-12 HD (Medium), 13-18 HD (Large)




I'm not good with the maths of this sort of stuff yet, so I'll let you guys deal with this bit.



			
				freyar said:
			
		

> Edit: 6 inches and 200lb?  That might be a little low if we're thinking of these as pure metal; that's like 10,000 coins.




I think that 6 inches of height is too low, too. The blurb says they "hide well, for they can stretch as thin as 1" thick". While the blurb doesn't give the normal thickness, I'd expect it to be much more than 5 inches fatter than the minimum thickness. The illustration in MC9 isn't any use as it shows a silatic floating weightless in Wildspace (so it is in the thin "almost gracefull" mode). We know that silatics are not normally that thin on the ground.

I think that the only blurb we have left is the bit at the begining: "Silatics are amorphous blobs, 5-7' in diameter..." I think these guys should be more like 5-7 feet in height, as well as diameter, when they move about. Flattening themselves to 1 inch thick should be something they do to hide.

Is hide +5 enough for a creature that can be 1 inch thick or should it gain some sort of circumstance bonus when it flattens itself? (This is why I menioned hide in plain sight, earlier.)

Also, should the silatic's "stretching as thin as 1 inch" be a two dimensional ability (so it can make itself like a pancake) or should it be able to stretch that thin in any dimension (so that it can make itself long as well as thin)? This creature can *potentially* slide under a badly fitted door, or climb through barred gates. That *could* help it sneak onboard ships without causing damage that alerts a crew to its presence. Should it be able to do that sort of stuff?

One last thing



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> Treasure: See text




There is nothing in the text, yet. It should be 6d10 lbs of iron for the standard creature and 7-18d10 lbs of iron for the advanced versions of the creature (unless you want to stick with "1d10 lb of iron per HD").

Should anything like "silatic jelly" count as treasure? Maybe it could be useful as a spell component.


----------



## freyar (May 13, 2008)

Big Mac said:
			
		

> Sounds good, but should Improved Sunder only work against metal weapons? What is the basis behind the sundering? Is the silatic supposed to be good at disarming people or is it supposed to be good at grabbing metal weapons out of the hands of characters? I'd say the second sounds a bit more true to its metal-chomping nature.




Improved Sunder as a feat works against any kind of weapon, shield, etc, but a DM should play the silatic as only going after metal weapons and shields.  The reason I chose that feat was so that the silatic can attack the metal stuff without suffering an AoO.



> The original blurb says silatics prefer to hang out in uninhabitable places where they are less likely to face attack.



True, but that doesn't really tell us much about the environment.  If they can survive in Wildspace, I guess any environment will be acceptable to them.



> I think that 6 inches of height is too low, too. The blurb says they "hide well, for they can stretch as thin as 1" thick". While the blurb doesn't give the normal thickness, I'd expect it to be much more than 5 inches fatter than the minimum thickness. The illustration in MC9 isn't any use as it shows a silatic floating weightless in Wildspace (so it is in the thin "almost gracefull" mode). We know that silatics are not normally that thin on the ground.
> 
> I think that the only blurb we have left is the bit at the begining: "Silatics are amorphous blobs, 5-7' in diameter..." I think these guys should be more like 5-7 feet in height, as well as diameter, when they move about. Flattening themselves to 1 inch thick should be something they do to hide.




6 inches seems to be pretty standard for amorphous oozes (gray ooze, etc).  If we change the volume like that, we should definitely increase the weight...


> Is hide +5 enough for a creature that can be 1 inch thick or should it gain some sort of circumstance bonus when it flattens itself? (This is why I menioned hide in plain sight, earlier.)



Well, they're not necessarily transparent, and they're still big, so +5 to Hide is probably still ok.



> Also, should the silatic's "stretching as thin as 1 inch" be a two dimensional ability (so it can make itself like a pancake) or should it be able to stretch that thin in any dimension (so that it can make itself long as well as thin)? This creature can *potentially* slide under a badly fitted door, or climb through barred gates. That *could* help it sneak onboard ships without causing damage that alerts a crew to its presence. Should it be able to do that sort of stuff?



Oozes can often do that, yeah, but you're right that we need to mention that in the flavor text.



> There is nothing in the text, yet. It should be 6d10 lbs of iron for the standard creature and 7-18d10 lbs of iron for the advanced versions of the creature (unless you want to stick with "1d10 lb of iron per HD").
> 
> Should anything like "silatic jelly" count as treasure? Maybe it could be useful as a spell component.



Let's say 1d10 lb of iron per HD.  Since the original text doesn't mention anything about the jelly being useful, I'd rather not add anything.

Finally, the original text gives us:


			
				Silatic Ooze said:
			
		

> When a silatic absorbs enough metal (around 100 lbs), it seeks out an uninhabited area and splits in two. The two new silatics, each 3-1/2' wide, are dazed and instinctively move in opposite directions. Five hours after splitting, they regain their senses and search for food. If the reproduction occurs in a confined space, the two silatics fight to the death upon regaining their senses.



We should probably add a split ability, like so:

Split (Ex): A silatic ooze of 12HD or more may split into two silatic oozes as a full round action, each with half as many HD (if the original had an odd number of HD, one of the "children" will have one more HD than the other).  The two new oozes are mentally incapacitated and instinctively move away from each other (taking penalties on all other actions as if they are frightened) for five hours.  After those five hours, if the two children are still close to each other, they will fight to the death.


----------



## Big Mac (May 14, 2008)

freyar said:
			
		

> Improved Sunder as a feat works against any kind of weapon, shield, etc, but a DM should play the silatic as only going after metal weapons and shields.  The reason I chose that feat was so that the silatic can attack the metal stuff without suffering an AoO.




I figured that is why you added it, and I like the ability. I just thought that this might need clarification in the blurb.



			
				freyar said:
			
		

> True, but that doesn't really tell us much about the environment.  If they can survive in Wildspace, I guess any environment will be acceptable to them.




"Any" will do. A note in the blurb that says that silatics don't breath and often hide in uninhabitable areas could be helpful.




			
				freyar said:
			
		

> 6 inches seems to be pretty standard for amorphous oozes (gray ooze, etc).  If we change the volume like that, we should definitely increase the weight...
> 
> Well, they're not necessarily transparent, and they're still big, so +5 to Hide is probably still ok.




6 inches is standard, huh? If that is the case then I suppose it *would* make more sense for this creature to transform into a pancake like creature. The rest of your logic (on the hiding and stuff) makes more sense if a silatic isn't a more 3 dimensional creature.



			
				freyar said:
			
		

> Oozes can often do that, yeah, but you're right that we need to mention that in the flavor text.




Oozes can do it, but the question is - can silatics do it? If a silatic is a pancake shaped creature that can shift in size, can it actually lengthen itself (in one direction) to become more like a cigar shaped snakelike blob?



			
				freyar said:
			
		

> Let's say 1d10 lb of iron per HD.  Since the original text doesn't mention anything about the jelly being useful, I'd rather not add anything.




That sounds good. Someone can always write supporting material with things like spells or items that call for Silatic Jelly.



			
				freyar said:
			
		

> Finally, the original text gives us:
> 
> We should probably add a split ability, like so:
> 
> Split (Ex): A silatic ooze of 12HD or more may split into two silatic oozes as a full round action, each with half as many HD (if the original had an odd number of HD, one of the "children" will have one more HD than the other).  The two new oozes are mentally incapacitated and instinctively move away from each other (taking penalties on all other actions as if they are frightened) for five hours.  After those five hours, if the two children are still close to each other, they will fight to the death.




I like this. The mechanics are great. 12HD works for the Iron Silatic - others will need more HD.

The original ability was more of an imperative than an option. A silatic would not normally use this ability unless it was alone in a place where it believes it will be undisturbed, but that makes the ability something players will never see.

Maybe a silatic that hits a certain size could feel a desire to look for an isolated spot and then split as soon as it is safe to do so. A silatic that keeps feeding (and growing) should probably automatically split after a few more HD. (So there should be a maximum size/HD for each of these creatures.) I think that bigger silatics should become rarer and rarer.

How about once the silatic hits a certain size it needs to make a saving throw every time it levels up, or maybe even every time it feeds, to *avoid* splitting in a public place? Players could then throw metal at a large silatic until it splits and then try to take out the two babies before they get over the birth-confusion. Something like that could actually be fun.


----------



## Shade (May 14, 2008)

Wow...a lot to catch up with.

I've updated Homebrews  with flavor text and some of the other bits I saw discussed.  

What is still missing?


----------



## freyar (May 14, 2008)

I think we just need to put "iron silatic" as the first mention of "silatic" in the Split ability b/c the HD values will change for the other versions.  Then I think the iron is done.


----------



## Big Mac (May 14, 2008)

freyar said:
			
		

> I think we just need to put "iron silatic" as the first mention of "silatic" in the Split ability b/c the HD values will change for the other versions.  Then I think the iron is done.




If you think my comments on the split are nothing to worry about then maybe it is done.

As "Split" is now personalised for the individual silatics, do you think it is worth personalising  "Metalsense". After all it is already partly personalised to iron.

Plus I also think that an Iron Silatic would be able to sense steel and to eat the iron within that steel.

But I think that everything else is done. I especially love this bit:



			
				Silatic said:
			
		

> Silatics do not hoard nor covet treasure, but up to 1d10 pounds per Hit Die of the associated metal may be recovered from a slain silatic.




That sentence is just beautiful.


----------



## freyar (May 14, 2008)

Big Mac said:
			
		

> If you think my comments on the split are nothing to worry about then maybe it is done.




Well, I think those comments might fit better in the flavor.  I don't think the silatic should have to save to avoid splitting, though.  (Forced reproduction is just too creepy.   )



> As "Split" is now personalised for the individual silatics, do you think it is worth personalising  "Metalsense". After all it is already partly personalised to iron.
> 
> Plus I also think that an Iron Silatic would be able to sense steel and to eat the iron within that steel.



Good idea to personalize metalsense.  I think you're right about steel, but I think we've sort of covered that by mentioning weapons and armor.


----------



## Shade (May 16, 2008)

Updated.

Added flavor text regarding finding an isolated spot to split.   Is metalsense personalized sufficiently?


----------



## freyar (May 16, 2008)

Looks good to me.


----------



## Shade (May 19, 2008)

Let's move on to the platinum.

Summarizing what we discussed upthread:

Str 24, Dex 15, Con 22, Int 5, Wis 11, Cha 1
+3 natural armor



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> Platinum: resistance 10 to acid, fire, & electricity; irritating touch = Fort save or -1 on Dex based checks for 1 hour?






			
				Big Mac said:
			
		

> The catalitic properties sound interesting. I'm not sure if it isn't "too scientific" for D&D, but maybe this could be folded into something else. Maybe Platinum Silatics could "eat" faster than other Silatics (so they take only 2 rounds to produce digestive fluid and only 2 rounds to reabsorb it). I'm not sure on this - I think it needs more thought.






			
				Big Mac said:
			
		

> How about changing the Platinum Silatics acid coating to a different coating that causes catalitic reactions and irritation? The catalitic reaction could result in acid building up on the surface of the pseudopods and the irritation could be similar to the sort of irritation you get in your eyes when chopping up onions.
> 
> How about if the Platinum Silatic scores a hit, their opponant has to make a saving throw to avoid crying for X rounds. Crying could cause a penalty to attck rolls and vision based checks.






			
				Big Mac said:
			
		

> It might be nice if the Platinum, with extra HD, could also boost its acid attack and the Iron, with extra HD had some sort of anti-magic boost.






			
				freyar said:
			
		

> Platinum should get some kind of acid (sorry, think the paragraph breaks there confused me), and all of them should get Digest Metal (which looks good to me). For the save DCs, should there be a penalty for objects made of the corresponding metal?






			
				Big Mac said:
			
		

> EDIT: I've just noticed that the Platinum Silactic does get an acid attack. Maybe we just need a non-acid attack for the other types of Silactic.
> 
> We could give the Platinum Silactic an acid attack that is more like the Black Pudding and give the other two Silactic's a more watered down Digest Metal ability. (Unless the Black Pudding acid attack is too much. If that is the case, I'd stick with giving them all Digest Metal and go with freyar's idea for something that only the Platinum Silactic does.)


----------



## demiurge1138 (May 19, 2008)

OK, platinum silatics get a nasty acid. Living creature struck by it, save vs. sickened for five rounds?


----------



## freyar (May 20, 2008)

Sounds fair enough.  I think the original text suggests 2d8 acid damage on top of the platinum's slam.  Do we want to go that high?


----------



## Shade (May 20, 2008)

Added to Homebrews.

Here's the standard acid ability of oozes:

Acid (Ex): The creature secretes a digestive acid that dissolves organic material and metal quickly, but does not affect stone. Any melee hit deals acid damage, and the opponent’s armor and clothing dissolve and become useless immediately unless they succeed on DC 21 Reflex saves. A metal or wooden weapon that strikes a platinum silatic also dissolves immediately unless it succeeds on a DC 21 Reflex save. The save DCs are Constitution-based.

The platinum silatic's acidic touch deals 21 points of damage per round to wooden or metal objects, but the ooze must remain in contact with the object for 1 full round to deal this damage.

Do we want to stick with that, and just add the sickening effect?  Or do we want to drop the damage to metal and limit it to organic matter, allowing digest metal to deal with metal?


----------



## demiurge1138 (May 20, 2008)

What text from digest metal would have to be folded into the acid attack? What would have to be excluded from the acid attack if digest metal was separate?


----------



## freyar (May 21, 2008)

Well, Digest Metal is very slow compared to this damage (1 pt damage per round and only after full 3 rounds).  Giving the platinum silatic the full ooze acid would make Digest Metal, as currently written, almost useless.  So I'd either say nerf the acid to just organic material or else boost digest metal for all the silatics.  I think I'd prefer to boost digest metal, honestly, since these things are supposed to be powerful metalvores.


----------



## Shade (May 22, 2008)

Big Mac...are you still out there?


----------



## Shade (May 23, 2008)

Anyone else have an opinion on "powering up" the digest metal ability?


----------



## Big Mac (May 25, 2008)

Shade said:
			
		

> Big Mac...are you still out there?




I'm still here. I just had a week holiday and am catching up on what you have been doing.

EDIT: I've caught up - see below for my thoughts.


----------



## Big Mac (May 26, 2008)

freyar said:
			
		

> Well, Digest Metal is very slow compared to this damage (1 pt damage per round and only after full 3 rounds).  Giving the platinum silatic the full ooze acid would make Digest Metal, as currently written, almost useless.  So I'd either say nerf the acid to just organic material or else boost digest metal for all the silatics.  I think I'd prefer to boost digest metal, honestly, since these things are supposed to be powerful metalvores.




Nerf? The only "nerf"s I know are "scruffy looking nerf herders" and the combat game. I take it you mean "cut down" the acid attack to Digest Metal levels.

I think the essential core of these monsters is that they eat metal, but can't dissolve flesh. It is what makes them different from an average ooze.

Boosting their Digest Metal ability or cutting down the Platinum's Acid effect to flesh would be two good ways to go. Another alternative would be to give the Platinum a reduced speed acid attack (at Digest Metal speed).

Comparing the second edition "Oozes/Slimes/Jellies" entry to the third edition Ooze could help us see where the differences are. The 3.5e Gelatinous Cube has an acid attack (that only eats flesh). In 2e, all Gelatinous Cube damage was treated as digestive acid, so it has been bumped up with regular damage. The 3.5e Grey Ooze has had its "Corrodes Metal" replaced by an "Acid" attack that is DC dependent. The 3.5e
Ochre Jelly has an acid attack (that only eats flesh). Again the 2e Ochre Jelly damage was all treated as digestive acid, so this has also been bumped up with regular damage. (The Crystal Ooze and Green Slime are not in the SRD, so I didn't review them.)

I would say that the Grey Ooze, with its "corrodes metal" ability, is the closest thing we have to a silatic. Maybe we should look at that and play "spot the difference". The Grey Ooze starts to digest metal instantly - all silatics take 3 rounds to secrete their digestive fluid and another three to absorb the dissolved metal*.

_* = I don't think that slows down the silatic's metal eating attack, The "3 rounds to secrete" just gives silatics 3 rounds to prepare the attack. The "3 rounds to digest" gives creatures 3 rounds to run away (or regroup) while a silatic eats anything they dissolve. (Silatics have no interest in flesh, so until you actually cause damage to a silatic, you could slow one down for six rounds by dropping something like a metal coin as you retreat.)_

A 2e Grey Ooze, "corrodes metal" at different rates, while a silatic seems to corrode metal instantly after the third round, but offers saving throws vs acid -5 for the metal type and -2 for other metals).

It seems to me that a silatic Digest Metal attack *is* an acid attack (that only targets metal *and* has an advantage against its specific metal type). Apart from the Platinum Silatic (and perhaps the Silver Silatic), I think we should stick to these creatures not getting an acid attack on flesh. But as the other oozes have had little boosts, it wouldn't be wrong to bump these up a bit. I think that letting the silatics dissolve weapons that hit them is the bump they need. The Sunder also fits in well.

So I'm fairly happy with the speed of Digest Metal. But if you want to bump it up, just give it 3 rounds to kick in and then make it a continuous attack form. (The 3 rounds to eat, could then turn into 3 rounds per melted object.) A silatic that hasn't been damaged should therefore continue to eat at the 2e rate of one metal thing per 6 rounds, but could switch to disolving all metal in sight, when the silatic takes damage (and goes into its "beserk" mode). After a silatic kills all opponents (and comes out of "beserk" mode) it could then spend 3 rounds per melted objects eating. (This would not normally be important unless some characters have somehow managed to hide from a Platinum Silatic.)

This leaves us the Platinum's Acid to deal with. I think that we should go with freyar's "nerf" suggestion. IMO the Platinum's Acid attack should be a *second* digestive attack mode based on the Ochre Jelly Acid attack:



			
				http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/ooze.htm#ochreJelly said:
			
		

> Acid (Ex)
> An ochre jelly secretes a digestive acid that dissolves only flesh. Any melee hit or constrict attack deals acid damage.




This *is* a lot faster than its "metal eating" ability, but you could look at it as the Platinum melting the organic object that is in the way of its dinner. 

The Platinum's Acid attack would probably be really useful for getting through things like wooden doors (and in the Spelljammer Campaign Setting, wooden decks or hulls of spelljammer ships). It would also help a silatic rip a leather scabbard apart so that it can get to the dagger or sword within or rip open a purse containing platinum coins. The acid would make the creature a great "cut-purse". Maybe we should give the Platinum a few skill ranks in picking pockets!

EDIT: I just noticed that all Silatics get "+1 or better weapons to hit" as a Special Defence. Do the converted silatics need something like Damage Reduction (against normal weapons)?


----------



## Big Mac (May 26, 2008)

Shade said:
			
		

> Do we want to stick with that, and just add the sickening effect?  Or do we want to drop the damage to metal and limit it to organic matter, allowing digest metal to deal with metal?




The irritation thing, is hard to include with the Platinum Silatic not getting "called shots" to attack the eyes, noses and mouths of its opponents. And even if it did get called shots, it probably wouldn't understand what bits of its opponents to attack. So I'd suggest this would need to be converted into a dust like attack form.

If we go with silatics eating slowly (one object per 6 rounds), but switching to a beserk-like "disolve-now-eat-later" mode when damaged, this could possibly work as another attack form that is only used after a Platinum Silatic takes damage and goes beserk.

Given that this is semi-acidic, I'd suggest basing it on the Acid Fog spell (but pulling out the damage and the solidity):



			
				http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/acidFog.htm said:
			
		

> Acid fog creates a billowing mass of misty vapors similar to that produced by a solid fog spell. In addition to slowing creatures down and obscuring sight, this spell’s vapors are highly acidic. Each round on your turn, starting when you cast the spell, the fog deals 2d6 points of acid damage to each creature and object within it.




I'd argue that the cloud given off by the Platinum should be transparent (from the outside), but creatures on the inside should suffer visibility problems if the cloud makes them cry.

How does this sound:

_*Platinum Cloud (Ex)*

When damaged a Platinum Silatic gives off a billowing mass of platinum dust similar in size to the fog produced by the fog cloud spell. This cloud is mildly acidic and causes irritation to eyes. If creatures with eyes get exposed to the cloud, the irritation of the platinum dust obscures all sight, including darkvision, beyond 5 feet. A creature within 5 feet has concealment (attacks have a 20% miss chance). Creatures farther away have total concealment (50% miss chance, and the attacker can’t use sight to locate the target).

In a confined space, or still air, the dust cloud remains effective for 10 rounds. A moderate wind (11+ mph) disperses the dust cloud in 4 rounds; a strong wind (21+ mph) disperses the dust in 1 round. 

The ability does not function underwater._

I'm not sure if you want to do anything about the dust being breathed in and causing people to cough or sneeze.

BTW: I based the 10 rounds time, on the 1 round per level duration of an Acid Fog spell (with the Platinum's HD put in as its caster level). You could tweak that time if you like, but I don't think the creature should get to use this ability at will. (Maybe it should even be a once-a-day thing that only gets used when the Platinum Silatic looses half of its hp.)


----------



## freyar (May 26, 2008)

Ok, based on the above discussions: let's cut the platinum's acid attack to just a fixed amount of hp damage to organic material only.  

Also: yes, all these should definitely have DR X/magi!  I'm going to say DR 5 for iron and 10 for platinum, but that's open to discussion.


----------



## Big Mac (May 28, 2008)

freyar said:
			
		

> Ok, based on the above discussions: let's cut the platinum's acid attack to just a fixed amount of hp damage to organic material only.




I am happy with 2d8 acid damage. We just need to agree on the actual text of the Acid ability. Should a Platinum Silatic's pseudopods be constantly coated with acid, or should they follow the same sort of pattern as the metal digesting fluids?

The original write up seems to suggest they are constantly coated with acid.



			
				freyar said:
			
		

> Also: yes, all these should definitely have DR X/magi!  I'm going to say DR 5 for iron and 10 for platinum, but that's open to discussion.




These look like they are OK, but I'd like to be able to make this sort of guess in the future. (I probably would have guessed and used the HD of the three silatics - DR6 for the Iron, DR9 for the Gold and DR10 for the Platinum.) I'm assuming the Iron's DR would need to go between the other two silatic's DRs, but be closer to the Platinum. Would you go for DR9 or DR8?

I couldn't find any sort of guidelines for this in the Monster Conversion Notes thread. Is there some sort of rule for assigning DR?

EDIT: Typo alert - the following typo has slipped into the text of both silatics:

"Silatics may form a pair (or more, depending on type) of long, thin pseudopods that can strettch up to fifty feet."​
The word "strettch" should be "stretch". Looks like you have a sticky "t" key on your keyboard.

(I think I actually prefer stretch as a longer word - it's kind of poetic with extra letters in it.  )


----------



## freyar (May 28, 2008)

I think the platinum pseudopods should have a constant acid, so it happens on any slam, yeah.

DR usually comes in increments of 5.  I usually think of DR 5 for things up to about CR 5-6, DR 10 starting around there.


----------



## demiurge1138 (May 28, 2008)

I prefer a status condition like sickness to a cloud of dust in the eyes, bu that's neither here nor there. Agree to DR 5 on the iron, DR 10 on the rest.


----------



## freyar (May 28, 2008)

demiurge1138 said:
			
		

> I prefer a status condition like sickness to a cloud of dust in the eyes, bu that's neither here nor there. Agree to DR 5 on the iron, DR 10 on the rest.



 Sickened is probably a reasonable way to handle the irritation, sure.


----------



## Shade (May 28, 2008)

OK, added DR 5/magic to the iron and 10/magic to the platinum.

I also removed the extra "t" in stretch.  Good catch!

Have we decided to leave digest metal unchanged, and go with this for the acid?

Attack: Pseudopod +11 melee (1d6+7 plus 2d8 acid)
Full Attack: 2 pseudopods +11 melee (1d6+7 plus 2d8 acid)

Acid (Ex): The platinum silatic secretes a digestive acid that dissolves organic material quickly, but does not affect metal or stone. Any melee hit deals acid damage, and the victim must succeed on DC 21 Fortitude save or become sickened for x rounds. A wooden weapon that strikes a platinum silatic also dissolves immediately unless it succeeds on a DC 21 Reflex save. The save DCs are Constitution-based.

The platinum silatic's acidic touch deals 21 points of damage per round to wooden objects, but the ooze must remain in contact with the object for 1 full round to deal this damage.


----------



## demiurge1138 (May 28, 2008)

That looks good, if we want to leave the digest metal slow.


----------



## freyar (May 28, 2008)

Big Mac can correct me if I'm wrong, but he seemed to want to keep it slow.  See post 112.


----------



## Big Mac (May 29, 2008)

freyar said:
			
		

> I think the platinum pseudopods should have a constant acid, so it happens on any slam, yeah.




Great. I'm onboard with that.



			
				freyar said:
			
		

> DR usually comes in increments of 5.  I usually think of DR 5 for things up to about CR 5-6, DR 10 starting around there.




Thanks for the info. It is very useful. Hopefully this information can be put into the Monster Conversion Notes at some point.



			
				demiurge1138 said:
			
		

> I prefer a status condition like sickness to a cloud of dust in the eyes, bu that's neither here nor there. Agree to DR 5 on the iron, DR 10 on the rest.




That would seem to be a lot easier to administer. Seeing as we added it, I don't see any reason not to make this a sickening effect.



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> OK, added DR 5/magic to the iron and 10/magic to the platinum.




demiurge1138 voted for the Gold Silatic to get 10/magic too.



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> Have we decided to leave digest metal unchanged, and go with this for the acid?
> 
> Attack: Pseudopod +11 melee (1d6+7 plus 2d8 acid)
> Full Attack: 2 pseudopods +11 melee (1d6+7 plus 2d8 acid)
> ...




This looks pretty good to me. It fits in nicely with Digest Metal. The nit-picking part of me wonders if we want the word "digestive" in the Acid description (on the grounds that the creature doesn't actually digest any organic material its acid disolves), but apart from that this looks perfect.



			
				freyar said:
			
		

> Big Mac can correct me if I'm wrong, but he seemed to want to keep it slow.  See post 112.




Thanks freyar. I do want to "keep it slow" (the argument being that 2nd edition Silatics were slower than the 2nd edition Grey Ooze). The timescale of 3rd edition combat means that even though I want to keep the 3 round delay, the Silatic is still technically a lot faster than it used to be.

However, I do think that maybe the text of Digest Metal could be tidied up a bit.

Silatics take 3 rounds to *start* digesting metal, but there is no reason why a Silatic making two handed attacks wouldn't try to excret digestive fluid over all the metal items in the room during a battle...and then come back to suck up the all the liquid metal at the end of the fight.

And there is no reason why the digestive fluid, itself, couldn't work instantly. As far as I can see the delay in the original blurb is 3 rounds of salivating time followed by 3 rounds of slurping time - that leaves no duration for the metal disolving process. During the middle of a combat those delays could easily be ignored (to make this an on-demand ability). Salivation can be continuous once it kicks in and a silatic only needs to slurp (in front of players) while it is fighting one handed. Once the silatic starts fighting two handed it doesn't make sense for it to stop and slurp.

I think Digest Metal could be a bit more like a barbarian's rage, with a 3 round kick in time and a post-battle period where (instead of being tired) the silatic instinctively travels to all pools of disolved metal and spends 3 rounds per item sucking up its dinner.

I think a minor change like this preserves the original delay, but makes it more obvious to the DM that they can get these guys to eat more metal objects during a fight.

(In fact, I'm now thinking that the Platinum Silatic is looking pretty hard to defeat. I can't see a single PHB melee weapon that could survive a combat. I can see players needing to summon an earth elemental to punch this creature to death.)


----------



## Shade (May 29, 2008)

Updated.

OK, a few last things before moving on to the gold...

CR 7?

Advancement: 11-20 HD (Medium); 21-30 HD (Large)?

Weight?   (We listed the iron as 200 pounds)

Duration for sickened effect from acid?


----------



## freyar (May 30, 2008)

Let's make sickened 1d6 rounds?  The rest sounds good, including the 200 lb.  Let's make them basically all of a type.


----------



## Big Mac (Jun 1, 2008)

freyar said:
			
		

> Let's make sickened 1d6 rounds?  The rest sounds good, including the 200 lb.  Let's make them basically all of a type.




I'm not sure if 200 lb is good as an average weight for *all* types of Silatic.

The blurb says that a dead silatic contains 1d10 lbs of metal per HD. So an Iron Silatic contains 6d10 lbs of iron, but a Platinum Silatic contains 10d10 lbs of platinum. They *are* both the same size (in the original stats), so it is *possible* that the Platinum is just better at eating and contains less "jelly-like substance" than the Iron Silatic. But if you go down the Advanced route and use a 30HD Platinum Silatic you get 30d10 lbs of Platinum and that could easily give a result of 21-30 lbs of platinum.

I'm guessing that the "average weight" doesn't apply to advanced silatics, but it might be worth double checking the numbers.

Apart from that, I think this sounds good, so far. We just need to work out the extra feat for the Platinum. How about Ability Focus on the DC of the Platinum's Acid Attack?


----------



## Shade (Jun 3, 2008)

Updated with Ability Focus.

Does anyone know if the remain in contact damage (which is based on the Reflex save DC) increases when the DC is increased through a feat?   Just curious, as I don't think I've seen that before.

Back to the weight...

Since they are all the same size, I guess the real question is which metal weighs more...iron or platinum?   I'm assuming gold weighs the least, since it is a "soft" metal.


----------



## Big Mac (Jun 4, 2008)

Shade said:
			
		

> Updated with Ability Focus.
> 
> Does anyone know if the remain in contact damage (which is based on the Reflex save DC) increases when the DC is increased through a feat?   Just curious, as I don't think I've seen that before.




Hmm. I didn't anything about changing the "remain in contact" DC on the Ooze over at the Hypertext d20 SRD (and that claims to be 3.5). I kind of assumed the "remain in contact" thing was the Ooze version of a full attack.

Here is the Black Pudding:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> *Acid (Ex)*
> The creature secretes a digestive acid that dissolves organic material and metal quickly, but does not affect stone. Any melee hit or constrict attack deals acid damage, and the opponent’s armor and clothing dissolve and become useless immediately unless they succeed on DC 21 Reflex saves. A metal or wooden weapon that strikes a black pudding also dissolves immediately unless it succeeds on a DC 21 Reflex save. The save DCs are Constitution-based.
> 
> The pudding’s acidic touch deals 21 points of damage per round to wooden or metal objects, but the ooze must remain in contact with the object for 1 full round to deal this damage.




As you can see, it doesn't mentinon any change to the DC in the second paragraph. Are you getting this from another part of the combat rules?

The Elder Black Pudding is bumped up to DC 29 because of its additional HD and constitution score. No mention of changing the "remain in contact" rules are mentioned.

Note that the black pudding has the Constrict ability.

Here is the Grey Ooze:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> *Acid (Ex)*
> A gray ooze secretes a digestive acid that quickly dissolves organic material and metal, but not stone. Any melee hit or constrict attack deals acid damage. Armor or clothing dissolves and becomes useless immediately unless it succeeds on a DC 16 Reflex save. A metal or wooden weapon that strikes a gray ooze also dissolves immediately unless it succeeds on a DC 16 Reflex save. The save DCs are Constitution-based.
> 
> The ooze’s acidic touch deals 16 points of damage per round to wooden or metal objects, but the ooze must remain in contact with the object for 1 full round to deal this damage.




Note that the Grey Ooze also has the Constrict ability.

The Gelatinous Cube doesn't mention "remain in contact", presumably because it only seems to absorb things and then damage them.

The Ochre Jelly also doesn't mention "remain in contact", but does have "Constrict".

Hmm. Constrict seems to imply that oozes that *don't* have Constrict do *not* do automatic slam and acid damage if they are grappling.

Maybe the silatics need constrict attacks. Does anyone know of an ooze that has "remain in contact" in its text, but can not constrict?



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> Back to the weight...
> 
> Since they are all the same size, I guess the real question is which metal weighs more...iron or platinum?   I'm assuming gold weighs the least, since it is a "soft" metal.




Is this any help:

http://www.indygem.com/productinfo_preciousmetals.htm



			
				Properties of Gold said:
			
		

> *Gold in its pure state:*
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Has a specific gravity of 19.33. It is relatively heavy compared to most metals, such as silver (SG 10.7) or iron (SG 7.8). A notable exception is platinum (SG 21.4).




I'm not entirely sure how "specific gravity" relates to weight, but it there is another section further down implying that platinum is twice the weight of gold:



			
				The Strengths of Platinum said:
			
		

> *Platinum is Strong.*
> 
> It is the heaviest of the precious metals, weighing almost twice as much as karat gold.


----------



## Shade (Jun 4, 2008)

Here's what I was getting at:

Black pudding HD = 10
Black pudding Con modifier = +6
Reflex save DC for acid = 10 + 1/2 HD + Con modifier = 21
The pudding’s acidic touch deals 21 points of damage per round to wooden or metal objects, but the ooze must remain in contact with the object for 1 full round to deal this damage.

Compare with what we have for platinum silatic:
HD = 10
Con modifier = +6
Ability Focus (acid) = +2
Reflex save DC for acid = 10 + 1/2 HD + Con modifier + Ability Focus = 23

So my question is thus:  does the acidic touch deal 21 points of damage or 23?   I'm guessing the latter, but just wanted to know if we had a precedent.


For the weight, since gold appears quite a bit heavier than iron, and platinum is double the weight of gold, how about:

Iron = 200 pounds
Gold = 300 pounds
Platinum = 600 pounds


----------



## Big Mac (Jun 4, 2008)

Shade said:
			
		

> Here's what I was getting at:
> 
> Black pudding HD = 10
> Black pudding Con modifier = +6
> ...




Thanks for the clarification. I think the latter would be more fun, but the text of Ability Focus only mentions the DC (and not any other effects):



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> *Ability Focus [General]*
> Choose one of the creature’s special attacks.
> 
> *Prerequisite*
> ...




I think they would actually say if this made other things change (as well as the DC).

Also the other ... Focus feats also seem to only affect the DC. Skill Focus adds +3 to one type of skill check. Spell Focus adds +1 to the DC of one school of spells. Weapon Focus adds +1 to the attack roll of one type of weapon and Greater Weapon Focus adds a second +1 to the same attack roll.

I might be wrong, but I see a theme of target number modification, but no other effect. Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Focus might give a clue if you compare them to Weapon Specialization and Greater Weapon Specialization. They both add +2 to damage rolls implying that the Weapon Focus feats definately don't add to damage. I'd infer that other Focus feats don't add to damage either.

I might be wrong, but I'd be inclined to make it 21 damage and 23 DC unless I saw something that convinced me otherwise. (With several ...Focus feats, we might be able to find something in official errata or FAQs about one of them.)

(Incidentally, I think there should be an Ability Specialisation feat that stacks on Ability Focus and makes an ability that causes damage do an extra +2 damage.)

EDIT: I just did a search on wizards.com for "ability focus" and got 143 results.

So far I haven't got to anything that does the same damage as the DC score, but in the Quarrian, Choker Warlock Ability Focus (eldritch blast) doesn't seem to change Eldritch Blast from 1d6 to 1d6+2. And in the Celestial Wyvern, Corrupted Wyvern, Half-Troll/Half-Wyvern and Great Wyvern Ability Focus (poison) doesn't seem to change the constitution damage from 2d6 Con to 2d6+2 Con.



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> For the weight, since gold appears quite a bit heavier than iron, and platinum is double the weight of gold, how about:
> 
> Iron = 200 pounds
> Gold = 300 pounds
> Platinum = 600 pounds




I couldn't actually find anything that gave proper comparisons (everything I saw with gold and platinum used Troy Ounces instead of normal ounces), so I'll be happy to go with your guess. It feels like you *have* gone in the right direction. I'm not sure if it ties in *totally* with the treasure rules, but as long as a silatic is heavier that the "treasure" it drops, it doesn't really matter if one type of silatic has more or less "jelly" than another type.

(Do you have any idea on where to put silver?)

BTW: While I was researching that I saw that electrum contains both gold and silver, so think that both types of silatic should fight if they try to eat it at the same time. (Of course if they both got there at *different* times, one would extract its own metal and leave the metal wanted by the other one.)


----------



## Shade (Jun 4, 2008)

Yeah, Ability Focus never increases usual damage.  I was just confused since this is the only case I can think of where damage is actually based on a save DC.   Let's just err on the side of caution and not increase the damage.

Updated.

I'm not sure on the weight of the silver right now, but I guess we can cross that bridge when we come to it.


----------



## Shade (Jun 4, 2008)

I gathered up everything we discussed above and added the gold to Homebrews.

We mentioned at one time giving it hide in plain sight.  Do we still want to do this?

Other than that, I think we just need to pick its last feat.


----------



## Big Mac (Jun 5, 2008)

Shade said:
			
		

> I gathered up everything we discussed above and added the gold to Homebrews.




Its looking good so far. Although I think the advancement is wrong as it starts at 9 (and they are already 9). I think it should be:

_Advancement: 10-18 HD (Medium); 19-27 HD (Large)_



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> We mentioned at one time giving it hide in plain sight.  Do we still want to do this?




I think so, although I don't think it should be able to fight while hiding in plain sight.



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> Other than that, I think we just need to pick its last feat.




It looks that way. I think some sort of speed related feat would be best.


----------



## freyar (Jun 5, 2008)

Well, Cleave would get it a few more attacks from time to time.


----------



## Shade (Jun 5, 2008)

I fixed the advancement line.

Any suggestions on a speedy feat?  The only one that comes to mind at non-epic levels is Run.  I'm also fine with Cleave.

Here's the standard Hide in Plain Sight ability...

Hide in Plain Sight (Su): A gold silatic can use the Hide skill even while being observed. As long as it is within 10 feet of some sort of shadow, a gold silatic can hide itself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind. It cannot, however, hide in its own shadow.


----------



## Big Mac (Jun 6, 2008)

Shade said:
			
		

> I fixed the advancement line.
> 
> Any suggestions on a speedy feat?  The only one that comes to mind at non-epic levels is Run.  I'm also fine with Cleave.




Cleave is definately a good one. It is going to give the Gold Silatic a forth attack from time to time and that is a type of speed.

Moving fast, doesn't make as much sense as a feat that grants extra attacks. The reach of a silatic is amazing, so an additional attack (when Cleave kicks in) will threaten a much larger area.



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> Here's the standard Hide in Plain Sight ability...
> 
> Hide in Plain Sight (Su): A gold silatic can use the Hide skill even while being observed. As long as it is within 10 feet of some sort of shadow, a gold silatic can hide itself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind. It cannot, however, hide in its own shadow.




Hide in Plain Sight was suggested because of gold leaf, wasn't it? I wonder if this would need modification, so that it only worked on flat surfaces.


----------



## Shade (Jun 9, 2008)

Cleave it is!

Giving it more thought, I don't think that hide in plain sight is needed.   Since all oozes are extremely amorphous and nearly all can make themselves super-thin, it doesn't make sense for the gold to gain an additional ability based off this.   Anyone strongly disagree?


----------



## demiurge1138 (Jun 9, 2008)

I agree with you, Shade.


----------



## Big Mac (Jun 10, 2008)

demiurge1138 said:
			
		

> I agree with you, Shade.




Yep. Scrap the Hide in Plain Sight. Is this done then?

Can we make the Silver Silatic?

Here is a fairly good page about silver properties.

I vote for:


Four 25 foot pseudopods - instead of 2 50 foot pseudopods*. (I figure that halving the length of the pseudopods will cancel out a little bit of the extra arm advantage.)
Some sort of combat advantage against lycanthropes. (They should count as silvered weapons for damage reduction.)
Ability to conduct electricity. Attacks like lightning go through and hit whatever is touching the Silver Silatic. (Or some sort of save to "bounce" electrical attacks.)
Ability to conduct heat. Fire and cold attacks go through and hit whatever is touching the Silver Silatic. (Or some sort of save to "bounce" heat/cold attacks.)
Highly reflective. Gaze attacks (or beholder eye rays) bounce off of the creature and hit a random creature in the nearby area. (Or some sort of save to "bounce" eye based attacks.)
Argyria: A Silver Silatic's metal digesting juices contain a chemical that permanantly changes the colour of skin to a grey or blue-grey colour next time it is exposed to sunlight. Any humanoid, monstrous humanoid or giant creature that takes damage from a pseudopod of a silver silatic that is feeding must succeed on a DC X (Fortutude?) save or its skin colour will gradually change colour as exposure to the sun binds the chemical into its skin. (I'm guessing that X = number of hit points of damage in the entire combat.)

_* = Because of this text: "Silatics may form a pair (or more, depending on type) of long, thin pseudopods that can stretch up to fifty feet."_

Silver Silatics are much less common than the other types, so I think we need an explanation for their lower frequency. Maybe they could be less agressive or move slower than other types.

If they had immunities that reflected a lot of types of damage, it would give them a good defence against people/creatures with special attack forms. But reflective abilities wouldn't need to actually make the creature do more conventional damage. They could actually be easier to beat if fought normally. (We could for example drop the pseudopod damage, so that they get double the attacks, but don't do double the amount of damage per round.)

BTW: Argyria is a real medical condition caused by chemicals containing silver. I think this could be a fairly harmless, but annoying in game ability. It might need a re-write to make it look more like a poision attack (and give people a second saving throw). Maybe potential victims who stay out of the sunlight could get one additional saving throw per day to flush the poison out of their system.


----------



## Shade (Jun 10, 2008)

Yep, that finishes up the gold.

Some interesting ideas to keep in mind for the silver.   

First, let's decide where we want to place it in the power hierarchy of the silatics.   That way, we can decide on Hit Dice and ability scores.

I'm thinking between iron and gold, so 7-8 HD.


----------



## Big Mac (Jun 10, 2008)

Shade said:
			
		

> Yep, that finishes up the gold.
> 
> Some interesting ideas to keep in mind for the silver.




Depending on how strong or weedy we make it, we might not be able to justify including them all. 



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> First, let's decide where we want to place it in the power hierarchy of the silatics.   That way, we can decide on Hit Dice and ability scores.
> 
> I'm thinking between iron and gold, so 7-8 HD.




OK. I'm onboard with putting them beween iron and gold, as there is a gap there. Somehow giving them more than 10 HD and having the silver as an "uber silatic" wouldn't feel so good.

I vote for the lower 7 HD. (8 HD can go to the first homebrew silatic that comes along  )


----------



## Shade (Jun 11, 2008)

7 HD it is!

Gold: Str 19, Dex 16, Con 22, Int 5, Wis 11, Cha 1
Iron: Str 25, Dex 14, Con 24, Int 5, Wis 11, Cha 1
Platinum: Str 24, Dex 15, Con 22, Int 5, Wis 11, Cha 1

So how about Str 21, Dex 15, Con 22, Int 5, Wis 11, Cha 1?


----------



## Big Mac (Jun 11, 2008)

Shade said:
			
		

> So how about Str 21, Dex 15, Con 22, Int 5, Wis 11, Cha 1?




I'm not totally sure on the logic of stat placement yet - I'm guessing this is something without a forumular. However, the numbers look pretty good to me, especially Int, Wis and Cha.

If the silver silatic ever starts to look a bit too powerful (and you need to cut its power) I think you could take away from Str or Dex. I think it could be slightly weaker or slightly slower and still be dangerous.


----------



## Shade (Jun 12, 2008)

Added to Homebrews.

To address the suggested abilities above:



> Four 25 foot pseudopods - instead of 2 50 foot pseudopods*. (I figure that halving the length of the pseudopods will cancel out a little bit of the extra arm advantage.)




Done.  I also reduced the damage to help offset the additional attacks.



> Some sort of combat advantage against lycanthropes. (They should count as silvered weapons for damage reduction.)




Done.



> Ability to conduct electricity. Attacks like lightning go through and hit whatever is touching the Silver Silatic. (Or some sort of save to "bounce" electrical attacks.)
> 
> Ability to conduct heat. Fire and cold attacks go through and hit whatever is touching the Silver Silatic. (Or some sort of save to "bounce" heat/cold attacks.)




Lets simplify this to resistance to cold 10, electricity 10, and fire 10 to keep them in line with the other silatics and not overcomplicate them.



> Highly reflective. Gaze attacks (or beholder eye rays) bounce off of the creature and hit a random creature in the nearby area. (Or some sort of save to "bounce" eye based attacks.)




Hmmm...we could give them a spell turning mechanic rather than the spell resistance the others possess.  Thoughts?



> Argyria: A Silver Silatic's metal digesting juices contain a chemical that permanantly changes the colour of skin to a grey or blue-grey colour next time it is exposed to sunlight. Any humanoid, monstrous humanoid or giant creature that takes damage from a pseudopod of a silver silatic that is feeding must succeed on a DC X (Fortutude?) save or its skin colour will gradually change colour as exposure to the sun binds the chemical into its skin. (I'm guessing that X = number of hit points of damage in the entire combat.)




Interesting, but since it has no mechanical effect, perhaps we can just make if flavor text?


----------



## Big Mac (Jun 12, 2008)

Shade said:
			
		

> Added to Homebrews.
> 
> To address the suggested abilities above:
> 
> ...




The reduced damage is a nice touch.



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> Big Mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Erm. I can't see this. Where is it?



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> Big Mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Fair enough. It saves inventing an ability.



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> Big Mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




That is good, because it swaps one ability for another and keeps the total abilities down. A shield of Great Reflection has a mechanic that might help:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Any time its bearer of this shield is targeted with a spell, it automatically reflects the spell back at the caster (as the spell turning spell). The wearer can lower or raise this effect as a free action (thus allowing beneficial spells in as desired).




That is epic, and I think that "automatic" is a bit more powerful that the spell resistance other silatics have. Maybe the reflection could work whenever spell resistance would normally work. How does this look:

*Spell Reflection (Sp):* A silver silatic has a reflective form of spell resistance that affects spells targeted directly against the silatic.

Whenever a spellcaster targets a spell against the silver silatic they have to make a caster level check (as if opposing spell resistance). If the caster fails the check, their spell is reflected back onto them (as if affected by a spell turning spell). 

Spell reflection only affects targeted spells and has no effect on area spells or effect spells. Any spell that isn't stopped by spell resistance is also not reflected by spell reflection.​
I don't think that a silver silatic should be able to voluntarily lower its spell reflextion ability (when benificial spells were cast upon it).



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> Big Mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I did read that people with Argyria get itchy skin, so if the silver silatic could cause algyria, we could give anyone suffering from it *Light Sensitive Skin* that itches in sunlight and causes them a -2 penalty to any concentration checks.


----------



## freyar (Jun 13, 2008)

I like the spell reflection.  That should work pretty well, but I do think it should be Su rather than Sp.


----------



## Big Mac (Jun 14, 2008)

freyar said:
			
		

> I like the spell reflection. That should work pretty well, but I do think it should be Su rather than Sp.




Thanks. I tried my best to make it fit in with several similar things. The (Sp) was a guess, because I didn't think this was a (Ex) any more. So if you think this is (Su) feel free to change it.


----------



## Shade (Jun 16, 2008)

Big Mac said:
			
		

> I did read that people with Argyria get itchy skin, so if the silver silatic could cause algyria, we could give anyone suffering from it *Light Sensitive Skin* that itches in sunlight and causes them a -2 penalty to any concentration checks.




You know, I like the idea of it causing light sensitivity even better!  I can't think of a single creature that causes that condition, which would give this fella a unique niche.

Here's light sensitivity:

Light Sensitivity (Ex): Orcs are dazzled in bright sunlight or within the radius of a daylight spell.

Here's another creature (from MM2) with spell reflection:

Spell Reflection (Su): The morkoth has a special type of spell resistance that causes the effect of any spell, spell-like ability, or magic item that it successfully resists (even those that affect areas) to bounce off and reflect back at the caster. If the caster of a spell or the user of a spell-like ability or magic item fails a caster level check (DC 15), he or she becomes either the spell's target or the point of origin for the spell's effect, as appropriate. If the morkoth is the subject of a dispel magic spell that is not reflected, its spell reflection ability is suppressed for 1 round.

And here's how the tarrasque uses spell reflection:

Carapace (Ex):  The tarrasque’s armorlike carapace is exceptionally tough and highly reflective, deflecting all rays, lines, cones, and even magic missile spells. There is a 30% chance of reflecting any such effect back at the caster; otherwise, it is merely negated. Check for reflection before rolling to overcome the creature’s spell resistance.


----------



## demiurge1138 (Jun 16, 2008)

How does spell reflection work for the aoa from Fiend Folio? Seeing as how it's a big lump of silver, it'd probably be a good mechanical model. Currently, I'm leaning closer to the morkoth than to the tarrasque's reflective carapace.


----------



## Shade (Jun 16, 2008)

Reflective Spell Resistance (Sp): An aoa has a special type of spell resistance that causes any targeted spell it successfully resists to bounce off and reflect back at the caster. The caster becomes either the spell's target or the point of origin for the spell's effect, as appropriate. In addition, aoa are immune to gaze attacks, and such an effect is reflected back to its origin.


----------



## Big Mac (Jun 16, 2008)

Shade said:
			
		

> You know, I like the idea of it causing light sensitivity even better!  I can't think of a single creature that causes that condition, which would give this fella a unique niche.
> 
> Here's light sensitivity:
> 
> Light Sensitivity (Ex): Orcs are dazzled in bright sunlight or within the radius of a daylight spell.




I was originally thinking of skin sensitivity rather than sight sensitivity, but I suppose eyesight problems would fit in with the afflicted creature having eyes that turn grey in sunlight.

But this condition was supposed to be a permanant one. Maybe it is too hard to implement. Maybe we should just stick with refective attacks and sell this creature as a shiney creature.



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> Reflective Spell Resistance (Sp): An aoa has a special type of spell resistance that causes any targeted spell it successfully resists to bounce off and reflect back at the caster. The caster becomes either the spell's target or the point of origin for the spell's effect, as appropriate. In addition, aoa are immune to gaze attacks, and such an effect is reflected back to its origin.




I like the aoa's Reflective Spell Resistance the best. It is the monster with the clearest wording, and also has the added bonus of reflecting gaze attacks.


----------



## freyar (Jun 16, 2008)

I think what Big Mac has is closest to the Morkoth and Aoa, and any of these is good with me.


----------



## Shade (Jun 16, 2008)

Let's decide on an amount for the reflective spell resistance.  

The gold and platinum have spell resistance CR+7.  Shall we just use that here?


----------



## Big Mac (Jun 17, 2008)

freyar said:
			
		

> I think what Big Mac has is closest to the Morkoth and Aoa, and any of these is good with me.




I think I prefer the wording of the Aoa to what I originally suggested. It is shorter and also adds that great gaze reflection. That really fits in well with the other stuff we have.



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> Let's decide on an amount for the reflective spell resistance.
> 
> The gold and platinum have spell resistance CR+7.  Shall we just use that here?




If I were writing the silver silatic for 2nd edition, I'd put it on an equal footing with the Magic Resistance of the gold and platinum (30%), so CR+7 sounds perfect for the spell resistance. (Making these creatures have as much resistance as an iron silatic would make these creatures very dangerous.)


----------



## demiurge1138 (Jun 17, 2008)

CR+7 sounds about right, and I agree with Big Mac on using the aoa's reflective SR.


----------



## freyar (Jun 17, 2008)

Agreed on all counts.  We putting in something about causing light sensitivity?


----------



## demiurge1138 (Jun 17, 2008)

I, for one, like it.


----------



## Shade (Jun 17, 2008)

Updated.

How's this?

Disease (Ex):  A creature struck by a silver silatic must succeed on a DC X Fortitude save or acquire a disease called argyria.  The disease has an onset of 1 day.  The victim's skin and eyes become sensistive to sunlight.  The victim is dazzled in bright sunlight or within the radius of a daylight spell, and suffers a -2 penalty to Concentration checks in these light conditions.  The save DC is Constitution-based.

We still need...

Speed: x ft. (x squares)
Gold is 30 ft., the others are 15 ft.

Feats: 3
We gave gold Cleave, Improved Initiative, Improved Sunder, Power Attack
We gave platinum Ability Focus (acid), Improved Initiative, Improved Sunder, Power Attack
We gave iron Improved Initiative, Improved Sunder, Power Attack

A typical specimen weighs about x pounds.  Big Mac's findings upthread indicate silver has a specific gravity of about half of gold, so we could just halve the gold's weight, giving us 150 pounds.  But, that makes it less than iron at 200 pounds, which supposedly weighs less than silver.

We currently have...

Iron = 200 pounds
Gold = 300 pounds
Platinum = 600 pounds

We could revise to...

Iron = 150 pounds
Silver = 200 pounds
Gold = 400 pounds
Platinum = 800 pounds

...or just make silver 150 and drop iron to 125.


----------



## freyar (Jun 17, 2008)

The disease looks good.

Let's keep to 15 ft.

Feats: Imp Init, Imp Sunder, Power Attack.

I like 150, 200, 400, 800 lb.


----------



## Big Mac (Jun 17, 2008)

freyar said:
			
		

> The disease looks good.




I agree with the effects. It still might be worth adding a bit of flavor text that mentions a silvery-grey colour. How about adding it to the end of the third sentence, like this:

The victim's skin and eyes become sensistive to sunlight, and take on a silvery-grey shade that is easily noticed by anyone they meet.​
This is a non-magical disease, so I'm not sure if you want to mention something like:

Argyria is instantly cured by a Remove Disease or Heal spell. A victim of argyria gains no benifit if a Remove Curse spell is cast upon them. However a Remove Blindness/Deafness spell is partially effective - restoring their eyesight, but not their natural skin colour.​


			
				freyar said:
			
		

> Let's keep to 15 ft.




I'd agree with that.



			
				freyar said:
			
		

> Feats: Imp Init, Imp Sunder, Power Attack.




Again, I'd agree with this.



			
				freyar said:
			
		

> I like 150, 200, 400, 800 lb.




This sounds good.

Another alternative, would be to keep the existing weights and make the silver silatic slightly smaller or thiner. Or keep it heavy but give it a lower percentage of silver (and lower its "treasure" content).


----------



## freyar (Jun 17, 2008)

I don't think we need to mention anything specific about the disease, since nonmagical is the "default" setting for diseases.  

And let's keep the treasure content where it is, since they don't have any other treasure.


----------



## Shade (Jun 17, 2008)

Updated.

I think we're finished with the silatics!


----------



## Big Mac (Jun 17, 2008)

Shade said:
			
		

> Updated.
> 
> I think we're finished with the silatics!




I love them all and can't wait to tell the SJML (Spelljammer Mailing List) about them.

Thanks for bumping the silatics to the top of the queue for me. And thanks for doing the silver silatic, which was fun, but didn't reduce your number of unconverted oozes.

I might as well stick around. I want to find out if the oozes are going to _"stick it"_ to the giants or if the giants are going to _"wipe the floor"_ with the oozes! (Arf-arf!)


----------



## Shade (Jun 17, 2008)

And of course, other Spelljammer creatures will pop up from time to time.


----------



## Big Mac (Jun 18, 2008)

Shade said:
			
		

> And of course, other Spelljammer creatures will pop up from time to time.




One of the beauties of Spelljammer, is that you can take all the unloved creatures that Wizards of the Coast didn't want to convert, and scatter them across as many planets as it takes to realistically space them out.

A ship and a spelljamming helm can take a bunch of players from a place where they are fighting drow and orcs, to a place where they are battling a bunch of rare monsters from Imagine magazine. So as far as I'm concerned, *every* monster the Creature Catalogue converts helps Spelljammer. Mind you I think that *any* GM can twist these conversions to suit their own campaign.


----------



## Shade (Jun 18, 2008)

*Aruchai (alternatively Fleische Kleckse, Blobs of Flesh, Sea of Flesh)*
ORIGIN: Limbo
FREQUENCY: Very rare
NO. APPEARING: 10-1000
ARMOR CLASS: 10
MOVE: ¼”
HIT DICE: 4+1
% IN LAIR: See below
TREASURE TYPE: See below
NO. OF ATTACKS: See below
DAMAGE/ATTACK: See below
SPECIAL ATTACKS: Paralyzation + see below
SPECIAL DEFENSES: “Weapon-sticking” + see below
MAGIC RESISTANCE: 75%
INTELLIGENCE: Semi-low
ALIGNMENT: Chaotic Neutral
SIZE: S (4’) + see below
PSIONIC ABILITY: Nil

Aruchai are creatures native to the plane of Limbo — absolute Chaos. The gods there first created the Aruchai (sing. Arucha) for amusement, but accidentally endowed them with slight intelligence. An Arucha’s one purpose in life is to get OUT of Limbo. When a group of Aruchai has killed all of its enemies, and when the number of the enemies was equal to half or more of the number of Aruchai fighting, the corpses of the enemies immediately begin corrupting into new Aruchai. Meanwhile, the Aruchai are instantly transported to the enemies’ native plane, where they terrorize the inhabitants for one day. They may not be slain in the shape of Aruchai on this new plane, but after the one-day period is up the Aruchai reform into the creatures they were before they were defeated by a group of Aruchai. However, the reformed creatures will now all have Chaotic Neutral alignment.

Aruchai appear as formless blobs of rotting, yellow flesh. Their bodies may be seen to be crawling with little red parasites, who greedily slurp up the many fluids the Aruchai excrete at odd times.  The Aruchai also excrete a viscous glue which causes them to stick to the ground (thus their slow movement rate). Aruchai are always moving, albeit very slowly.  They never stop for rest, and only slow down a little to absorb foods.

Weapons of +3 or less will stick to the Aruchai’s glue-coated bodies if the modified “to hit” roll is below 18. The weapons can be pulled out of an Arucha as per a Web spell. Each round a weapon is stuck the Arucha’s body acids will eat away at it, so it loses a “plus” each round (normal weapons will go into the negatives).  If a weapon reaches -5 it will explode, not harming the Aruchai but doing 2-16 pts. damage to all others within a 6” radius.

An Arucha will reach out with shapeless “fingers” at its victim, paralyzing them as per a Gelatinous Cube. It will then proceed to devour its captive by engulfing it and eventually (1 round) suffocating it. The Arucha then digests the enemy and excretes it as pre-Aruchai mess — which will become Aruchai under the conditions detailed above.  Aruchai fingers can reach a maximum of 1” from the body. 

When there are 100 or more live Aruchai present, they can meld and flow together into Aruchai-Kamoit — a sea of writhing flesh. Their fingers may then reach 2”, they gain +3 “to hit”, and 3 is subtracted from the enemy’s saving throws vs. paralyzation.

Aruchai are invulnerable to cold-based attacks, and weapons of +1 or less do only one point of damage to them per hit.  Weapons of +2 or better do as many pts. of damage as their “plus” (i.e., a +3 sword does three points of damage). Normal damage adjustments (due to high strength) do not apply to Aruchai. Damage penalties incurred because of low strength do apply, however. Fire does triple damage vs. the Fleische Kleckse, and so does acid.

Aruchai are treated as size “L” in “Kamoit” state.  

Gods and other creatures of Chaos often utilize seas of Aruchai as treasure guards in caverns with low roofs.

Originally appeared in Dragon Magazine #47 (1981).


----------



## Big Mac (Jun 18, 2008)

I've looked through this a few times and there are a few bits I find very confusing. It is an interesting monster, but I need to work out what the author was intending. I don't think it is written very well.



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> *Aruchai (alternatively Fleische Kleckse, Blobs of Flesh, Sea of Flesh)*
> ORIGIN: Limbo
> FREQUENCY: Very rare
> NO. APPEARING: 10-1000
> ...




No real problems with this apart from the excessive amount of "see below".



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> Aruchai are creatures native to the plane of Limbo — absolute Chaos. The gods there first created the Aruchai (sing. Arucha) for amusement, but accidentally endowed them with slight intelligence. An Arucha’s one purpose in life is to get OUT of Limbo. When a group of Aruchai has killed all of its enemies, and when the number of the enemies was equal to half or more of the number of Aruchai fighting, the corpses of the enemies immediately begin corrupting into new Aruchai. Meanwhile, the Aruchai are instantly transported to the enemies’ native plane, where they terrorize the inhabitants for one day. They may not be slain in the shape of Aruchai on this new plane, but after the one-day period is up the Aruchai reform into the creatures they were before they were defeated by a group of Aruchai. However, the reformed creatures will now all have Chaotic Neutral alignment.




Wow. This paragraph reads like the legal blurb on the back of a credit card application.

If I understand correctly, if 4 aruchai are on the plane of limbo and attack and kill two three or four orc (on the plane of limbo) they are transported to the material plane. They then somehow become immortal for one day. And on the second day they turn into orcs (but keep their chaotic neutral alignment).

Meanwhile the bodies of the two three or four orcs turn into new aruchai and wander around the plane of limbo.

However, if the 4 aruchai only kill one orc none of this happens.

There are several different things going on here. They are all good ideas, but this whole thing is tied up in knots. It is really clunky.

For example, do the aruchai turned into orcs gain the stats and abilities of orcs? Do they gain the abilities of the very orcs they killed? Do they look exactly like the orcs they killed or do look different?

What would happen if the aruchai killed some orcs, hopped over to the material plane and then killed a fire elemental before they finished transforming into orcs? Do they stop turning into orcs and hop over to the elemental plane of fire? Do the dead elementals turn into aruchai on the material plane?

My understanding of this creature is that:

* = It has some sort of doppelganger like ability to copy the form of its victims. For some reason this process takes 24 hours, during which the aruchai seems to be agressive and much harder to kill than their original (first) form. Then it takes on a third form - the form of its victim on its home plane.

* = Something the aruchai does to its victims make them turn into aruchai after they die. (This would seem to suggest that the number of aruchai on the plane of limbo would remain fairly static, with dead victims being mostly equal to the aruchai that vanish.)



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> Aruchai appear as formless blobs of rotting, yellow flesh. Their bodies may be seen to be crawling with little red parasites, who greedily slurp up the many fluids the Aruchai excrete at odd times.  The Aruchai also excrete a viscous glue which causes them to stick to the ground (thus their slow movement rate). Aruchai are always moving, albeit very slowly.  They never stop for rest, and only slow down a little to absorb foods.




I wonder what the little red parasites do. Maybe they infect people killed by aruchai and make their bodies turn into new aruchai.

The little red parasites are obviously immune to the aruchai's glue.

Do these parasites need their own monster entry?



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> Weapons of +3 or less will stick to the Aruchai’s glue-coated bodies if the modified “to hit” roll is below 18. The weapons can be pulled out of an Arucha as per a Web spell. Each round a weapon is stuck the Arucha’s body acids will eat away at it, so it loses a “plus” each round (normal weapons will go into the negatives).  If a weapon reaches -5 it will explode, not harming the Aruchai but doing 2-16 pts. damage to all others within a 6” radius.




This is an interesting ability (or should I say set of abilities), but it doesn't seem to fit in with any other monster I've seen.

Maybe the stickyness of the weapons could be done by making any attack on the aruchai grant it an attack of opportunity that can only be used for attempts to grab weapons.

Or maybe it would be easier drop that and just have its skin act like a web spell.

The acid effect that makes weapons explode reminds me of the silatic in some ways. But this creature doesn't seem to feed on any particular type of weapon. (So both a whip and a mace would do the same amount of explosive damage.)



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> An Arucha will reach out with shapeless “fingers” at its victim, paralyzing them as per a Gelatinous Cube. It will then proceed to devour its captive by engulfing it and eventually (1 round) suffocating it. The Arucha then digests the enemy and excretes it as pre-Aruchai mess — which will become Aruchai under the conditions detailed above.  Aruchai fingers can reach a maximum of 1” from the body.




The fingers are good, but how many does it have? Or do the fingers act as a mass and form one single attack? Or does this ability just give us a 1 inch "paralization zone" around the creature?

The actual absorption sounds pretty similar to what a gelatinous cube does, but with the overun being a lot slower. I'd guess that part could just copy the cube.



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> When there are 100 or more live Aruchai present, they can meld and flow together into Aruchai-Kamoit — a sea of writhing flesh. Their fingers may then reach 2”, they gain +3 “to hit”, and 3 is subtracted from the enemy’s saving throws vs. paralyzation.




This sounds a bit like those shape changing creatures from Star Trek Deep Space Nine. *They* could merge together. I think the aruchai-kamoit might need a second set of stats.

The blurb doesn't actually say if the aruchai-kamoit is a one way process or if the creatures can split off and turn back into a standard aruchai.



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> Aruchai are invulnerable to cold-based attacks, and weapons of +1 or less do only one point of damage to them per hit.  Weapons of +2 or better do as many pts. of damage as their “plus” (i.e., a +3 sword does three points of damage). Normal damage adjustments (due to high strength) do not apply to Aruchai. Damage penalties incurred because of low strength do apply, however. Fire does triple damage vs. the Fleische Kleckse, and so does acid.




This uber-damage reduction (combined with the sticky-weapon disolving acid) probably means that you would be better off throwing two dozen logs at this creature. It is bizarre that a giant can't do more damage to this creature than a goblin.

Immunity to cold and vulnerabilty to heat work (although this creature already has too many effect going on). The vulnerability to acid is a bit weird considering that it gives off its own acid. (Maybe it actually gives off alkali instead of acid. I could see that causing a reaction that damages the creature. However, I don't know if D&D uses alkaline as well as acid. Maybe a less scientific explanation could explain this vulnerability.)



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> Aruchai are treated as size “L” in “Kamoit” state.




That can go into the second stat block.



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> Gods and other creatures of Chaos often utilize seas of Aruchai as treasure guards in caverns with low roofs.




A "sea" would seem to be the second (larger) form of the creature. (I would guess that "sea" would be the collective noun used to describe a group of these creatures (instead of tribe, clan or gang).

This creature is really like a bunch of random abilities that were rolled up on some sort of monster generation table. I think that half the battle with this monster is going to be getting past the really bad design and working out what the "spirit" of this creature is.


----------



## freyar (Jun 20, 2008)

Big Mac said:
			
		

> Wow. This paragraph reads like the legal blurb on the back of a credit card application.



No joke!  These are weird and confusing critters.

Here's how I read the transforming bit.  The orcs would turn into immortal aruchai for one day, which they spend on the Material Plane, then get sucked back to Limbo and get turned back into orcs, though now CN.  The original aruchai are still wandering around Limbo somewhere and nothing ever happened to them.  

Clearly, we need to make some sense of this.  There are some monsters with "take over the bodies of the dead" abilities (yellow musk creeper maybe?), and I'll see about looking some up.



> I wonder what the little red parasites do. Maybe they infect people killed by aruchai and make their bodies turn into new aruchai.
> 
> The little red parasites are obviously immune to the aruchai's glue.
> 
> Do these parasites need their own monster entry?



I actually think that the parasites might be part of the aruchai that are just disconnected.  Seriously, these are practically aberrations, like a gibbering mouther.



> This is an interesting ability (or should I say set of abilities), but it doesn't seem to fit in with any other monster I've seen.
> 
> Maybe the stickyness of the weapons could be done by making any attack on the aruchai grant it an attack of opportunity that can only be used for attempts to grab weapons.
> 
> ...



Yeah, this is weird, too.  I'm not sure how much sense this ability really makes in 3e speak.

Actually, let's deal with type first:  anyone else think this might be an aberration, or are we going with ooze?


----------



## Shade (Jun 20, 2008)

freyar said:
			
		

> Actually, let's deal with type first:  anyone else think this might be an aberration, or are we going with ooze?




I'm still thinking ooze, mainly because they remind me of the teratomorph and flesh jelly.


----------



## freyar (Jun 20, 2008)

Ok, ooze it is!  Abilities?  Int is semi-low, but I don't think we have other clues.


----------



## Big Mac (Jun 21, 2008)

freyar said:
			
		

> No joke!  These are weird and confusing critters.




I think this is going to be hard work, but as one of you said in another thread, that will make it fun.

The problem is the bits of text that are in conflict with each other. Whatever we do with this, I can see someone out there looking at the original and thinking we have made a mistake.

If we can weigh up the alternatives, perhaps we can illiminate ones that don't work. Did Dragon Magazine actually do anything with these creatures (like use them in an adventure in the same magazine?) Any additional information about them could help proove or disproove someone's theory about what the blurb-text means.

Failing all that, I think we will have to go with what makes more sense to us, what is easiest for a GM to run or what is more fun to put into a game.



			
				freyar said:
			
		

> Here's how I read the transforming bit.  The orcs would turn into immortal aruchai for one day, which they spend on the Material Plane, then get sucked back to Limbo and get turned back into orcs, though now CN.  The original aruchai are still wandering around Limbo somewhere and nothing ever happened to them.




Hmm. I've just re-read that and I think that different sentences in the text suggest my interpretation and then your interpretation. (This monster should probably have been referred back to the author by the editor of the magazine. Do you think there is any chance that the author is contactable? Maybe we could send him/her a polite email asking for a clarification.)


----------



## Big Mac (Jun 21, 2008)

*Continued from last post...*

Here are the two bits I think are in conflict:



			
				Arucha said:
			
		

> An Arucha’s one purpose in life is to get OUT of Limbo.




This supports the *original* aruchai leaving limbo.



			
				Arucha said:
			
		

> When a group of Aruchai has killed all of its enemies, and when the number of the enemies was equal to half or more of the number of Aruchai fighting, the corpses of the enemies immediately begin corrupting into new Aruchai. Meanwhile, the Aruchai are instantly transported to the enemies’ native plane, where they terrorize the inhabitants for one day.




This both supports *and* opposes the *original* aruchai leaving limbo.



			
				Arucha said:
			
		

> They may not be slain in the shape of Aruchai on this new plane, but after the one-day period is up the Aruchai reform into the creatures they were before they were defeated by a group of Aruchai.




This opposes the *original* aruchai leaving limbo and supports the original creatures being sent home as immortal aruchai that turn back into CN versions of themselves.

I can see us having a debate (not an argument) over exactly what the word "*meanwhile*" should mean. The orcs are turning into aruchai...meanwhile the aruchai (original or new is not specified) are transported to the plane of their enemies.

Now the sentence says: "Meanwhile, the Aruchai are instantly transported to the *enemies*’ native plane..." and not "Meanwhile, the new Aruchai are instantly transported to the native plane of their former bodies...". The word "*enemies*" is the one that does it for me. It makes me think that this sentence is saying that the original aruchai are hopping over to the home plane of the defeated creature.

Moving onto the end of the paragraph we have: "...the Aruchai reform into the creatures they were before they were defeated by a group of Aruchai." That sentence is clearly backing up orcs turning back into orcs.

I believe we have two parts of the blurb supporting planehopping aruchai and one bit of blurb supporting dead creatures being temporarily turned into aruchai and then sent home.

I'm not going to say two beats one, because I think we need to do what is best for the creature. And if freyar's interpretation works better for the GM than mine it would be a hollow victory to use "two beats one" to knock his option out and then make an unplayable monster or a less interesting monster.


----------



## Big Mac (Jun 21, 2008)

*Continued from last post...*

Perhaps the mathematics could help us. The "more than half" thing implies that four aruchai can kill three orcs and (something) would hop to the Material Plane. If four (immortal) aruchai arrive on the Material Plane and turn into orcs they would be the original creatures. If three immortal aruchai arrive on the material plane they would be the dead orcs. However, after the original mention of mathematics I don't see it mentioned again.

Maybe we could keep an open mind about the "immortal planehopping aruchai" for now. We can probably work through the stats and come back to which creature it should be (original or dead foe) at the end.

The same goes for the "form stealing aruchai" or alternatively "restored but changed in alignment dead creature". This would either be the aruchai stealing the form (and perhaps the physical stats) of its foe or the the original creature being reanimated with a new personality.

I'm leaning towards the aruchai being form stealers, not because it is what my first guess is (I'm often wrong and willing to admit it). I'm still leaning towards this interpretation because of the implications for restoring creatures that are killed by an aruchai.

If an aruchai steals the form of its victim and turns its victim into a new aruchai it could actually force players to defeat two creatures if they want to bring a friend back from the dead:

1) There could be someone walking around who looks *exactly* like their friend and has all of their friend's abilities. Maybe they could even have their friend's memories. Maybe they could actually *think* they are the person they seem to be.
2) The "soul" of their friend could be trapped within a new aruchai on the Plane of Limbo. In order to get it out they could be required to kill, capture, or transform this creature back into its original form.

Getting the two creatures together and using some sort of magical process to revert both back to their original form would seem to be an epic quest to me. It could be fairly interesting for players to do. (Especially, if you let the player of the dead PC take over control of the transformed form-stealing aruchai.)

The other way, could still have interesting implications. People may still need to kill or "mentally destroy" what appears to be a CN member of a dead PC's race in order to get their friend back.


----------



## Big Mac (Jun 21, 2008)

*Continued from last post...*



			
				freyar said:
			
		

> Clearly, we need to make some sense of this.  There are some monsters with "take over the bodies of the dead" abilities (yellow musk creeper maybe?), and I'll see about looking some up.




The Sivak Draconian (Dragonlance Campaign Setting p221-222 and Dragons of Krynn p87-89) can assume the form of its victims as a special ability.

Here is the ability text from DLCS:



			
				DLCS said:
			
		

> Shapeshift (Su): A male sivak can assume the form of Large of smaller humanoid that has just killed. The shapshift is a standard action that must be performed within one round of killing the victim. The sivak does not gain the memories, skills, or spell use of its victim, but his appearance and voice is an exact match of it's victim. The sivak can remain in its alternative form until it chooses to assume a new one or return to its natural form.




_BTW: The mistake in the first sentence is from DLCS and not a typo by me._ 

Here is the improved text from DoK:



			
				DoK said:
			
		

> Shapeshift (Su): A male sivak can assume the form of a Large of smaller humanoid that it has just killed. The shapeshift is a standard action that must be performed within one round of killing its victim. The sivak's apperance and voice are an exact match of it's victim's but the sivak does not gain the memories, skills or spell use of its victim. The sivak can remain in its alternate form until it chooses to assume the form of a new victim or it returns to its natural form.


----------



## Big Mac (Jun 21, 2008)

freyar said:
			
		

> I actually think that the parasites might be part of the aruchai that are just disconnected.




I agree with treating the parasites as part of the creature (even if they are actually separate creatures in a symbiotic relationship) as they don't seem to do anything except swim on the surface of the creature.

How likely is it that a GM is going to want players to scrape these parasites off of a dead aruchai?



			
				freyar said:
			
		

> Seriously, these are practically aberrations, like a gibbering mouther.




...and...



			
				freyar said:
			
		

> Actually, let's deal with type first:  anyone else think this might be an aberration, or are we going with ooze?




...and...



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> I'm still thinking ooze, mainly because they remind me of the teratomorph and flesh jelly.




I'd go for ooze too, as they are blob-like. The (possible) shapestealing ability makes them unusual, but that would be something that would only happen once. I'm not sure the weirdness stops them qualifying as oozes.



			
				freyar said:
			
		

> Yeah, this is weird, too.  I'm not sure how much sense this ability really makes in 3e speak.




I can see us debating every single ability (and even different parts of the same ability) to work out how to do this. Maybe you had the right idea in looking at type. Maybe we should get the general stats done and then put each special ability "on trial".

I think the entire creature needs a re-write, but I'm not hung up on "winning the debate", so I think it will be very interesting to see what parts of this creature work in a 3e form and what parts we need to adapt or drop.


----------



## Big Mac (Jun 21, 2008)

freyar said:
			
		

> Ok, ooze it is!  Abilities?  Int is semi-low, but I don't think we have other clues.




There are not really any clues. Even the special abilities don't seem to imply any special requirements for the stats.

I can't even see anything like a THAC0, to tell us how good it is at hitting things with its "fingers". I started D&D during 2nd edition. Is this from a pre-THAC0 period? If so, are there generic attack rules that we can "add on" to create a full picture of the threat this creature poses? That *might* help us decide on a dex or str for this creature, but with the fingers having such a short "reach", I'd guess this creature attacks by bumping into you and..."giving you the finger". 

EDIT: Actually, re-reading the original, the creature does not appear to damage creatures at all. It seems to rely on engulfing and suffocating them. So I would guess that str is not important. It all comes down to the paralisation attempt.

EDIT: I just re-read this bit: "The Aruchai also excrete a viscous glue which causes them to stick to the ground (thus their slow movement rate). Aruchai are always moving, albeit very slowly. They never stop for rest, and only slow down a little to absorb foods." This seems to imply that the creature's glue causes a penalty to initiative. Maybe they need to have a fairly high dex that the glue knocks down.

The gods "created the aruchai...for amusement", but unless they created them to do some sort of ooze-like tap-dancing routine  , I can't see their origin giving us a clue.

Would it be a problem to give these creatures "average" ooze stats and then think about bumping or dropping them if any of the abilities requires a change from the baseline ooze?

Hopefully, we won't *need* to go back to the begining and restart the conversion, but I suspect it might be the only way to tackle this.

_Once we illiminate the impossible aruchai, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the third edition version._ 

EDIT: The creature seems to either paralise and absorb things or have them stick to the surface and explode.

Maybe we could decide on what sort of creatures can be engulfed, and have everything else (even if it is a living thing like a construct) stick on the surface and take acid damage.

If we give the creatures a "Sticky (Ex)" ability, that could be written in a way that would both grab weapons and help them paralise and engulf creatures. I'd be happy for the Sticky ability to be their only attack form. Then they could just slide around and make touch attacks that let them grapple and finger creatures.

The engulfing process could possibly work a bit like a mind-flayers Extract ability. If enough fingers can get contact with a creature, maybe they can help pull it in.

If we give the creature "Explosive Acid" that could explain how any object (not just weapons) that remains stuck to the surface, could cause an explosion. I'm not sure if we want to stick with the dropping to -5 thing or just say that if anything is stuck to the surface and isn't removed within 5 rounds, there is a violent explosion that hurls out the remains of the semi-digested object. (This could be the aruachi version of thowing up food it can't eat.)

We could then treat aruchai as if they were a grenade like weapon and work out the damage to nearby creatures, based on those rules.

I'll admit this stuff is a bit of a logical-leap, but I think it brings some of the blurb into a 3e context.


----------



## freyar (Jun 21, 2008)

Wow, that's a lot to read! 

Thinking about this a bit more, I think I agree.  Let's have the arucha take the form of whoever it kills (but with CN alignment) and transfer to that creature's home plane.  Meanwhile, the killed creature becomes an arucha in 24 hours.

As far as sticky goes, I'd say maybe you have to make a Ref save or lose your weapon.  I think there are already critters that do things like this.  Maybe a weapon that's stuck loses X hp per round to acid and explodes as an acid flask when it reaches 0 hp?  Probably ought to make the aruchai immune to acid in this case.

For the attacks, I think I'd say pseudopods that do paralysis only and then a normal Engulf attack.  

Also, we know they are immune to cold.

At 4 ft across, these are somewhere between Small and Medium.  I think I'd suggest starting with Small and advancing to Medium, with the "colony" ones Huge (or Gargantuan) and advancing maybe to Colossal.

I'll try to look up oozes with around 4HD and/or Small size this weekend.


----------



## Big Mac (Jun 21, 2008)

freyar said:
			
		

> Wow, that's a lot to read!




I can talk for England too!  



			
				freyar said:
			
		

> Thinking about this a bit more, I think I agree.  Let's have the arucha take the form of whoever it kills (but with CN alignment) and transfer to that creature's home plane.  Meanwhile, the killed creature becomes an arucha in 24 hours.




Are we still going to keep the "the aruchai can't be killed" thing when it gets to the creatures home plane? That feels a bit wrong for 3rd edition.

I'd rather we gave it a bonus for the 24 hours (before it changed into the form of the creature it killed) or maybe found some other way to make it harder to hit.

Hmm. How about it doesn't actually fully appear on the plane of its victim. If it stayed in the border ethereal (or another transitive plane of your choice) it could be imposible to hit without magic weapons. And the "bump" in abilities would then not seem like an illogical power-up. (After the 24 hours it could complete its transformation and make the final part of its journey.)



			
				freyar said:
			
		

> As far as sticky goes, I'd say maybe you have to make a Ref save or lose your weapon.  I think there are already critters that do things like this.




That sounds good. Could it also try to initiate a tug-of-war (rather than disarm you) as that might allow it to pull the hand of an attacker within reach of its fingers (pseudopods).

Would that reflex save also work for people who punch or kick an aruchai (i.e. reflex save to avoid being stuck)?

I'm sure there must be another creature that does this sort of thing, but I can't think of one. I hope you can find one.



			
				freyar said:
			
		

> Maybe a weapon that's stuck loses X hp per round to acid and explodes as an acid flask when it reaches 0 hp?  Probably ought to make the aruchai immune to acid in this case.




That looks good to me. And the good thing is that it could apply equally well to other objects that were thrown onto the creature. Immunity to acid clashes with the original text, but I agree that it is more logical.



			
				freyar said:
			
		

> For the attacks, I think I'd say pseudopods that do paralysis only and then a normal Engulf attack.




The pseudopods are pretty small, so a non-damaging attack seems realistic.

How many pseudopods are you thinking of giving it? From the description, I was guessing that it was literally covered in fingers. So I'd be thinking more along the lines of how many fingers it could bring to bear at one time.



			
				freyar said:
			
		

> Also, we know they are immune to cold.




I'm not sure why they threw that in, but would that change to damage reduction against cold?



			
				freyar said:
			
		

> At 4 ft across, these are somewhere between Small and Medium.  I think I'd suggest starting with Small and advancing to Medium, with the "colony" ones Huge (or Gargantuan) and advancing maybe to Colossal.




Those sizes seem logical. As for the "colony" sizes, I think that if you let different amounts of creatures join the colony there could actually be no upper limit to the advancement. A GM could join 100, 1000 or even 10,000 creatures together.



			
				freyar said:
			
		

> I'll try to look up oozes with around 4HD and/or Small size this weekend.




OK. No rush.


----------



## freyar (Jun 23, 2008)

I had a nice post last night with a bunch of ooze stats, and the stupid computer ate it!  Oh well.

I'd probably recommend ditching the "immortal aruchai" bit of the shape-changing.  This is already complex enough as is.

I think rather than doing a tug-of-war, maybe we could give it Improved Disarm as a bonus feat, just to keep it simple.  I'm not sure if natural weapons would get stuck; maybe Shade remembers critters with a similar ability.

We could decrease the immunity to resistance to cold, but we might as well leave it as immunity.

You know, if we're going with normal Engulf rules, we should make these Medium, so they can cover normal sized PCs.  The colony could still be Huge.


----------



## Big Mac (Jun 23, 2008)

freyar said:
			
		

> I had a nice post last night with a bunch of ooze stats, and the stupid computer ate it!  Oh well.




I hate it when that sort of thing happens. You can rebuild a post or email, but it never seems to be as good the second time.



			
				freyar said:
			
		

> I'd probably recommend ditching the "immortal aruchai" bit of the shape-changing.  This is already complex enough as is.




So do we go with a standard aruchai that converts into the creature it killed after 24 hours? Should we drop the reference to it terrorising creatures on that plane? Should we make the creature less agressive (i.e. it spends 24 hours searching for a lair where it can transform into a copy of the creature it killed).



			
				freyar said:
			
		

> I think rather than doing a tug-of-war, maybe we could give it Improved Disarm as a bonus feat, just to keep it simple.  I'm not sure if natural weapons would get stuck; maybe Shade remembers critters with a similar ability.




There is so much going on with this beastie, that anything we can cut down (but retain) is going to help. Maybe it just snatches up anything that could be a creature it can eat. (I do think it should stick to random objects that are not nailed down as well as weapons. After all, how can it know what is and isn't a weapon.)



			
				freyar said:
			
		

> We could decrease the immunity to resistance to cold, but we might as well leave it as immunity.




The immunity could always be altered down to resistance later on (if the creature looks too powerful). I think the tripple damage from fire helps a bit. We have to leave that in.



			
				freyar said:
			
		

> You know, if we're going with normal Engulf rules, we should make these Medium, so they can cover normal sized PCs.  The colony could still be Huge.




Gnomes and halflings need opponents too! 

Joking aside, there are a couple of ways to deal with this:


Have the creature expand to medium (and maybe large) as it advances or
Make the creature "stretchy" so that it can spread itself out and engulf creatures up to one size larger than you would expect.

I quite like the idea of these creatures opening up like the jaw of a snake and spending extra time to get their "fingers" around a bigger foe. You could even let them grow two size categories and make them take an extra round per size category to absorb a paralised victim.

(Something like this would give the PCs a small bit of extra time to save a friend. The GM could tell the players that their half-ogre friend starts the round with his legs totally encased and the aruchai slowly engulfing the rest of his lower torso.)


----------



## Shade (Jun 24, 2008)

Wow!  I've fallen _waaaay_ behind on this thread.  

In order to try to catch up, let me break it apart and give you my initial thoughts:




> Aruchai are creatures native to the plane of Limbo — absolute Chaos.




OK, that's simple.  



> The gods there first created the Aruchai (sing. Arucha) for amusement, but accidentally endowed them with slight intelligence. An Arucha’s one purpose in life is to get OUT of Limbo. When a group of Aruchai has killed all of its enemies, and when the number of the enemies was equal to half or more of the number of Aruchai fighting, the corpses of the enemies immediately begin corrupting into new Aruchai. Meanwhile, the Aruchai are instantly transported to the enemies’ native plane, where they terrorize the inhabitants for one day. They may not be slain in the shape of Aruchai on this new plane, but after the one-day period is up the Aruchai reform into the creatures they were before they were defeated by a group of Aruchai. However, the reformed creatures will now all have Chaotic Neutral alignment.




So essentially, the aruchai are trapped within the blobbed form until they slay something else to replace them.  Mechanically, this is a bit like a template that completely changes the creature.  But in all honesty, this will only come into play as a plot device, so might just work as flavor text.  Let's revisit that later.



> Aruchai appear as formless blobs of rotting, yellow flesh. Their bodies may be seen to be crawling with little red parasites, who greedily slurp up the many fluids the Aruchai excrete at odd times.  The Aruchai also excrete a viscous glue which causes them to stick to the ground (thus their slow movement rate). Aruchai are always moving, albeit very slowly.  They never stop for rest, and only slow down a little to absorb foods.




Mainly flavor text here.



> Weapons of +3 or less will stick to the Aruchai’s glue-coated bodies if the modified “to hit” roll is below 18. The weapons can be pulled out of an Arucha as per a Web spell. Each round a weapon is stuck the Arucha’s body acids will eat away at it, so it loses a “plus” each round (normal weapons will go into the negatives).  If a weapon reaches -5 it will explode, not harming the Aruchai but doing 2-16 pts. damage to all others within a 6” radius.




This is similar to an adherer's adhesive ability, or the farastu demodand's adhesive slime, albeit with the extra bonus of dealing acid damage (and possibly, a weapon's "death throes").

Adhesive (Ex): An adherer exudes a sour smelling glue-like substance that acts as a powerful adhesive, holding fast any creatures or items touching it, except for items made of stone. The adherer automatically grapples any creature it hits with its slam attack. Opponents so grappled cannot break free while the adherer is alive without removing the adhesive first.

A weapon that strikes an adherer is stuck fast unless the wielder succeeds on a DC 17 Reflex save. A successful DC 17 Strength check is needed to pry it off. The save and check DC are both Constitution-based and include a +4 racial bonus.

An application of boiling water thrown on the adherer deals 1d4 points of damage to it (and to any creature stuck to it). It also reduces both the Reflex save DC and the Strength check DC to 13 for one round. An application of fire deals damage to both the adherer and any creature stuck to it and weakens the adhesive (as above) for 1d3 rounds. An application of the universal solvent automatically dissolves the adhesive. An adherer can dissolve its adhesive at will, and the substance breaks down 1 hour after the creature dies.

Adhesive Slime (Ex): The thick, tarlike slime that farstus secrete acts as a powerful adhesive, holding fast creatures or items that touch it. Farastus have a +8 racial bonus on grapple checks and disarm checks due to their adhesive slime. A farastu frequently chooses to grapple its foes and then maul its enemies with natural attacks.

A weapon that strikes a farastu is stuck fast unless the wielder succeeds on a Reflex save (DC 17). Prying off a stuck weapon requires a Strength check (DC 17). The save DC is Constitution-based.

Lantern oil or some other flammable oil (such as alchemist's fire) dissolves the farstu's adhesive slime; the creature requires 10 minutes to renew its adhesive coating if doused with oil. A farastu can dissolve its adhesive slime at will, and the substance breaks down 1 minute after the creature dies.



> An Arucha will reach out with shapeless “fingers” at its victim, paralyzing them as per a Gelatinous Cube. It will then proceed to devour its captive by engulfing it and eventually (1 round) suffocating it. The Arucha then digests the enemy and excretes it as pre-Aruchai mess — which will become Aruchai under the conditions detailed above.  Aruchai fingers can reach a maximum of 1” from the body.




Essentially, just the g-cube's engulf and paralysis abilities with slightly different flavor text.



> When there are 100 or more live Aruchai present, they can meld and flow together into Aruchai-Kamoit — a sea of writhing flesh. Their fingers may then reach 2”, they gain +3 “to hit”, and 3 is subtracted from the enemy’s saving throws vs. paralyzation.




Basically, just an ability to merge numerous Small aruchai to form a really, really big one.



> Aruchai are invulnerable to cold-based attacks




Immunity to cold



> and weapons of +1 or less do only one point of damage to them per hit.  Weapons of +2 or better do as many pts. of damage as their “plus” (i.e., a +3 sword does three points of damage).  Normal damage adjustments (due to high strength) do not apply to Aruchai. Damage penalties incurred because of low strength do apply, however.




Damage reduction x/magic?



> Fire does triple damage vs. the Fleische Kleckse, and so does acid.




Simplify to vulnerability to acid and fire?



> Aruchai are treated as size “L” in “Kamoit” state.




I'm thinking more like Gargantuan.



> Gods and other creatures of Chaos often utilize seas of Aruchai as treasure guards in caverns with low roofs.




Flavor.



Let me know how all that meshes with what you've previously discussed.


----------



## freyar (Jun 25, 2008)

Shade said:
			
		

> So essentially, the aruchai are trapped within the blobbed form until they slay something else to replace them.  Mechanically, this is a bit like a template that completely changes the creature.  But in all honesty, this will only come into play as a plot device, so might just work as flavor text.  Let's revisit that later.



We've mostly agreed that the aruchai transform into the creatures they  kill and somehow transfer to that creature's home plane.  The creature they killed becomes an arucha.  Beyond that is a little fuzzy.



> This is similar to an adherer's adhesive ability, or the farastu demodand's adhesive slime, albeit with the extra bonus of dealing acid damage (and possibly, a weapon's "death throes").
> 
> Adhesive (Ex): An adherer exudes a sour smelling glue-like substance that acts as a powerful adhesive, holding fast any creatures or items touching it, except for items made of stone. The adherer automatically grapples any creature it hits with its slam attack. Opponents so grappled cannot break free while the adherer is alive without removing the adhesive first.
> 
> ...



I knew you'd remember what examples there were!  We've basically agreed on this mechanic (though haven't thought about a solvent) but mostly for the weapons.  Big Mac, if you agree, I'd like to go with sticking to creatures as well (and auto-grapple on a pseudopod attack, I guess).  I suggested upthread doing X hp per round of acid damage and that weapons explode (as an acid flask?) when they reach 0 hp.



> Essentially, just the g-cube's engulf and paralysis abilities with slightly different flavor text.



Well, I'd put paralysis with the pseudopod attack, but yeah.  I also think that we should bump these to Medium size if we're using the standard Engulf, so they can Engulf Medium PCs.  Should they be able to Engulf a creature they've grappled through their adhesive?



> Basically, just an ability to merge numerous Small aruchai to form a really, really big one.



Right.  Probably should have a separate stat block, though, since this will be beyond the normal advancement, I'd guess.  You mention below Gargantuan for the size.  However, 5 cubed is more than 100 already, so 100 aruchai merged together only gives something about 5 times bigger in each direction.  So I could possibly see Huge for the smallest colonies, even if we go with Medium.



> Immunity to cold



 Yup.



> Damage reduction x/magic?



Probably DR 5.



> Simplify to vulnerability to acid and fire?



I'm fine with fire, but vulnerability to acid makes no sense to me, since their adhesive does acid damage.  Any thoughts about that?



> Let me know how all that meshes with what you've previously discussed.



Mostly pretty well.


----------



## Shade (Jun 25, 2008)

I'm fine with starting at Medium, since 4' is the low end of the Medium size category.

Let's figure out ability scores.   Int is Semi (2-4) to Low (5-7).  Dex appears to be average due to AC 10.   Spot checking a few other Medium oozes puts Con in the 15-21 range.  Wis is probably average, but Cha could be decent due to their "strength of spirit".

Also, I found another adhesive ability, this time from another ooze.  

Adhesive (Ex): A flotsam ooze exudes a sticky slime that holds fast any creature or item touching it. It automatically grapples any creature it hits with its slam attack. Opponents so grappled cannot get free while the ooze is alive. The ooze makes one additional slam attack each round against any creature stuck to it.

A weapon that strikes a flotsam ooze sticks fast unless the wielder makes a Reflex save (DC 12). A successful Strength check (DC 16) is needed to pry it off.

The adhesive can be weakened by soap or lye, but even in such a case the ooze gets a +4 bonus on grapple checks (for a total bonus of +7). The substance breaks down 5 rounds after the ooze dies.


----------



## freyar (Jun 25, 2008)

Str 15, Dex 10, Con 18, Int 4, Wis 11, Cha 15?

These adhesive abilities are about the same (which is nice), so I'm fine with copying from any of them.  We just need to decide if there is a solvent and what it is.


----------



## Shade (Jun 25, 2008)

Added to http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=224622&page=11&pp=15]Homebrews[/URL].



			
				freyar said:
			
		

> I'm fine with fire, but vulnerability to acid makes no sense to me, since their adhesive does acid damage. Any thoughts about that?




Agreed.  Let's drop the vulnerability to acid.


----------



## freyar (Jun 25, 2008)

Homebrews link?


----------



## Shade (Jun 25, 2008)

Oops.


----------



## Big Mac (Jun 26, 2008)

I'm liking where this is going, but am busy at the moment. I'll have a proper read through your stuff tommorrow (if ENWorld is still up). Otherwise have a nice weekend!


----------



## freyar (Jun 26, 2008)

EN World is going to be down Thurs and Fri (and maybe the weekend) for upgrading as it is.  (Oh, I see you seem to have noticed that!)  But it's supposed to be visible, meaning we can read threads, at least...

Meanwhile, I think I'll go convert some other stuff.   Maybe I can get that quelzarn finished.


----------



## Big Mac (Jun 27, 2008)

Shade said:


> Wow!  I've fallen _waaaay_ behind on this thread.
> 
> In order to try to catch up, let me break it apart and give you my initial thoughts:
> <uber-snip>




I've falled way behind on this thread too.



Shade said:


> Let me know how all that meshes with what you've previously discussed.




I don't see anything I disagree with.



freyar said:


> We've mostly agreed that the aruchai transform into the creatures they  kill and somehow transfer to that creature's home plane.  The creature they killed becomes an arucha.  Beyond that is a little fuzzy.




I'm a little bit lost to be honest. Hopefully, I haven't missed anything.

IIRC there is an ability (clerical) to dismiss outsiders back to their own plane. It feels like this is a parallel thing with the arucha somehow "stealing" the home plane (as well as the form) of its victim.

Here is something we haven't thought about yet: how fast does an aruchai hop over to its new plane? Does it wait for the end of the combat (in which case it might never get to happen unless you have a TPK) or does it instantly vanish as soon as someone gets absorbed and exuded?



freyar said:


> I knew you'd remember what examples there were!  We've basically agreed on this mechanic (though haven't thought about a solvent) but mostly for the weapons.  Big Mac, if you agree, I'd like to go with sticking to creatures as well (and auto-grapple on a pseudopod attack, I guess).  I suggested upthread doing X hp per round of acid damage and that weapons explode (as an acid flask?) when they reach 0 hp.




I would go further that this. I would want to go with it sticking to *everything* that touches it (not just creatures and weapons). And I want anything that isn't a valid target for engulfing to cause an explosion.



freyar said:


> Well, I'd put paralysis with the pseudopod attack, but yeah.  I also think that we should bump these to Medium size if we're using the standard Engulf, so they can Engulf Medium PCs.  Should they be able to Engulf a creature they've grappled through their adhesive?




I'm onboard with medium size.

I thought adhesive was their only attack, so I'd go with them being able to engulf grappled creatures. I think there should be a short delay or additional attack roll (like the illithid extract brain) so that they don't get a 100 percent kill rate.



freyar said:


> Right.  Probably should have a separate stat block, though, since this will be beyond the normal advancement, I'd guess.  You mention below Gargantuan for the size.  However, 5 cubed is more than 100 already, so 100 aruchai merged together only gives something about 5 times bigger in each direction.  So I could possibly see Huge for the smallest colonies, even if we go with Medium.




<snip>

Yes on immunity to cold. I'm not certain on DR 5, but I'll go along with you as I've got no idea of my own (apart from it needs good DR).



freyar said:


> I'm fine with fire, but vulnerability to acid makes no sense to me, since their adhesive does acid damage.  Any thoughts about that?




I think I mentioned this before. Does alkaline exist as a concept in D&D? Things like caustic soda are just as destructive as acid, but have a PH at the opposite end of the scale. So you *could* have a creature that has a alkaline attack and has acid vulnerability.

But if this concept doesn't exist, or if you think the monster is too complex for a GM, we could ignore the acid.

Both the adhesive abilities look good. I think I'll need to read 'em both and decide which is better.

I'm OK with the stats too. Should these creatures "steal" the stats of their victim after they transform?



freyar said:


> These adhesive abilities are about the same (which is nice), so I'm fine with copying from any of them.  We just need to decide if there is a solvent and what it is.




If we retain the acid vulnerabilty (i.e. make them have an alkaline attack) then acid could be a solvent. Otherwise I'd say that crushing the little red parasites would obviously give you something that stops the glue sticking.

I'm going to post what I've got now and keep reading.


----------



## Big Mac (Jun 27, 2008)

Shade said:


> Oops.




FYI: ENWorld have added a forum folder into the URL so:
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4332432&postcount=391

Has become:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showpost.php?p=4332432&postcount=391

I'm not sure if this is a permanant thing - the links might work again at the end of the update. But it means that pretty much all Creature Catalogue links are broken (and *might* stay broken).

vBulletin has a tag for linking from one thread to another thread (rather than using a hyperlink). I'm not sure if ENWorld have installed that tag on these forums, but it might be worth asking a moderator/admin if it is available here.​
That aside, I think you have pretty much got the stuff this creature uses on Limbo. What is left seems to include:

the creation of the new Aruchai from the dead body (how long it takes for the new creature to come to life),
the ability to jump from Limbo to the home plane of the victim and
the transformation process on the home plane of the victim.

As the victim is already dead, I think it would be more interesting if the new aruchai sprouted from their remains very quickly (i.e. instantly, X combat rounds or X dX combat rounds). This would keep the transformation within the same encounter and add to the excitement.

I'd say the same for the aruchai phasing out and hopping off to its hijacked homeplane. I don't know if we want it to fade out or wink out, but it should be something the PCs can see. Maybe the text could even make it obvious where it is going. i.e. something like:

"Planehop (Su): A beam of eerie light surrounds the aruchai as it starts to excrete a molten bubbling mass that was once its victim. Anyone looking into the creature can see another plane on the opposite side of the creature. Anyone succeeding on a (spot?) check can make out details of the victim's birthplace. The DC for this check is X. After X rounds the original aruchai vanishes in a flash of light."​
This suggested text is a mess, but hopefully it gets across what I'm getting at. You might not want to go with the flash. (It already has enough flashy abilities!  ) Maybe one of you knows of another creature that "planehops" in front of people.


----------



## Big Mac (Jun 27, 2008)

I think I may have a way to deal with the aruchai after it has killed a victim and hopped to another plane.

How about calling it a "feasted aruchai" (or something similar) and giving it a separate text block (like drow get in the elf monster manual entry).

You could then say something along the lines of:

A feasted aruchai is identical in apperance to a regular aruchai. However, it is found on the homeplane of its victim (instead of Limbo).

A feasted aruchai remains in its original form for 24 hours after which it retreats to a safe place and permanantly transforms into the form of its victim.​
The stuff about it becoming a CN version of its victim needs to go in there. I think a one-to-one transformation would be more logical. And I also think it would be a lot more fun (and more importantly add value to the game) if the aruchai looks totally identical to its victim. This would allow PCs to go back home and hunt down the person who has literally stolen the life of their dead friend.

Maybe that stuff could go into a third monster entry called something like "transformed aruchai".

That could spell out what the game stats of the new creature are. I'd say all the physical stats of the dead creature (apart from CN). I'm not sure if it would gain levels. Maybe it should get the same ECL as the original aruchai form.

*EDIT:* I've just realised these will not be a playable race, so couldn't have an ECL, but maybe they could get an LA that works for transformation purposes only.

I also don't know if we allow the aruchai to gain the memories of its victim. Maybe it could just gain language and basic abilities (like being able to walk). Or maybe it could rapidly gain skills (and languages) from the people it first encounters.

Finally, I don't know what type the creature should end up with. It could either have the same type/subtype as the victim or have something like Native (Outsider) to hint at its origin.

EDIT 2: I think "Sated Aruchai" might be a better name for the second stage of the creature than "Feasted Aruchai". It rolls off the tongue easier.


----------



## freyar (Jun 27, 2008)

Big Mac said:


> IIRC there is an ability (clerical) to dismiss outsiders back to their own plane. It feels like this is a parallel thing with the arucha somehow "stealing" the home plane (as well as the form) of its victim.



There are the spells dismissal and banishment, for example.  Somehow to me the arucha's ability sounds almost like the reverse of these.  One thing: it might be interesting for the transformed arucha to be vulnerable to dismissal and banishment.  Have to think about that.


Big Mac said:


> Here is something we haven't thought about yet: how fast does an aruchai hop over to its new plane? Does it wait for the end of the combat (in which case it might never get to happen unless you have a TPK) or does it instantly vanish as soon as someone gets absorbed and exuded?






Big Mac said:


> That aside, I think you have pretty much got the stuff this creature uses on Limbo. What is left seems to include:
> 
> the creation of the new Aruchai from the dead body (how long it takes for the new creature to come to life),
> the ability to jump from Limbo to the home plane of the victim and
> ...






Big Mac said:


> I think I may have a way to deal with the aruchai after it has killed a victim and hopped to another plane.
> 
> How about calling it a "feasted aruchai" (or something similar) and giving it a separate text block (like drow get in the elf monster manual entry).
> 
> ...




I agree, it would probably be more interesting to have the various transformations and plane-hopping happen quickly.  I'd say that the arucha should planehop as soon as it's killed someone via its Engulf ability.

I'd also skipped the intermediate "sated arucha" step and just have it transform into its victim right away.  It's not only a little simpler, but we could also set it up so that the PCs could see the arucha transform into its friend before teleporting away.

Finally, some kind of template for the transformed arucha (using the victim as the base creature) might be the way to go.  I'd make it so that dismissal or banishment, etc, could not only send it back to Limbo but also maybe undo the transformation.




Big Mac said:


> I would go further that this. I would want to go with it sticking to *everything* that touches it (not just creatures and weapons). And I want anything that isn't a valid target for engulfing to cause an explosion.
> 
> I thought adhesive was their only attack, so I'd go with them being able to engulf grappled creatures. I think there should be a short delay or additional attack roll (like the illithid extract brain) so that they don't get a 100 percent kill rate.



I thought sticking to weapons and creatures _was_ everything in D&D!   Anyway, that's fine.  Also, I'm fine with the "explosive acid" damaging everything except flesh, maybe (because critters can be Engulfed).  Shade,  I think the acid ability in homebrews should be changed, because it currently can't affect weapons.

If the victim isn't grappled, it can take a Ref save to avoid being Engulfed.  If it is grappled by the adhesive, I'd suggest using an additional grapple check to Engulf.  Also, since these are sort of small for Engulfing oozes, should we limit the number of creatures it can Engulf at a time?



Big Mac said:


> I think I mentioned this before. Does alkaline exist as a concept in D&D? Things like caustic soda are just as destructive as acid, but have a PH at the opposite end of the scale. So you *could* have a creature that has a alkaline attack and has acid vulnerability.
> 
> But if this concept doesn't exist, or if you think the monster is too complex for a GM, we could ignore the acid.
> 
> ...




There isn't anything about alkalines or bases in D&D AFAIK.  Regarding stat stealing, see above.  For a solvent, how about alcohol?





Big Mac said:


> FYI: ENWorld have added a forum folder into the URL so:
> http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4332432&postcount=391
> 
> Has become:
> ...



I've been using the [thread][/thread] tags for a while.  There are also [post][/post] tags for linking to specific posts.

This new multiquote thing is fun!


----------



## Big Mac (Jun 28, 2008)

freyar said:


> There are the spells dismissal and banishment, for example.  Somehow to me the arucha's ability sounds almost like the reverse of these.  One thing: it might be interesting for the transformed arucha to be vulnerable to dismissal and banishment.  Have to think about that.




As part of the conversion, I think we should let people know (maybe in a sidebar) how to restore the dead victim to life. Dismissing/banishing the transformed arucha would be one step in this process.



freyar said:


> I agree, it would probably be more interesting to have the various transformations and plane-hopping happen quickly.  I'd say that the arucha should planehop as soon as it's killed someone via its Engulf ability.




You need a slight delay (in order for the "new arucha" to be born), but apart from that, I'd agree.



freyar said:


> I'd also skipped the intermediate "sated arucha" step and just have it transform into its victim right away.  It's not only a little simpler, but we could also set it up so that the PCs could see the arucha transform into its friend before teleporting away.




I think that would have to push the delay (before planehopping) up a bit more. If you want to do this in front of the PCs, then how about bringing back the "immortal arucha" concept and making the creature have some sort of ability to ignore damage while the transformation and planehopping process happens. (This would allow it to stop attacking and slowly transform in front of the PCs. The "immortality" forms a convinient plot device that stops the PCs from preventing the form stealing once the arucha is about to hop off. Then the arucha can break off from attacking and the rest of the encounter can be watch and learn thing.)

How is this for a "timeline" of an encounter where the arucha wins:

One round for a creature to stick to the arucha,
Another round for it to get drawn inside (or a series of rounds with a tug-of-war),
However long sufforcation takes for the victim to die (a victim who isn't paralised can attack from inside until they die),
One round after that for the body to aruchafy and get expelled,
An "immortal" period where the original arucha starts to glow, flash, scream and morph into the form of its victim (while attacks bounce off),
Finally the arucha planehops on its next turn (i.e. on its initiative).



freyar said:


> Finally, some kind of template for the transformed arucha (using the victim as the base creature) might be the way to go.  I'd make it so that dismissal or banishment, etc, could not only send it back to Limbo but also maybe undo the transformation.




The template is the way to go. Do you think the base animal part of were creatures is similar to the way that the aruchai steals properties? We know that the alignment changes to CN. We would need to work out what else would want to change. I was thinking native outsider, but dropping that (and making it possible to "send them back" would be better).

I'm not sure if we want to make sending them back the entire process. Maybe they (and the new aruchai) also need to be killed (forcing the PCs to kill someone who looks like their friend). How about a remove curse spell (or a pair of remove curse spells)?

Obviously the character needs to be brought back from the dead at the end.

Do you think that something like this would add the the quest-feel of restoring their friend or is this making it too hard?



freyar said:


> I thought sticking to weapons and creatures _was_ everything in D&D!   Anyway, that's fine.  Also, I'm fine with the "explosive acid" damaging everything except flesh, maybe (because critters can be Engulfed).  Shade,  I think the acid ability in homebrews should be changed, because it currently can't affect weapons.




I'm thinking of the explosion as a way that the creature "vomits" out stuff it can't eat (with eat being engulf). So even if we decided that metal or stone (or other materials) could resist the acid, I still think we need a "bang" that ejects them off of the surface of the creature (and flings them across the room). (Otherwise you could just throw feathers onto an arucha to stop its glue from being a threat.)



freyar said:


> If the victim isn't grappled, it can take a Ref save to avoid being Engulfed.  If it is grappled by the adhesive, I'd suggest using an additional grapple check to Engulf.  Also, since these are sort of small for Engulfing oozes, should we limit the number of creatures it can Engulf at a time?




I'm looking for something like a one round delay to give other PCs a one off chance to grab someone before they get engulfed. I think a tug-of-war to stop a character being sucked in, could be a lot more fun than a "mow down and automatically engulf" encounter. Paralised PCs could automatically fail their grapple checks, but if someone else has hold of their legs and the arucha starts doing slam attacks to try to "knock them off" it could be a really fun encounter.

(Maybe just fun for the GM! <mwah! - mwah! - mwah!>)

As for the number of victims being engulfed, I think it would be a lot better to dump all of the mathmatics* and make the process a one-on-one process. I say one arucha engulfs one victim and steals the form of that one victim. (Accidentally engulfing two victims should result in a two headed creature that "dies on the table".) This should work (IMO) in a similar way to a sperm fertilising an egg. The engulfed victim is what the arucha needs to "mature" into its final form.

_* = If three arucha meet two orcs then blah blah blah._



freyar said:


> There isn't anything about alkalines or bases in D&D AFAIK.  Regarding stat stealing, see above.  For a solvent, how about alcohol?




OK. I'm overthinking it. Inventing alkaline doesn't help the game, so I'm coming over to your camp. Dump my idea. Dump the acid vulnerability.

Regarding my *answer* to stat stealing, see above. 

As for solvent alcohol works, but I still think a blender and a collection of the red parasites should be considered. Maybe they should be discounted (to reduce the number of things this beastie has going on at once) but it might be fun to have PCs killing arucha and trying to collect red arucha "flee-worms" without sticking to the bodies of the dead arucha.



freyar said:


> I've been using the [thread][/thread] tags for a while.  There are also [post][/post] tags for linking to specific posts.
> 
> This new multiquote thing is fun!




It is going to save me a lot of Ctrl-a + Ctrl-x + back + quote next post.


----------



## freyar (Jun 30, 2008)

I think we should take a sec to let Shade catch up here...


----------



## Shade (Jun 30, 2008)

Yep, I feel like I'm three chapters behind in a book again.


----------



## Shade (Jul 1, 2008)

OK, here's my take.  I'd prefer to simplify this amazingly complex creature.  How about something like this?

Create Spawn (Su):  The corpse of a living creature slain by an arucha begins to rapidly decompose into a sac of flesh and goo.  If not restored to life within 24 hours, the corpse is immediately transported to Limbo, where the creature arises as a free-willed arucha.  A gentle repose spell has no effect, but dispel chaos cast upon the corpse prevents the transformation (but does not restore the victim to life).

Reclaim Life (Su):  When an arucha successfully creates spawn (see above), it is immediately transferred to the home plane of its victim and is restored to the creature it was prior to becoming an arucha (if the original creature type is not known, the DM may either choose a creature or determine one randomly).  The creature's alignment becomes Chaotic Neutral if it isn't already.  Nothing short of a wish or miracle may restore the creature's original alignment.


----------



## freyar (Jul 2, 2008)

That works for me, brilliant actually!


----------



## Shade (Jul 2, 2008)

Great!  You're too kind.  



> When there are 100 or more live Aruchai present, they can meld and flow together into Aruchai-Kamoit — a sea of writhing flesh. Their fingers may then reach 2”, they gain +3 “to hit”, and 3 is subtracted from the enemy’s saving throws vs. paralyzation.




OK, how do we want to handle this?   The odds of ever encountering 100 or more of them is very slim.

We could limit their advancement, and put on the Advancement line "see text" and describe in the flavor text how 100 of them form an Aruchai-Kamoit, and not the relevant changes to the stat block.  Alternatively, we could reduce the number needed to form the Aruchai-Kamoit to 10, and make it smaller.   Thoughts?


----------



## freyar (Jul 2, 2008)

I'd go with just letting them advance to be quite large (Colossal?) and stating that one larger than Huge are called "Aruchai-Kamoit" and can be formed by the merging of many aruchai into one massive blob.


----------



## Shade (Jul 3, 2008)

I'm fine with that.  Something like...

Advancement: 5-8 HD (Medium); 9-13 HD (Large); 14-17 HD (Huge); 18-30 HD (Gargantuan); 31+ (Colossal)

And then in the flavor text...

Aruchai of Huge size or larger are formed when numerous smaller aruchai merge.  These massive seas of flesh are known as Aruchai-Kamoit.  As a composite of several aruchai, an aruchai-kamoit must create a number of spawn before it may use its reclaim life ability.  A Huge aruchai-kamoit must create 10 spawn, a Gargantuan aruchai-kamoit must spawn 100, and a Colossal aruchai-kamoit must create 1,000 spawn.  Upon creating this amount of spawn, a successful use of the reclaim life ability returns an equal number of aruchai to their past lives.


----------



## freyar (Jul 3, 2008)

Works for me.  

In homebrews, I notice we just have acid without saying what it affects.  Here's my take (including the explosive ability).  I forget what numbers I used above, so here's my best memory.

Explosive Acid (Ex): Any object or creature that remains in full-round contact with an arucha's adhesive takes 5 points of acid damage per round from the adhesive.  Objects reduced to 0 hp explode as a flask of alchemical acid, dealing 1d6 points of acid damage to any creature or object in the same space and 1 hp to adjacent creatures or objects.


----------



## Shade (Jul 3, 2008)

A slight revision...

Explosive Acid (Ex): Any wooden or metallic object or creature that remains in full-round contact with an arucha's adhesive takes 5 points of acid damage per round from the adhesive. Objects reduced to 0 hp explode as a flask of alchemical acid, dealing 1d6 points of acid damage to any creature or object in the same space and 1 hp to adjacent creatures or objects.  An arucha's acid has no effect on stone.


----------



## freyar (Jul 3, 2008)

Sure thing!


----------



## Shade (Jul 3, 2008)

Updated.

Slam damage?

Skills: 7
Feats: 2


----------



## freyar (Jul 3, 2008)

Well, I don't know that the original was supposed to have any slam damage, but I'd be ok with 1d4 or something low.

Skills: Spot 7?  Feats: Alertness, Blind-Fight?


----------



## Shade (Jul 3, 2008)

Updated.

I went with Skill Focus (Spot) rather than Alertness, as for some reason I don't see them Listening.  

Organization: Solitary or x (10-1000)

Challenge Rating: 5?  They appear about as good as an ochre jelly.

An arucha is usually about 4 feet in diameter and a thickness of about x inches. A typical specimen weighs about x pounds.


----------



## freyar (Jul 4, 2008)

SF works for me. 
Sea for organization?
CR 5 is good, or I could see CR 4.
Uhh, 10 inches?  200 lb?


----------



## Big Mac (Jul 6, 2008)

Shade said:


> OK, here's my take.  I'd prefer to simplify this amazingly complex creature.  How about something like this?
> 
> Create Spawn (Su):  The corpse of a living creature slain by an arucha begins to rapidly decompose into a sac of flesh and goo.  If not restored to life within 24 hours, the corpse is immediately transported to Limbo, where the creature arises as a free-willed arucha.  A gentle repose spell has no effect, but dispel chaos cast upon the corpse prevents the transformation (but does not restore the victim to life).




This is partially wrong.

The corpse does not need to be *transported* to Limbo, because it isn't possible to encounter the arucha outside of Limbo - they are trapped there until they kill someone and steal their form.



Shade said:


> Reclaim Life (Su):  When an arucha successfully creates spawn (see above), it is immediately transferred to the home plane of its victim and is restored to the creature it was prior to becoming an arucha (if the original creature type is not known, the DM may either choose a creature or determine one randomly).  The creature's alignment becomes Chaotic Neutral if it isn't already.  Nothing short of a wish or miracle may restore the creature's original alignment.




This is different from the original 2e arucha.  The 2e arucha used to steal both the form and homeplane of its victim. I think it should continue to do that. It saves the DM having to backtrack and work out the history of the long dead creature that the old arucha was "born" from.

If we make arucha change form as soon as the kill their victim, we can keep this creature type on Limbo and won't have to deal with the "immortal arucha running around on the Material Plane" thing.



Shade said:


> A slight revision...
> 
> Explosive Acid (Ex): Any wooden or metallic object or creature that remains in full-round contact with an arucha's adhesive takes 5 points of acid damage per round from the adhesive. Objects reduced to 0 hp explode as a flask of alchemical acid, dealing 1d6 points of acid damage to any creature or object in the same space and 1 hp to adjacent creatures or objects.  An arucha's acid has no effect on stone.




I like this. It works well.



freyar said:


> Well, I don't know that the original was supposed to have any slam damage, but I'd be ok with 1d4 or something low.




I didn't think they did damage either. They are very slow. If you want to add damage is 1d4 low enough for a creature that does poke-damage?


----------



## Shade (Jul 7, 2008)

Big Mac said:


> This is partially wrong.
> 
> The corpse does not need to be *transported* to Limbo, because it isn't possible to encounter the arucha outside of Limbo - they are trapped there until they kill someone and steal their form.




Good point.  I'll fix that.



			
				Big Mac said:
			
		

> This is different from the original 2e arucha.  The 2e arucha used to steal both the form and homeplane of its victim. I think it should continue to do that. It saves the DM having to backtrack and work out the history of the long dead creature that the old arucha was "born" from.






> They may not be slain in the shape of Aruchai on this new plane, but after the one-day period is up the *Aruchai reform into the creatures they were before they were defeated by a group of Aruchai*. However, the reformed creatures will now all have Chaotic Neutral alignment.




I've reread the bolded passage several times, and I still read it as "the newly-liberated aruchai reform into what they were prior to being transformed into aruchai".



			
				Big Mac said:
			
		

> If we make arucha change form as soon as the kill their victim, we can keep this creature type on Limbo and won't have to deal with the "immortal arucha running around on the Material Plane" thing.




I definitely agree with dropping the immortal aruchai bit, but think the 24-hour transformation would be nice for the victim's allies to have an opportunity to prevent the transformation.  Perhaps the arucha lies dormant during this period, as its "arucha-ness" is transferred to the spawn?



			
				Big Mac said:
			
		

> I didn't think they did damage either. They are very slow. If you want to add damage is 1d4 low enough for a creature that does poke-damage?




They didn't do damage, but many oozes that didn't do damage in earlier editions picked up a slam attack in 3e.  1d4 is about right for their size.


----------



## freyar (Jul 11, 2008)

This must have been a special mod bump.  

Big Mac: I think this is one of those bits where the arucha is confusing enough we could go either way.  I'm pretty happy with what Shade has.

Anyway, do these need anything else?


----------



## Cleon (Jul 13, 2008)

Why do its pseudopods have a fifty-foot reach in the 3E conversion? The Dragon #47 stats gave their 'fingers' a 1" reach, which converts to 10-feet (assuming the author was using AD&D 1E's 'dungeon scale' as opposed to 'wilderness scale', which would have made it a 10-yard reach).


----------



## freyar (Jul 13, 2008)

Good question.  10 feet makes more sense to me; maybe this is just a typo.


----------



## Shade (Jul 14, 2008)

Nice catch, Cleon.  That was a cut n' paste holdover from a different critter (one of the silatics).  I'll revise it to 10 feet.

Updated.  Are we finished?


----------



## freyar (Jul 14, 2008)

I'm ready to say yes, chuck it on the pile!


----------



## Big Mac (Jul 14, 2008)

Shade said:


> I've reread the bolded passage several times, and I still read it as "the newly-liberated aruchai reform into what they were prior to being transformed into aruchai".




I re-read this bit too. I originally misunderstood this bit, and you had it spot on.


----------



## Shade (Jul 14, 2008)

Whew!  That one took nearly a month.  Hopefully this one will me much easier...

*Carnivorous wall* (9): AC 3; MV 1; HD 8; hp 64, 60, 48, 44 (x3), 40, 36, 32; THAC0 13; #AT 1 per 10 square feet of surface; Dmg 2d4; SA paralyzation, sharp weapons release flaming liquid; SD immune to fire, paralyzation, polymorph, and mind-affecting spells; SZ G (80+ square feet); ML Elite (14); Int low (6); AL N; XP 5000.

Note: A wall attacks with one pseudopod per 10 square feet of surface; the psuedopod can reach up to 10 feet. Touching the pseudopod or the wall's surface causes paralysis for 5d4 rounds (save negates); paralyzed creatures are pulled into the wall in 2 rounds. Any creature pulled into the carnivorous wall suffocates in 3 rounds, is drained of fluids and spit back out as a burning zombie 10 rounds later. The interior fluids of a carnivorous wall ignite on contact with air; any slicing or piercing weapon that strikes a wall causes an equal amount of fire damage to its wielder.

Originally appeared in Crypt of Lyzandred the Mad (1998).


----------



## freyar (Jul 14, 2008)

Hmm, aren't there some other wall-monsters?

Well, I could also see aberration, but I'm happy enough with ooze here.  Huge or Gargantuan (or even Colossal)?  Also, I think they've listed sizes incorrectly; a Large creature in 3e has a "10 ft sq" space which is 100 sq ft.  I guess they did the same thing here.  So when they say 80 sq ft, they probably mean eight 10 ft squares.


----------



## Big Mac (Jul 14, 2008)

Shade said:


> Are we finished?




It looks great.

Would someone tell the next monster in line to slide over to the conversion counter.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 15, 2008)

Shade said:


> Nice catch, Cleon.  That was a cut n' paste holdover from a different critter (one of the silatics).  I'll revise it to 10 feet.
> 
> Updated.  Are we finished?




I'd suspected it was a holdover from recycling a Silactic stat-block. The Arucha looks finished to me.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 15, 2008)

freyar said:


> Hmm, aren't there some other wall-monsters?
> 
> Well, I could also see aberration, but I'm happy enough with ooze here.  Huge or Gargantuan (or even Colossal)?  Also, I think they've listed sizes incorrectly; a Large creature in 3e has a "10 ft sq" space which is 100 sq ft.  I guess they did the same thing here.  So when they say 80 sq ft, they probably mean eight 10 ft squares.




Does anyone have the Crypt of Lyzandred module? That would clear up the original intent. My suspicion is they meant eighty square feet of one side of a wall, despite this being smaller than the 100' front surface of a standard Gelatinous Cube. It may be an adjustment for shape. Consider AD&D's 25' tall Titan and 3x6x8' mimic, both would probably displace the same volume but one is size G and the other size L. Plus, one side of a mimic pretending to be a chest is only about 20-25 square feet according to the Monstrous Manual description saying a a standard mimic usually masquerades as a 3'x6'x8' chest.

EDIT:Although them mixing up 10' squares with 10 square feet makes as much sense.

 I'd go for just reducing the size category to Large and giving Carnivorous Walls lots of pseudopod attacks since they only have 9 HD, which is a bit low for a Gargantuan 3rd Edition monster. Having a small area of wall spout a mass of tentacles like a vertical _Evard's Black Tentacles_ is a cool visual worth promoting.
END EDIT

The stats Shade lists gave HPs for nine Carnivorous Walls, if each is 80' long that's a big encounter area, such as a square chamber 90' across.

As for other wall monsters, the Stunjelly immediately sprung to mind. There are also monsters that live in walls, like the cave moray or tunnel worm.


----------



## Echohawk (Jul 15, 2008)

Cleon said:


> Does anyone have the Crypt of Lyzandred module? That would clear up the original intent.



The carnivorous walls in CoLtM are the inside walls of a maze. It is pretty hard to figure out from the text and the (rather poor) map what the author intended "SZ G (80+ square feet)" to mean, but I think I'd treat each section of carnivorous wall as a separate creature, 10' high, 10' wide and (about) 5' thick.


----------



## Shade (Jul 15, 2008)

Going with Large and grouping them does seem the best way to go.

Let's work on ability scores.  Here are some from other Large oozes:

White Pudding: Str 15, Dex 2, Con 20, Int —, Wis 1, Cha 1
Creeping Stone: Str 18, Dex 1, Con 22, Int -, Wis 1, Cha 1
Shadow Jelly: Str 15, Dex 1, Con 18, Int -, Wis 1, Cha 1
Lava Ooze: Str 19, Dex 1, Con 24, Int -, Wis 1, Cha 1
Void Ooze: Str 20, Dex 1, Con 26, Int -, Wis 1, Cha 1

These guys have Int 6 per the original stat block, so we'll probably want to increase the other mental stats as well.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 15, 2008)

Shade said:


> Going with Large and grouping them does seem the best way to go.
> 
> Let's work on ability scores.  Here are some from other Large oozes:
> 
> ...




Their 2-8 damage with paralysis is identical to an AD&D 2nd edition Gelatinous Cube, so I'd consider their 3E stats as well.

Gelatinous Cube: Str 10, Dex 1, Con 26, Int -, Wis 1, Cha 1.

I fancy something inbetween Gelatinous Cube and Creeping Stone, so how about Str 15, Con 22, Int 6?


----------



## Shade (Jul 15, 2008)

Sounds good.  Wis 11, Cha 6?


----------



## Cleon (Jul 15, 2008)

Shade said:


> Sounds good.  Wis 11, Cha 6?




Why not. My first instinct would a lower Cha, around 3-4, but it doesn't really make any difference as far as its performance as a monster goes since I doubt any of its powers will be Charisma-dependent.

Hmm, if the physical stats are between Creeping Stone and Gelatinous Cube I guess we could bump Con up to 24 to put it right in the middle. That would make it:

Carnivorous Wall - Str 15, Dex 1, Con 24, Int 6, Wis 11, Cha 6


----------



## Shade (Jul 15, 2008)

Looks good.  Added to Homebrews.

We need a modified engulf where it pulls the creature into its space, rather than flowing over it.


----------



## freyar (Jul 15, 2008)

I'd also suggest improved grab (maybe we should make the slam a pseudopod?).  Modifying from the gelatinous cube (note my question marks):

Improved Grab (Ex): To use this ability, a carnivorous wall must hit a creature no larger than itself with its slam attack. It can then attempt to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. If it wins the grapple check, it establishes a hold and can try to engulf the opponent in the following round.

Paralysis (Ex): A carnivorous wall secretes an anesthetizing slime. A target hit by a wall’s melee  attack or else just touching the wall must succeed on a DC 21 Fortitude save or be paralyzed for 5d4 rounds?. A successful save indicates that the target is immune to that wall's paralysis for 24 hours?.  The wall can automatically engulf a paralyzed opponent. The save DC is Constitution-based.

Engulf (Ex): A carnivorous wall can engulf a grappled opponent by making a successful grapple check against that opponent.  Engulfed creatures begin to drown (see suffocation rules in the DMG), and are considered to be grappled and trapped within the wall's body.  Creatures that die while engulfed are immediately animated as burning zombies (see below) and expelled from the wall.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 15, 2008)

freyar said:


> I'd also suggest improved grab (maybe we should make the slam a pseudopod?).  Modifying from the gelatinous cube (note my question marks):
> 
> Improved Grab (Ex): To use this ability, a carnivorous wall must hit a creature no larger than itself with its slam attack. It can then attempt to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. If it wins the grapple check, it establishes a hold and can try to engulf the opponent in the following round.
> 
> ...




The basics look good to me, although I'd add some more qualifiers from the standard Engulf and Swallow Whole descriptors to the Engulf:

Engulf (Ex): A carnivorous wall can engulf a grappled opponent of a smaller size than itself as a standard action by making a successful grapple check against that opponent. It automatically succeeds in engulfing a paralyzed opponent. Engulfed creatures begin to drown (see suffocation rules in the DMG) and are considered to be grappled and trapped within the wall's body. Engulfed creatures continue to be subject to the wall's paralyzing slime and take 1d6? acid damage and 1d6? fire damage per round from the wall's digestive processes. Creatures that die while engulfed are immediately animated as burning zombies (see below) and expelled from the wall. A Large carnivorous wall's interior can hold 2 Medium, 8 Small, 32 Tiny or 128 Diminutive or smaller opponents.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 15, 2008)

Before we get onto the tricky issue of the 'burning zombie' creation can we agree on the armour class? The original monster has a very high AC for an ooze - AC 3 while most AD&D oozes have AC 8-9.

Considering it pretends to be a solid wall, giving it a natural armour bonus would work. Although it's unusual for a 3rd edition Ooze to have natural armour I don't believe there's anything in the rules that forbids it.

AD&D AC 3 equates to 3rd edition AC 17, so if we give it +12 natural armour that'll put it in the right ballpark.

Armor Class: 16 (–1 size, –5 Dex, +12 natural), touch 4, flat-footed 16

What do you think?


----------



## Shade (Jul 15, 2008)

I'm fine with a natural armor.  I picture it "oozy" on the inside with a crusty series of plates on the outside.  As a result, I'd suggest we note that unlike most oozes, they cannot thin out nearly as small and creep under doors, through holes, etc.

I also think we need an ability that allows them to "lock" with others of their kind to create a long wall.  That way, a single ooze cannot be moved, squeezed past, etc.  Thoughts?


----------



## Cleon (Jul 15, 2008)

Shade said:


> I'm fine with a natural armor.  I picture it "oozy" on the inside with a crusty series of plates on the outside.  As a result, I'd suggest we note that unlike most oozes, they cannot thin out nearly as small and creep under doors, through holes, etc.
> 
> I also think we need an ability that allows them to "lock" with others of their kind to create a long wall.  That way, a single ooze cannot be moved, squeezed past, etc.  Thoughts?




I've been having exactly those thoughts too, including them locking together. I guess great minds think alike.

I imagine they would swing a few plates apart and shoot a pseudopod out of the gap, then spread them out farther to make room for swallowing a victim. It's probable they can soften, resculpt & recolour their exterior plates to match new surroundings, but I'm thinking it would take a few hours or a day to do.

Hmm... that would imply it has concealed openings on it like a secret door, my evil DM mind is now imagining a Rogue exitedly crying "hey, I think I've got this secret door opeaarrrrhhggghhhhh!!!!!!!!!!".

How much would one weigh? A gelatinous cube weighs about 15 pounds per cubic foot (15' cube, 50,000 lbs = 14.81 lbs/cu'), so a 500 cubic foot Carnivorous Wall (10' by 10' by 5') would weigh ~7500 lbs assuming the same density. It's a Large ooze like the Ochre Jelly, which weighs 5600 lbs, and is about ten times heavier than a Gray Ooze, which has roughly the same area but is ten times thicker (10' dia, 6" thick, 700 lbs).

That looks OK.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 15, 2008)

Come to think of it, the engulf should only do acid damage since the internal fluids only ignite when exposed to air. Also, the original text says it takes ten rounds to convert a dead victim into a burning zombie. Better amend my suggested text to:

*Engulf (Ex)*: A carnivorous wall can engulf a grappled opponent of a smaller size than itself as a standard action by making a successful grapple check against that opponent. It automatically succeeds in engulfing a paralyzed opponent. Engulfed creatures begin to drown (see suffocation rules in the DMG) and are considered to be grappled and trapped within the wall's body. Engulfed creatures continue to be subject to the wall's paralyzing slime and take 2d6? acid damage per round from the wall's digestive processes. Creatures that die while engulfed are animated as burning zombies (see below) ten rounds after death and can then be expelled by the wall as a move-equivalent action. A Large carnivorous wall's interior can hold 2 Medium, 8 Small, 32 Tiny or 128 Diminutive or smaller opponents.


----------



## Shade (Jul 15, 2008)

Updated.

Here's an attempt at the Lock ability:

Interlock (Ex):  Two or more carnivorous walls can extend and join pseudopods and realign their plates to better mimic a solid wall.  When interlocked, the carnivorous walls are considered one solid creature for purposes of creatures attempting to pass between them, share their space, etc.   However, for targeted spell effects and other attacks, the carnivorous walls are considered individual creatures.   Interlocked carnivorous walls gain stability (+4 bonus on ability checks made to resist being bull rushed or tripped when standing on the ground).  This stability bonus improves by +2 for each additional carnivorous wall linked to the original pair (thus, 5 interlocked carnivorous walls would gain a +10 bonus).

We could modify the mimic's mimic shape ability to something like this...

Mimic Wall (Ex): A carnivorous wall can alter the appearance of its plates to resemble nearly any sort of natural or manufactured wall, complete with doors and other large features.  Changing its appearance takes 1 hour.  Anyone who examines the carnivorous wall can detect the ruse with a successful Spot check opposed by the carnivorous wall's Disguise check. Of course, by this time it is generally far too late.

Skills: A carnivorous wall has a +8 racial bonus on Disguise checks.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 15, 2008)

Shade said:


> Updated.
> 
> Here's an attempt at the Lock ability:
> 
> ...




Those both look good to me, although I suspect we may need to bump its racial bonus on Disguise checks up to +12. It has a low Cha and few skill points compared to a Mimic, so it may need a higher bonus to compensate. It could represent specialized camouflage like a lions' +12 Hide bonus in areas of tall grass and heavy undergrowth.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 15, 2008)

Hold on, its Base Attack should be +6 (three-quarters of 8 HD), not +7.

Grapple modifier should be +12 (+6 base, +2 strength, +4 size).


----------



## Echohawk (Jul 15, 2008)

Cleon said:


> Considering it pretends to be a solid wall, giving it a natural armour bonus would work.



Actually, in the adventure, the carnivorous wall doesn't pretend to be a normal wall. The objective of that encounter seems to be for the adventurers to make their way through the maze avoiding the carnivorous walls as much as possible. Judging from their depiction on the map, the carnivorous walls make no effort at stealth.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 15, 2008)

Echohawk said:


> Actually, in the adventure, the carnivorous wall doesn't pretend to be a normal wall. The objective of that encounter seems to be for the adventurers to make their way through the maze avoiding the carnivorous walls as much as possible. Judging from their depiction on the map, the carnivorous walls make no effort at stealth.




So they just need to find a route that avoids the obvious carnivorous walls? Doesn't sound terribly exciting compared to fighting/sneaking through them. Plus, if the threats are obvious what prevents the party just blasting the walls from a safe distance?

What level is the adventure for anyway? It's something in the 4th-8th level range isn't it?


----------



## Cleon (Jul 15, 2008)

We need a good collective noun for the organization entry. I propose a bulwark of carnivorous walls.

Organization: Solitary or bulwark (2-12)

Incidentally, I like the idea of having a carnivorous wall being able to store zombies in its interior and vomit them forth when it attacks. I know it doesn't fit with the original text but as it stands it's unlikely to use the 'create burning zombie' power since it must kill one of the PCs, or somebody with them, first. That's one reason I propose giving it the ability to eject a burning zombie as a move-equivalent action.

Having it take ten rounds to animate the burning zombie makes things worse - the likelihood is the party will have killed the wall long before it will have finished killing & animating them. If they produce a zombie or two when they first attack then at least the players get to appreciate them.

If we give them that ability we'd need to modify the organization entry to include the number of burning zombies the walls contain.

To recap, I like the following for the Engulf text:



			
				Cleon said:
			
		

> *Engulf (Ex)*: A carnivorous wall can engulf a grappled opponent of a smaller size than itself as a standard action by making a successful grapple check against that opponent. It automatically succeeds in engulfing a paralyzed opponent. Engulfed creatures begin to drown (see suffocation rules in the DMG) and are considered to be grappled and trapped within the wall's body. Engulfed creatures continue to be subject to the wall's paralyzing slime and take 2d6? acid damage per round from the wall's digestive processes. Creatures that die while engulfed are animated as burning zombies (see below) ten rounds after death and can then be expelled by the wall as a move-equivalent action. A Large carnivorous wall's interior can hold 2 Medium, 8 Small, 32 Tiny or 128 Diminutive or smaller opponents.


----------



## freyar (Jul 16, 2008)

I'm fine with potentially storing burning zombies, but I shortened 10 rounds to "immediately" just to get some out there if the wall manages to kill something...


----------



## Cleon (Jul 16, 2008)

freyar said:


> I'm fine with potentially storing burning zombies, but I shortened 10 rounds to "immediately" just to get some out there if the wall manages to kill something...




Yes, but that means the wall probably has to kill a party-member before producing a zombie, which is unlikely with strong PCs. If the wall can produce 'here's some I made earlier' zombies from storage as soon as it attacks, then it can 'get some out there' regardless of party casualties.


----------



## Shade (Jul 16, 2008)

I like the immediate transformation to burning zombies upon death, but the option for the carnivorous wall to store them as "weapons" when needed.  Something like this...

Spawn Skeletons (Su): As a full-round action, an ulgurstasta can regurgitate dormant skeltons. At any one time, an ulgurstasta has 2d4 skeletons of various sizes in its gut. These undead obey the ulgurstasta's mental commands without fail and can function in the round after regurgitation. For 1d6 rounds after being vomited up, these skeletons will be covered with necromantic acid. They deal 1 point of Constitution drain with each successful attack in addition to other damage dealt. Ulgurstastas are always followed by a band of previously spawned skeletons.


----------



## freyar (Jul 16, 2008)

Agreed to all the above.  Let's try something like this:

Spawn Burning Zombies (Su): As a full-round action, a carnivorous wall can regurgitate burning zombies. At any one time, a carnivorous wall contains 1d4? Small or Medium zombies. These undead obey the wall's mental commands without fail and can function in the round after regurgitation. For 1d6? rounds after being vomited up, these burning zombies will be covered with the fiery ooze from the interior of the wall. They deal 1d6? points of fire damage with each successful attack in addition to other damage dealt.  In addition, any creature killed while engulfed by a carnivorous wall is immediately transformed into a burning zombie.

See what you think of the numbers.


----------



## Echohawk (Jul 16, 2008)

Shade said:


> We could modify the mimic's mimic shape ability to something like this...
> 
> Mimic Wall (Ex): A carnivorous wall can alter the appearance of its plates to resemble nearly any sort of natural or manufactured wall, complete with doors and other large features.  Changing its appearance takes 1 hour.  Anyone who examines the carnivorous wall can detect the ruse with a successful Spot check opposed by the carnivorous wall's Disguise check. Of course, by this time it is generally far too late.




Coming back to this, there are a few more snippets of description in the encounter that might help: "The walls are carved in reliefs of tortured faces and bodies fused together into a hideous mass" and "Each interior wall on the map is actually a bizarre magical organism like a cross between a mimic and a stunjelly." The illustration of the walls on the map also reflects the carved body part motif. I'm not sure any sort of stealth ability really fits.



Cleon said:


> So they just need to find a route that avoids the obvious carnivorous walls? Doesn't sound terribly exciting compared to fighting/sneaking through them. Plus, if the threats are obvious what prevents the party just blasting the walls from a safe distance?
> 
> What level is the adventure for anyway? It's something in the 4th-8th level range isn't it?




You know, I'm sitting here paging through the adventure, and I still can't answer that . There is no level range mentioned on the front or back cover, nor -- as far as I can tell -- anywhere on the first few pages.

To answer the first question, yes, it looks like the object of that encounter is to move through the maze avoiding the walls (and the roaming burning zombies) as far as possible, to get to the exit portals. But from the map, it looks as if it isn't possible to avoid the carnivorous walls entirely, so some combat with a section or two is likely.


----------



## Shade (Jul 16, 2008)

Interesting.  In that case, I say we go with the wall as presented in the adventure, then offer up our "wall mimics" as a variant.   The best of both worlds.


----------



## Big Mac (Jul 16, 2008)

Echohawk said:


> Coming back to this, there are a few more snippets of description in the encounter that might help: "The walls are carved in reliefs of tortured faces and bodies fused together into a hideous mass" and "Each interior wall on the map is actually a bizarre magical organism like a cross between a mimic and a stunjelly." The illustration of the walls on the map also reflects the carved body part motif. I'm not sure any sort of stealth ability really fits.




IMO, this shouldn't be a wall that is "_carved into reliefs of_ tortured faces and bodies fused together in a hideous mass" it should actually be "_made from_ tortured faces and bodies fused together in a hideous mass".

The wall should have an ability that is an *alternative* to creating Burning Zombies. It should be able to skin its victims and use their body parts as part of its outer skin.

I'd even suggest that the armor bonus you mentioned earlier should be a result of multiple layers of leather and hide coverings. If that isn't enough, you could let the creature have an outer layer of unskinned body parts. This would mean that the tortured faces would conceal a layer of skulls and other body parts would have layers of bones below them.

This way, you get a naturally burning ooze that coats itself with its victims to give itself some sort of fire blanket.



Echohawk said:


> To answer the first question, yes, it looks like the object of that encounter is to move through the maze avoiding the walls (and the roaming burning zombies) as far as possible, to get to the exit portals. But from the map, it looks as if it isn't possible to avoid the carnivorous walls entirely, so some combat with a section or two is likely.




If these creatures are slow to move, and if you are giving them the ability to lock together, then maybe they should have group tactics of: creating mazes, waiting for victims to get deep into the mazes and then cutting off the entrances and exits. Once this was done, they could slowly move in for the kill. It wouldn't matter (to the Carnivorous Wall) if they cut someone off and then took two hours slowly cutting off different passages and making the remaining maze grow ever smaller and smaller until the victims *finally* realise the walls are alive. 

I'd expect the final attack of the Carnivorous Wall would be rather similar to the trash compactor scene from Star Wars! 



Shade said:


> Interesting.  In that case, I say we go with the wall as presented in the adventure, then offer up our "wall mimics" as a variant.   The best of both worlds.




If you went with my idea (of coating its body with its victims) you could create a variant Carnivorous Wall that seeks out and kills mimics. Each mimic it kills, could allow it to swap an area of hide/bone armour with an area of surface that has the same qualities as a mimic. When it has killed enough mimics, it could totally get rid of any flesh and bone coverings and have a total surface area that is hard to spot.

I would suggest that any Mimic Carnivorous Walls loose some of that armor bonus when they gain "mimic skin".

(I'm loving your work, BTW )


----------



## Shade (Jul 16, 2008)

Interesting ideas...I'll mull them over and let the rest of you discuss.

BigMac, you might want to pop back in the giants thread (Spelljammer alert!).


----------



## freyar (Jul 17, 2008)

Hmm, I think I like the idea of the faces covering it as being a flavor thing, rather than an ability per se.  We can mention that they are the remnants of skin ripped off during the formation of a burning zombie.   The trash compactor idea I like.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 17, 2008)

Shade said:


> Spawn Skeletons (Su): As a full-round action, an ulgurstasta can regurgitate dormant skeltons. At any one time, an ulgurstasta has 2d4 skeletons of various sizes in its gut. These undead obey the ulgurstasta's mental commands without fail and can function in the round after regurgitation. For 1d6 rounds after being vomited up, these skeletons will be covered with necromantic acid. They deal 1 point of Constitution drain with each successful attack in addition to other damage dealt. Ulgurstastas are always followed by a band of previously spawned skeletons.






freyar said:


> Spawn Burning Zombies (Su): As a full-round action, a carnivorous wall can regurgitate burning zombies. At any one time, a carnivorous wall contains 1d4? Small or Medium zombies. These undead obey the wall's mental commands without fail and can function in the round after regurgitation. For 1d6? rounds after being vomited up, these burning zombies will be covered with the fiery ooze from the interior of the wall. They deal 1d6? points of fire damage with each successful attack in addition to other damage dealt.  In addition, any creature killed while engulfed by a carnivorous wall is immediately transformed into a burning zombie.





Yup, I was thinking the Ulgurstastas was an obvious monster to turn to for inspiration for this ability too. 

The basics of Freyar's stat block looks good to me, although I would prefer the zombie-vomiting to be a Move-equivalent action so the wall can keep on fighting at the same time.

What does the original module have to say about the burning zombies? Does it give them stats, fire-damage and so on?

More importantly, does it specify whether they're turnable Undead or living corpse Constructs like the 'zombies' Myconids and Yellow Musk Creepers can create with their spores?

Since the burning zombies are soaked in burning liquid, do they have a automatic splash-defense when wounded like the Carnivorous Wall does?


----------



## freyar (Jul 17, 2008)

Making it move equivalent is quite a bit more powerful, but I'm ok with it if it doesn't throw the CR too far off.

I hope they're just real zombies with some fire thrown in.  Much easier that way!  Echohawk, do you know?


----------



## Echohawk (Jul 18, 2008)

*Burning zombie (5):* AC 7; MV 6; HD 2; hp 48, 44, 36, 32 (x2); THAC019; #AT 1; Dmg 1d4 (bite) + 1d6 (flame damage); SD immune to mind-affecting spells; SZ M (5'-6' tall); ML special (never checks morale); Int non (0); AL N; XP 120.
*Note:* Burning zombies have the same hit points as the wall that created them, but only attack as 2-hit die monsters. Their heads exude the same flaming liquid as the walls, doing no damage to the zombie but adding 1d6 points of heat damage to their bit attack. These "zombies" are not undead and cannot be turned. A burning zombie that is raised or resurrected requires a week of best rest or a heal or regenerate spell to recover fully.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 18, 2008)

freyar said:


> Making it move equivalent is quite a bit more powerful, but I'm ok with it if it doesn't throw the CR too far off.




I have no objection to it being a full-round action if the burning zombies are tough enough. One problem with the Ulgustasta's Create Spawn ability is that a handful of skeletons are so inconsequential a threat compared to the Undead Worm itself that if it's in close combat it'd probably be better off using a different attack rather than launching skeletons. That's not a problem if the monster spawns undead minions before combat, but a Carnivorous Wall is designed so that it won't generate burning zombies before its within melee range.



Echohawk said:


> *Burning zombie (5):* AC 7; MV 6; HD 2; hp 48, 44, 36, 32 (x2); THAC019; #AT 1; Dmg 1d4 (bite) + 1d6 (flame damage); SD immune to mind-affecting spells; SZ M (5'-6' tall); ML special (never checks morale); Int non (0); AL N; XP 120.
> *Note:* Burning zombies have the same hit points as the wall that created them, but only attack as 2-hit die monsters. Their heads exude the same flaming liquid as the walls, doing no damage to the zombie but adding 1d6 points of heat damage to their bit attack. These "zombies" are not undead and cannot be turned. A burning zombie that is raised or resurrected requires a week of best rest or a heal or regenerate spell to recover fully.




Thanks Echohawk, that would definitely make them Constructs rather than Undead. The Hit Points = parent wall is an interesting trait, similar to a familiar's HPs. If we want to keep that we may want to limit their number to one per Wall at any one time. They may be durable but they have crummy attack rolls and damage.

The rest of it is pretty straight forward. Normal Construct immunities will cover the immunity to mind-affecting spells, and a fire damage bonus to a bite attack, but no flaming liquid splash attack mentioned.

Since there are stats for five burning zombies, I guess this means there's a location in the module that contains zombies the Walls have already created. That would imply they can last a long time once spawned, and their head does not run out of flaming liquid in 1d6 rounds like we've got them statted at the moment. As written, a Wall could have legions of these creatures at its beck and call, maybe hiding around the corner of its labyrinth waiting to rush out and help it capture more victims.

Finally, do we want the Wall to be able to make burning zombies out of any living creature or limit them to Small or Medium Humanoids?


----------



## Shade (Jul 18, 2008)

Hmmm....since these are constructs, rather than undead, I think we should alter the text from "any creature killed while engulfed by a carnivorous wall is immediately transformed into a burning zombie" to something like "for each creature slain, the carnivous wall may create a burning zombie".

I think I'd rather keep with multiple zombies per wall, rather than a "familiar"-like single zombie.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 19, 2008)

Shade said:


> Hmmm....since these are constructs, rather than undead, I think we should alter the text from "any creature killed while engulfed by a carnivorous wall is immediately transformed into a burning zombie" to something like "for each creature slain, the carnivous wall may create a burning zombie".
> 
> I think I'd rather keep with multiple zombies per wall, rather than a "familiar"-like single zombie.




Yes, that's my preference too, so long such zombies just add the normal Construct Bonus Hit Points rather than have HPs equal to their creator wall like the original version. Having each wall aided by a bunch of 100 HP zombies would increase their threat considerably.

Now, do burning zombies inside a Carnivorous Wall count against the monster's Engulf limit? I'd assume they would, so a wall with two Medium zombies inside it would have to eject one or both of them to make room to swallow a victim. That's another reason I'd like it to be a move-equivalent action, since that allows a Wall to perform both actions in the same round.

Also, should we make some statement about how long these Burning Zombies last. Do they 'burn out' after a few weeks of pseudo-life, like Myconid or Yellow Musk Zombies, or can they keep going nigh indefinitely until destroyed, like regular Constructs?


----------



## freyar (Jul 19, 2008)

Let's make them normal constructs: normal hp, normal lifetime.  In terms of how many critters fit, sure, let's change how many are inside already.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 19, 2008)

How about this for their stats, adapted from a regular zombie.

*CREATING A BURNING ZOMBIE*

“Burning Zombie” is an acquired template that can be added to any corporeal creature (other than an undead) that has a skeletal system (referred to hereafter as the base creature).
*Size and Type:* The creature’s type changes to construct. It retains any subtypes except alignment subtypes and subtypes that indicate kind. It does not gain the augmented subtype. It uses all the base creature’s statistics and special abilities except as noted here.
*Hit Dice:* Drop any Hit Dice from class levels (to a minimum of 1) and raise them to d10s, adding bonus Hit Dice according to the following table, unless the base creature has less than one Hit Dice, in which case the burning zombies' Hit Die is double the base creatures. Being a Construct, a burning zombie is hard to destroy and gains bonus hit points as shown in the table.

 *Size Bonus Hit Dice Bonus Hit Points*
Tiny or smaller —
Small +1 HD +10 HP
Medium +1 HD +20 HP
Large +2 HD +30 HP
Huge +4 HD +40 HP
Gargantuan +8 HD +60 HP
Colossal +16 HD +80 HP​
 *Speed:* A burning zombie loses all magical forms of movement (such as an Ogre Magi's flight) and all its remaining movement rates are reduced to 3/4 what they were in life. If the base creature can fly, its maneuverability rating drops to clumsy.
*Armor Class:* A burning zombie's body is toughened by dehydration, its natural armor bonus increases by a number based on the monster’s size:

Tiny or smaller +1
Small +3
Medium +4
Large +5
Huge +6
Gargantuan +9
Colossal +13

​ *Base Attack: *A burning zombie has a base attack bonus equal to 3/4 its Hit Dice.
*Attacks:* A burning zombie retains all the natural weapons, manufactured weapon attacks, and weapon proficiencies of the base creature. A burning zombie also gains a bite attack, which becomes the burning zombies primary attack.
*Damage:* Natural and manufactured weapons deal damage normally. A bite attack deals damage depending on the zombie’s size (Use the base creature’s bite damage if it’s better), with additional fire damage from the Flaming Bite special attack - see below.

Size Bite Damage + _Flaming Bite_ Damage
Fine bite 1 + 1 fire
Diminutive bite 1d2 + 1d2 fire
Tiny 1d3 bite + 1d4 fire
Small 1d4 bite + 1d6 fire
Medium 1d6 bite + 1d6 fire
Large 1d8 bite + 2d6 fire
Huge 2d6 bite + 3d6 fire
Gargantuan 2d8 bite + 4d6 fire
Colossal 4d6 bite + 6d6 fire

​*Special Attacks:* A burning zombie retains none of the base creature’s special attacks but gains a Flaming Bite attack.
 _Flaming Bite (Ex):_ - a burning zombies' head exudes flaming liquid, its bite attack does bonus fire damage as shown in the above damage table.
*Special Qualities:* A zombie loses most special qualities of the base creature. It retains any extraordinary special qualities that improve its melee or ranged attacks. A zombie gains the following special quality.
Damage reduction 5/slashing
A burning zombie possesses all the traits of the Construct type except as follows:

*Corpse Construct:*_ Resurrection _and _true resurrection _can affect a burning zombie. These spells turn the burning zombie back into the living creatures they were before becoming constructs. A burning zombie is not affected by _raise dead _and _reincarnate _spells or abilities unless it is first destroyed, whereupon the spells affect the remains as if they were a normal corpse which died when the base creature had been killed to create the burning zombie. A burning zombie that is _raised_ or _resurrected_ requires a week of best rest or a _heal_ or _regenerate_ spell to recover fully.

*Saves:* Base save bonuses are Fort +1/3 HD, Ref +1/3 HD, and Will +1/3 HD.
*Abilities:* A burning zombie’s Strength increases by +2, its Dexterity decreases by 2, it has no Constitution or Intelligence score, its Wisdom changes to 10, and its Charisma changes to 1.
*Skills:* A burning zombie is mindless and has no skills.
*Feats: *A burning zombie loses all feats of the base creature and gains Toughness.
*Environment:* Any land and underground.
*Organization:* Any.
*Challenge Rating:* Depends on Hit Dice, as follows: [I've bumped it up from a regular zombie since it doesn't have the "single action only" quality and gains slightly better AC and a flaming bite]
Hit Dice - Challenge Rating
1/2 HD - CR 1/4
1 HD - CR 1/2
2-3 HD - CR 1
4-5 HD - CR 2
6-7 HD - CR 3
8–10 HD - CR 4
12–14 HD - CR 5
15–16 HD - CR 6
18–20 HD - CR 7

​ *Treasure:* None, although the carnivorous wall that created it may have some.
*Alignment: *Always neutral.
*Advancement:* As base creature, but double Hit Dice (maximum 20), or—if the base creature advances by character class.
*Level Adjustment:*—.

*Sample Burning Zombies*
_A corpse shambles towards you, its jaws snapping as burning slime drips from its mouth and eye sockets._


*Human Commoner Burning Zombie*
*Type:* Medium Construct
*Hit Dice:* 2d10+23 (34 hp)
*Initiative:* –1 (Dex)
*Speed:* 20 ft. (4 squares)
*AC:* 13 (–1 Dex, +4 natural), touch 9, flat-footed 13)
*Base Attack / Grapple:* +1/+2
*Attack:* Bite +2 melee (1d6+1+1d6 fire) or club +2 melee (1d6+1)*
Full Attack:* Bite +2 melee (1d6+1+1d6 fire) and club -3 melee (1d6)
*Face/Reach:* 5 ft./5 ft
*Special Attacks:* Flaming Bite
*Special Qualities:* damage reduction 5/slashing, darkvision 60 ft., construct traits
*Saves:* Fort +0, Ref –1, Will +0
*Abilities: *Str 12, Dex 8, Con—, Int—, Wis 10, Cha 1
*Feats:* Toughness
*Skills:* —
*Environment:* Any land or underground
*Challenge Rating:* 1
*Alignment:* Always neutral


*Rat Burning Zombie*
*Type:* Tiny Construct
*Hit Dice: *1/2 d10+3 (5 hp)
*Initiative: *+1
*Speed: *10 ft., climb 10 ft., swim 10 ft. (2 squares)
*Armor Class: *14 (+2 size, +1 Dex, +1 natural), touch 13, flat-footed 13
*Base Attack/Grapple: *+0/–11
*Attack: *Bite -1 melee (1d3-3 and 1d4 fire)
*Full Attack: *Bite -1 melee (1d3-3 and 1d4 fire)
*Space/Reach: *2-1/5 ft./0 ft.
*Special Attacks: *Flaming bite
*Special Qualities: *Damage reduction 5/slashing, darkvision 60 ft., construct traits
*Saves: *Fort +0, Ref +1, Will +0
*Abilities: *Str 4, Dex 13, Con—, Int—, Wis 10, Cha 1
*Feats:* Toughness
*Skills:* —
*Environment: *Any land or underground
*Challenge Rating: *1/4
*Alignment: *Always neutral


*Kobold Burning Zombie*
*Type:* Small Construct
*Hit Dice: *2d10+13 (24 hp)
*Initiative: *+0
*Speed: *20 ft. (4 squares)
*Armor Class: *14 (+1 size, +3 natural), touch 11, flat-footed 14
*Base Attack/Grapple: *+1/–4
*Attack: *Bite +1 melee (1d4–1+1d6 fire) or spear +1 melee (1d6–1/×3) or light crossbow +1 ranged (1d6/19–20)
*Full Attack: *Bite +1 melee (1d4–1+1d6 fire) and spear -4 melee (1d6–1/×3) or light crossbow +1 ranged (1d6/19–20)
*Space/Reach: *5 ft./5 ft.
*Special Attacks: *Flaming bite
*Special Qualities: *Damage reduction 5/slashing, darkvision 60 ft., construct traits
*Saves: *Fort +0, Ref +0, Will +0
*Abilities: *Str 8, Dex 11, Con—, Int—, Wis 10, Cha 1
*Feats:* Toughness
*Skills:* —
*Environment: *Any land or underground
*Challenge Rating: *1
*Alignment: *Always neutral


*Troglodyte Burning Zombie*
*Type: *Medium Construct
*Hit Dice: *3d10+23 (39 hp)
*Initiative: *–2
*Speed: *20 ft. (4 squares)
*Armor Class: *18 (–2 Dex, +10 natural), touch 8, flat-footed 18
*Base Attack/Grapple: *+2/+3
*Attack: *Bite +3 melee (1d6+1+1d6 fire) or greatclub +3 melee (1d10+1) or javelin +0 ranged (1d6+1)
*Full Attack: *Bite +3 melee (1d6+1+1d6 fire) and greatclub -2 melee (1d10) or javelin +0 ranged (1d6+1)
*Space/Reach: *5 ft./5 ft
*Special Attacks: *Flaming bite
*Special Qualities: *Damage reduction 5/slashing, darkvision 60 ft., construct traits
*Saves: *Fort +1, Ref –1, Will +1
*Abilities: *Str 12, Dex 7, Con—, Int—, Wis 10, Cha 1
*Feats:* Toughness
*Skills:* —
*Environment: *Any land or underground
*Challenge Rating: *1
*Alignment: *Always neutral


*Bugbear Burning Zombie*
*Type: *Medium Construct
*Hit Dice: *4d10+23 (45 hp)
*Initiative: *+0
*Speed: *20 ft. (4 squares)
*Armor Class: *18 (+7 natural, +1 light wooden shield), touch 10, flat-footed 18
*Base Attack/Grapple: *+3/+6
*Attack: *Bite +6 melee (1d6+3+1d6 fire) or morningstar +6 melee (1d8+3) or javelin +3 ranged (1d6+3)
*Full Attack: *Bite +6 melee (1d6+3+1d6 fire) and morningstar +1 melee (1d8+1) or javelin +3 ranged (1d6+3)
*Space/Reach: *5 ft./5 ft.
*Special Attacks: *Flaming bite
*Special Qualities: *Damage reduction 5/slashing, darkvision 60 ft., construct traits
*Saves: *Fort +1, Ref +1, Will +1
*Abilities: *Str 17, Dex 10, Con—, Int—, Wis 10, Cha 1
*Feats:* Toughness
*Skills:* —
*Environment: *Any land or underground
*Challenge Rating: *2
*Alignment: *Always neutral


*Worg Burning Zombie*
*Type: *Medium Construct
*Hit Dice: *5d10+23 (50 hp)
*Initiative: *+1
*Speed: *35 ft. (7 squares)
*Armor Class: *17 (+1 Dex, +6 natural), touch 11, flat-footed 16
*Base Attack/Grapple: *+3/+7
*Attack: *Bite +7 melee (1d6+6+1d6 fire)
*Full Attack: *Bite +7 melee (1d6+6+1d6 fire)
*Space/Reach: *5 ft./5 ft.
*Special Attacks: *Flaming bite
*Special Qualities: *Damage reduction 5/slashing, darkvision 60 ft., construct traits
*Saves: *Fort +1, Ref +2, Will +1
*Abilities: *Str 19, Dex 12, Con—, Int—, Wis 10, Cha 1
*Feats:* Toughness
*Skills:* —
*Environment: *Any land or underground
*Challenge Rating: *2
*Alignment: *Always neutral


*Harpy Burning Zombie*
*Type: *Medium Construct
*Hit Dice: *8d10+23 (67 hp)
*Initiative: *+1
*Speed:* 15 ft. (3 squares), fly 60 ft. (clumsy)(12 squares)
*Armor Class: *16 (+1 Dex, +5 natural), touch 11, flat-footed 15
*Base Attack/Grapple: *+6/+7
*Attack:* Bite +7 melee (1d6+1+1d6 fire) or club +7 melee (1d6+1)
*Full Attack: *Bite +7 melee (1d6+1+1d6 fire) and club +2 melee (1d6) and 2 claws +2 melee (1d3)
*Space/Reach: *5 ft./5 ft.
*Special Attacks: *Flaming bite
*Special Qualities: *Damage reduction 5/slashing, darkvision 60 ft., construct traits
*Saves: *Fort +2, Ref +3, Will +2
*Abilities: *Str 12, Dex 13, Con —, Int —, Wis 10, Cha 1
*Feats:* Toughness
*Skills:* —
*Environment: *Any land or underground
*Challenge Rating: *3
*Alignment: *Always neutral


----------



## Big Mac (Jul 19, 2008)

Shade said:


> BigMac, you might want to pop back in the giants thread (Spelljammer alert!).




Thanks for that.



freyar said:


> Hmm, I think I like the idea of the faces covering it as being a flavor thing, rather than an ability per se.  We can mention that they are the remnants of skin ripped off during the formation of a burning zombie.   The trash compactor idea I like.




I was thinking of a flavor thing rather than an ability. I think that anything that happens during combat should be an ability and anything that takes days, weeks or months doesn't happen in front of PCs so can usually be flavor text. The treasure of this wall could include fingers that still have rings on them and ears that still have ear-rings in them.

I like the idea of the skin being ripped off of burning zombies. I now see them as being flaming flesh with no skin.

Given that buring zombies are on fire, I think that they should only last a finite amount of time before the fire consumes their flesh or the fuel from the wall runs out. (I'm not suggesting this time would only be a few rounds, but if these things lasted forever a wall could build up its own army.)

I like the idea of a burning zombie being a construct. If it needs a template, shouldn't we look at the flesh golem for inspiration?


----------



## Cleon (Jul 19, 2008)

Big Mac said:


> Given that buring zombies are on fire, I think that they should only last a finite amount of time before the fire consumes their flesh or the fuel from the wall runs out. (I'm not suggesting this time would only be a few rounds, but if these things lasted forever a wall could build up its own army.)
> 
> I like the idea of a burning zombie being a construct. If it needs a template, shouldn't we look at the flesh golem for inspiration?




I think we're already agreed on it being a Construct, since the original stats specify it's not an Undead. Shade's said he prefer they don't last for a finite time but I'd like them to 'burn out' in a few weeks or months.

Now I'm wondering whether I should add a bit of fire resistance or an immunity to the "flaming liquid" of burning zombies and carnivorous walls, in order to explain why burning zombies aren't quickly consumed by their own flaming heads.


----------



## freyar (Jul 19, 2008)

Why don't we give the burning zombies fire immunity?

Also, why not keep the single action quality from the regular zombie?


----------



## Big Mac (Jul 20, 2008)

Cleon said:


> I think we're already agreed on it being a Construct, since the original stats specify it's not an Undead.




I was actually agreeing with your idea.



Cleon said:


> Shade's said he prefer they don't last for a finite time but I'd like them to 'burn out' in a few weeks or months.




I don't especially mind if they never "burn out". I just think that, as they are *not* elementals, they shouldn't burn forever.



Cleon said:


> Now I'm wondering whether I should add a bit of fire resistance or an immunity to the "flaming liquid" of burning zombies and carnivorous walls, in order to explain why burning zombies aren't quickly consumed by their own flaming heads.




...and...



freyar said:


> Why don't we give the burning zombies fire immunity?




Fire immunity would probably work.

But the burning fluid of the Carnivorous Wall can not last forever. Either these things stop burning after 1 week, 1 month or whatever *or* they carry on burning, but burn up their bodies as a fuel source.

As I said, they are not elementals.


----------



## freyar (Jul 20, 2008)

Big Mac said:


> But the burning fluid of the Carnivorous Wall can not last forever. Either these things stop burning after 1 week, 1 month or whatever *or* they carry on burning, but burn up their bodies as a fuel source.
> 
> As I said, they are not elementals.




As constructs, though, they can have magical properties.  So can't they keep the fire damage in their bites?  The other thing is that the burning fluid only burns in contact with air, so perhaps they only use a negligible amount with each bite and have effectively an unlimited supply (they can also replenish from the carnivorous wall, if necessary).


----------



## Big Mac (Jul 20, 2008)

Replenishing from the wall is an idea I *could* buy.

If these guys climbed back *into* the wall when they were not in use it could "refuel" them. If the wall carried around burning zombies and spat them out during (or prior to) combat, I'd be sold on the idea of them lasting forever (or until destroyed in combat).

A mechanic like that would stop a wall from having its own ever expanding army.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 20, 2008)

Big Mac said:


> Replenishing from the wall is an idea I *could* buy.
> 
> If these guys climbed back *into* the wall when they were not in use it could "refuel" them. If the wall carried around burning zombies and spat them out during (or prior to) combat, I'd be sold on the idea of them lasting forever (or until destroyed in combat).
> 
> A mechanic like that would stop a wall from having its own ever expanding army.




Yup, I was wondering about having the burning zombies replenished by returning to the wall and maybe having a 'burn out' time outside the wall. That would limit their numbers to the wall's engulf capacity.

The original module has burning zombies wandering about the labyrinth and makes no mention of them ever returning to the walls, which would imply that they can last a long time outside the wall that created them. I do like the image of a wall attacking by vomiting pseudopods and flaming corpses, so I'd like them to be stored/refueled by climbing back into the wall.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 20, 2008)

freyar said:


> Why don't we give the burning zombies fire immunity?
> 
> Also, why not keep the single action quality from the regular zombie?




Although Carnivorous Walls have an "immune to fire" Special Defence in the original stats, burning zombies do not. There is also no mention of them having the sluggishness of standard zombies (they don't always lose initiative like common zombies did in 1st/2nd edition AD&D). Hence, I did not propose to give them fire immunity or the single action quality.

However, it does say the flaming liquid does no damage to the zombie - so I think the best solution is to give them immunity to the flaming liquid of carnivorous walls and burning zombies, rather than a general immunity/resistance to fire.



Echohawk said:


> *Burning zombie (5):* AC 7; MV 6; HD 2; hp 48, 44, 36, 32 (x2); THAC019; #AT 1; Dmg 1d4 (bite) + 1d6 (flame damage); SD immune to mind-affecting spells; SZ M (5'-6' tall); ML special (never checks morale); Int non (0); AL N; XP 120.
> *Note:* Burning zombies have the same hit points as the wall that created them, but only attack as 2-hit die monsters. Their heads exude the same flaming liquid as the walls, doing no damage to the zombie but adding 1d6 points of heat damage to their bit attack. These "zombies" are not undead and cannot be turned. A burning zombie that is raised or resurrected requires a week of best rest or a heal or regenerate spell to recover fully.




Hmm, I just realized I forgot to add the rest period for burning zombies that have been returned to life to my proposed template. I'd better re-edit it.


----------



## Big Mac (Jul 20, 2008)

Cleon said:


> Yup, I was wondering about having the burning zombies replenished by returning to the wall and maybe having a 'burn out' time outside the wall. That would limit their numbers to the wall's engulf capacity.




Sounds like we are on the same page here. I'm not sure if everyone will agreee, but to me it makes more sense for Burning Zombies to be an extension of the Carnivorous Wall. (In a way, they remind me of the Shivak creatures that serve The Spelljammer.)



Cleon said:


> The original module has burning zombies wandering about the labyrinth and makes no mention of them ever returning to the walls, which would imply that they can last a long time outside the wall that created them. I do like the image of a wall attacking by vomiting pseudopods and flaming corpses, so I'd like them to be stored/refueled by climbing back into the wall.




You know, looking at the Burining Zombies I have to wonder what the point is. Why would the wall go to all the effort of creating zombie-like creatures that wander off and don't provide it with any benifit.

I think that the Burning Zombies should have a Shivak-like function and should aid the wall in some way. Considering that the Carnivorous Wall is fairly immobile the Burning Zombies could help it eat.

How about they pick up dead, dying or unconcious humanoids, take them back to their walls and then drag them inside? Behavior like this would sell them as being in a symbiotic relationship with the wall. And if a PC's cohort got knocked out and grabbed, this sort of thing could provide some interesting tension in an encounter.

It might even be fun to have large Burning Zombies grapple smaller opponants and try to manhandle them back to their wall while they were still alive and kicking.



Cleon said:


> Although Carnivorous Walls have an "immune to fire" Special Defence in the original stats, burning zombies do not. There is also no mention of them having the sluggishness of standard zombies (they don't always lose initiative like common zombies did in 1st/2nd edition AD&D). Hence, I did not propose to give them fire immunity or the single action quality.
> 
> However, it does say the flaming liquid does no damage to the zombie - so I think the best solution is to give them immunity to the flaming liquid of carnivorous walls and burning zombies, rather than a general immunity/resistance to fire.




I've just realised the blurb says their heads are coated with the liquid but only their bite causes fire damage. That doesn't seem logical to me. Why can't they do punching damage with fists of fire? Why can't they headbutt for flaming damage?

Maybe it would be more appropriate to put the fire *inside* the creatures and have flames pouring out of their mouth when they open it.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 20, 2008)

Big Mac said:


> *snip*
> Why would the wall go to all the effort of creating zombie-like creatures that wander off and don't provide it with any benifit.
> 
> I think that the Burning Zombies should have a Shivak-like function and should aid the wall in some way. Considering that the Carnivorous Wall is fairly immobile the Burning Zombies could help it eat.
> ...




Definitely. The burning zombies should be mindless tools of the Carnivorous Wall that spawned them, else why would it create them? A 'wandering monster' burning zombie is presumably hunting for prey to feed its wall. Burning zombies may well grapple victims to drag them to into their wall - you'd need a Huge carnivorous wall to create a Large burning zombie, of course, since it will need to be able to Engulf it.



> I've just realised the blurb says their heads are coated with the liquid but only their bite causes fire damage. That doesn't seem logical to me. Why can't they do punching damage with fists of fire? Why can't they headbutt for flaming damage?
> 
> Maybe it would be more appropriate to put the fire *inside* the creatures and have flames pouring out of their mouth when they open it.




The original blurb says what it says. There's no mention of the flaming liquid flowing down to its limbs, hence it doesn't have 'fists of fire' - I suppose they could have a flaming head-butt instead, though.

Since I'm currently treating the flaming bite as as Extraordinary power I'm presuming the zombie likely has an internal reservoir/source of 'flaming liquid', which just oozes out of its head openings and ignites on contact with the oxygen in the air. It may be a purely supernatural power, but the original text implies a physical explanation.


----------



## freyar (Jul 20, 2008)

If you don't like immunity to fire, I think we're still ok.  Aren't creatures always immune to their own special attacks unless otherwise stated?

Don't you think the rest period for burning zombies returned to life is reasonably well taken care of by the usual negative level mechanic?

Regarding the refueling time, etc, why don't we say that they must spend 1 day/X time to refuel their flame?  And we can always say that a carnivorous wall can control X number of zombies at a time.  But I think beyond that, we're really getting into flavor and/or DM discretion.


----------



## Big Mac (Jul 20, 2008)

freyar said:


> <snip>
> 
> Don't you think the rest period for burning zombies returned to life is reasonably well taken care of by the usual negative level mechanic?




Negative level mechanic? I'm not sure how this would apply to these constructs. I'm not saying it won't work, but I'm lost. Please tell me more.



freyar said:


> Regarding the refueling time, etc, why don't we say that they must spend 1 day/X time to refuel their flame?  And we can always say that a carnivorous wall can control X number of zombies at a time.  But I think beyond that, we're really getting into flavor and/or DM discretion.




I don't want to hobble the Burning Zombie, just make it "return to base" on a regular basis. I think that resting time (as per a spellcaster) within the wall would be enough (or maybe more than enough) to charge them up for an entire day.

In encounter terms, this means they wouldn't run out of fire during a combat, but would be more likely to be found within the wall, where they could jump out behind the PCs after they walk past the wall.


----------



## freyar (Jul 21, 2008)

I just mean that normally after being raised, you have a negative level.  That's all.  So that there's no need to put in an additional requirement to rest if you were a burning zombie and then raised.


----------



## Shade (Jul 21, 2008)

While I like the template, I'm not sure it is really necessary.  Perhaps we can just create abbreviated statblocks for sample burning zombies of appropriate size (using the template as a guideline), and fix the Hit Dice, so as to not overcomplicate the creature?   Since the wall is only 8 HD, and probably won't advance much (since they get bigger by linking with others), I'd imagine they won't kill creatures much more powerful than themselves.


----------



## Big Mac (Jul 21, 2008)

freyar said:


> I just mean that normally after being raised, you have a negative level.  That's all.  So that there's no need to put in an additional requirement to rest if you were a burning zombie and then raised.




Thanks for the clarification.

I suppose the designers were thinking about the internal damage caused by the flaming liquid, but the magic that brings you back from the dead would need to negate that to stop you dying again. I don't see a need for this to have effects beyond the stage where you bring someone back from the dead.

A higher DC to raise someone would be an argument I'd consider. But after effects don't really make sense to me.

(Or to cut a long story short - I agree.  )


----------



## freyar (Jul 21, 2008)

Shade said:


> While I like the template, I'm not sure it is really necessary.  Perhaps we can just create abbreviated statblocks for sample burning zombies of appropriate size (using the template as a guideline), and fix the Hit Dice, so as to not overcomplicate the creature?   Since the wall is only 8 HD, and probably won't advance much (since they get bigger by linking with others), I'd imagine they won't kill creatures much more powerful than themselves.



Yeah, that sounds sensible to me.  Before switching to construct, I would have been happy with "Burning zombies are standard zombies which deal an extra 1d6 fire damage with their bite attacks," but probably we need to write at least abbreviated stat blocks.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 21, 2008)

Shade said:


> While I like the template, I'm not sure it is really necessary.  Perhaps we can just create abbreviated statblocks for sample burning zombies of appropriate size (using the template as a guideline), and fix the Hit Dice, so as to not overcomplicate the creature?   Since the wall is only 8 HD, and probably won't advance much (since they get bigger by linking with others), I'd imagine they won't kill creatures much more powerful than themselves.




That's fine, I was basically doing the template for my own amusement, it may be useful as an appendix though. Upon second thoughts I'm wondering whether the 'Burning Zombie' template should provide bonus Hit Dice rather than doubling whatever the base creature has, say:

Small: +1 HD
Medium: +1 HD
Large: +2 HD
Huge: +4 HD
Gargantuan: +8 HD
Colossal: +16 HD​
That should cut down on the chance of the carnivorous wall creating zombies a lot tougher than itself. The template as written says if the wall paralyzes and engulfs a 7 HD harpy it spits out a 14d10+20 HD burning zombie, which doesn't feel right.

Anyhows, I was planning to stat up a few sample burning zombies, but just got distracted by other things. It'd be easiest to convert the SRD's zombies. How about stats for a Kobold, Bugbear or Troglodyte? Do we want a non-humanoid form as well, like a Wolf?

As for the difficult recovery for raised/resurrected burning zombies, I just copied that from the original text so you can drop it if you like. We do need some statement about the flaming liquid damage and that it can be returned to life via magic, unlike normal Constructs.


----------



## freyar (Jul 22, 2008)

Hmm, so you're thinking racial HD + 1 (or other size modifier) HD + normal construct bonus hp.  I think that works ok.  

I agree that we should state directly that the burning zombies can be returned to life by magic, sure.

I think a Small (kobold) and Medium (human?) burning zombie are probably sufficient.  I'd be fine with putting in a wolf, too, though.  The more the merrier, as long as it isn't too much work!


----------



## freyar (Jul 22, 2008)

Hmm, so you're thinking racial HD + 1 (or other size modifier) HD + normal construct bonus hp.  I think that works ok.  

I agree that we should state directly that the burning zombies can be returned to life by magic, sure.

I think a Small (kobold) and Medium (human?) burning zombie are probably sufficient.  I'd be fine with putting in a wolf, too, though.  The more the merrier, as long as it isn't too much work!


----------



## Cleon (Jul 23, 2008)

freyar said:


> Hmm, so you're thinking racial HD + 1 (or other size modifier) HD + normal construct bonus hp.  I think that works ok.
> 
> I agree that we should state directly that the burning zombies can be returned to life by magic, sure.
> 
> I think a Small (kobold) and Medium (human?) burning zombie are probably sufficient.  I'd be fine with putting in a wolf, too, though.  The more the merrier, as long as it isn't too much work!




Sounds like we're agreed, so I'll modify the template accordingly.

I'm also thinking of changing the natural armour bonus so it does not stack with any natural armour the creature already has, otherwise you can end up with very high AC monsters.

I fancy adding a Medium burning zombie that's tougher than a human, an ex-animal and something that can fly. That should give enough variety for an interesting range of encounters.

How about:

Kobold
Human
Bugbear
Wolf
Harpy? 

I'd have liked Dire Bat for the flying critter but it's a Large animal. Indeed, there are very few suitable Small or Medium flying monsters in the SRD. Most are Outsiders which are ineligible or Dragons which I don't fancy using. What's left are darkmantles (which have no skeletons, so are ineligible), gargoyles (which just don't feel right to me) and cockatrices (If a Carnivorous Wall tries swallowing one of those it would probably end up a Stone Wall!)


----------



## freyar (Jul 23, 2008)

I think the natural armor bonus is ok as is, just like the normal zombie.

You might ask Shade how many examples he wants to include before you do the work.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 23, 2008)

freyar said:


> I think the natural armor bonus is ok as is, just like the normal zombie.
> 
> You might ask Shade how many examples he wants to include before you do the work.




I'm probably worrying needlessly, since it only makes a significant difference for big monsters, consider a Bulette's +12 natural armour or a Delver's +15, which would become +18 and +21 with the +6 bonus for a Huge burning zombie.

Since we're assuming regular-sized Large carnivorous walls, we won't need sample burning zombies bigger than Medium.

We haven't even decided on the maximum size of the Wall yet, it'd need to be Gargantuan to engulf & spawn a Huge burning zombie. Which raises the point that I didn't really need template stats for Colossal burning zombies, since the wall has to be a size bigger than its victim and there's no size bigger than Colossal. Although I suppose an evil wizard could get around it by _reducing_ the victim in size before feeding it to the wall, then restoring it afterwards.


----------



## freyar (Jul 23, 2008)

Yeah, advancement isn't too clear to me -- I don't know if we're allowing advancement or just letting them "connect" to each other like tinker toys.

I wouldn't worry about the burning zombie natural armor much for those odd cases.  It's not any wonkier than the normal zombie template (really, this doesn't do much other than add a few hp and a little damage to the bite).


----------



## Cleon (Jul 23, 2008)

freyar said:


> Yeah, advancement isn't too clear to me -- I don't know if we're allowing advancement or just letting them "connect" to each other like tinker toys.
> 
> I wouldn't worry about the burning zombie natural armor much for those odd cases. It's not any wonkier than the normal zombie template (really, this doesn't do much other than add a few hp and a little damage to the bite).





  Okay, I won't worry about that for the time being. I've updated my template proposal to include the bonus HD changes and added sample stats for a Kobold, Troglodyte, Bugbear, Worg and Harpy.

  That should do for the time being.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 24, 2008)

Oops, I've just looked at the stats and noticed all (or at worst some) of the errors, mainly to do with the damage bonuses. I've fixed the sample beasties accordingly. I've also fiddled with the template to make the Flaming Bite fire damage scale with size, otherwise we'll have Diminutive cockroaches and Colossal purple worms both doing +1d6 fire damage after becoming burning zombies.

I've also statted up a Rat as a sample Tiny zombie. Rats may be the staple diet of Carnivorous Walls, so it's probable they amass enough of them to form a Burning Zombie Rat Swarm - just imagine all those scuttling bodies, with their heads on fire! Do Construct swarms get bonus HP? How should I apply the Flaming Bite? Since a Rat Swarm is treated as a 10' by 10' creature should I give it the bonuses for a Large burning zombie, like this:

*Rat Swarm **Burning Zombie *
*Type:* Tiny Construct (Swarm)
*Hit Dice: *4d10+33 (55 hp)
*Initiative: *+1
*Speed: *10 ft. (2 squares), climb 10 ft, swim 10 ft.
*Armor Class: *14 (+2 size, +1 Dex, +1 natural), touch 13, flat-footed 13
*Base Attack/Grapple: *+3/—
*Attack: *Swarm (1d6 plus 2d6 fire)
*Full Attack: *Swarm (1d6 plus 2d6 fire)
*Space/Reach: *10 ft./0 ft.
*Special Attacks: *Distraction, flaming bite
*Special Qualities: *Damage reduction 5/slashing, darkvision 60 ft., construct traits, swarm traits
*Saves: *Fort +1, Ref +2, Will +1
*Abilities: *Str 4, Dex 13, Con—, Int—, Wis 10, Cha 1
*Feats:* Toughness
*Skills:* —
*Environment: *Any land or underground
*Challenge Rating: *2
*Alignment: *Always neutral

*Combat*
A burning zombie rat swarm seeks to surround and attack any warm-blooded prey it encounters. A swarm deals 1d6 points of damage plus 2d6 points of fire damage to any creature whose space it occupies at the end of its move.
*Distraction (Ex):* Any living creature that begins its turn with a swarm in its square must succeed on a DC 12 Fortitude save or be nauseated for 1 round. The save DC is Constitution-based.

I'd like to do a Stirge as well - mainly because I like Stirges - but 
unfortunately they lose their special attacks if I follow my template, which takes away all their charm. But if I cheat a bit and retain the Stirge's Extraordinary attacks, we get the following stats, I left the Burning Zombie Stirge's CR unchanged since it kept its nasty attack powers (EDIT - Oops, it should be CR 1/2 the same as the base creature, fixed it back):

*Stirge **Burning Zombie *(modified)
*Type:* Tiny Construct
*Hit Dice: *1d10+3 (8 hp)
*Initiative: *+3
*Speed: *5 ft. (1 square), fly 30 ft. (clumsy)(6 squares)
*Armor Class: *16 (+2 size, +3 Dex, +1 natural), touch 13, flat-footed 13
*Base Attack/Grapple: *+0/–11 (+1 when attached)
*Attack: *Attach +2 touch or bite -1 melee (1d3-3 and 1d4 fire)
*Full Attack: *Attach +2 touch or bite -1 melee (1d3-3 and 1d4 fire)
*Space/Reach: *2-1/2 ft./0 ft.
*Special Attacks: *Attach, blood drain, Flaming bite
*Special Qualities: *Damage reduction 5/slashing, darkvision 60 ft., construct traits, low-light vision
*Saves: *Fort +0, Ref +3, Will +0
*Abilities: *Str 5, Dex 17, Con—, Int—, Wis 10, Cha 1
*Feats:* Toughness
*Skills:* —
*Environment: *Any land or underground
*Challenge Rating: *½
*Alignment: *Always neutral

*Combat*
A burning zombie stirge attacks by landing on a victim, finding a vulnerable spot, and plunging its proboscis into the flesh. This is a touch attack and can target only Small or larger creatures.

*Attach (Ex):* If a burning zombie stirge hits with a touch attack, it uses its eight pincers to latch onto the opponent’s body. An attached burning zombie stirge is effectively grappling its prey. The stirge loses its Dexterity bonus to AC and has an AC of 13, but holds on with great tenacity. Stirges have a +12 racial bonus on grapple checks (already figured into the Base Attack/Grapple entry above).
An attached burning zombie stirge can be struck with a weapon or grappled itself. To remove an attached stirge through grappling, the opponent must achieve a pin against the stirge.

*Blood Drain (Ex):* A burning zombie stirge drains blood with its _Flaming Bite _proboscis, dealing 1d4 points of Constitution damage and 1d4 points of fire damage in any round when it begins its turn attached to a victim. Once it has dealt 4 points of Constitution damage, it detaches and flies off to deliver its meal to the Carnivorous Wall that created it. If its victim dies before the stirge’s appetite has been sated, the stirge detaches and seeks a new target.


----------



## Big Mac (Jul 24, 2008)

Cleon said:


> *Distraction (Ex):* Any living creature that begins its turn with a swarm in its square must succeed on a DC 12 Fortitude save or be nauseated for 1 round. The save DC is Constitution-based.




This is an interesting ability, but the name doesn't match what it does. Something called "Distraction" should do something like force people to roll concentration checks. It souldn't make people feel sick. Something like "Nausiating Smell" or "Revolting Apperance" should do that sort of thing.


----------



## freyar (Jul 25, 2008)

Big Mac said:


> This is an interesting ability, but the name doesn't match what it does. Something called "Distraction" should do something like force people to roll concentration checks. It souldn't make people feel sick. Something like "Nausiating Smell" or "Revolting Apperance" should do that sort of thing.



This is a standard ability for swarms, though, so we're stuck with it.  

I'm not so sure the stirges should keep their blood drain, though; it's not too normal for a construct.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 25, 2008)

freyar said:


> I'm not so sure the stirges should keep their blood drain, though; it's not too normal for a construct.




Yes, I said it wasn't following the zombie template rules on Special Attacks. It's just to me a Stirge without attach and blood drain ain't a Stirge, just a funny looking bat. As for precedents, doesn't the Blood Golem of Hextor have a similar ability?

Anyhows, I notice that I didn't adjust the Rat Swarm's CR from the SRD stat block and somehow it got another HD over the original's 4d8, just fixed that. Now since I gave the Swarm a Large Construct's bonus HP, maybe I should give it the template's bonus HD and bite damage? That would make it:

*Rat Swarm Burning Zombie*
*Type:* Tiny Construct (Swarm)
*Hit Dice: *6d10+33 (66 hp)
*Initiative: *+1
*Speed: *10 ft. (2 squares), climb 10 ft, swim 10 ft.
*Armor Class: *14 (+2 size, +1 Dex, +1 natural), touch 13, flat-footed 13
*Base Attack/Grapple: *+4/—
*Attack: *Swarm (1d8 plus 2d6 fire) (_flaming bite_)
*Full Attack: *Swarm (1d8 plus 2d6 fire) (_flaming bite_)
*Space/Reach: *10 ft./0 ft.
*Special Attacks: *Distraction, flaming bite
*Special Qualities: *Damage reduction 5/slashing, darkvision 60 ft., construct traits, swarm traits
*Saves: *Fort +2, Ref +3, Will +2
*Abilities: *Str 4, Dex 13, Con—, Int—, Wis 10, Cha 1
*Feats:* Toughness
*Skills:* —
*Environment: *Any land or underground
*Challenge Rating: *3
*Alignment: *Always neutral


----------



## Cleon (Jul 25, 2008)

Looking through the list, if we use the 6 HD rat swarm we've got one sort of monster for every HD from 1/2 to 8 with the exception of 7 HD. Now I fancy filling the gap. From the SRD there are the following candidates:

Bison, Dire Ape, Dire Wolverine, Giant Wasp, Lion, Medusa, Owlbear.

They're all Large except for the Medusa, who would be an interesting sight - wouldn't her snaky hair get flaming bites as well? Although there is something to be said for a Large monster, just in case we have Huge carnivorous walls. If we do, I fancy the Dire Ape best.

Which do you prefer?

EDIT: Here are their stats, the Dire Ape version is a *lot* tougher than the medusa. The size Large and the Str 24 increase its damage-dealing capacity considerably and it gains a Contruct's immunities and bonus HPs, plus I left in the Rend special attack which the template as written would remove. It's more of a CR 4 than the CR 3 the template gives. Well, that's par for the course for templates that don't include a CR adjustment for size, maybe I should add such a clause to the template.

 *Dire Ape Burning Zombie*
*Type:* Large Construct
*Hit Dice: *7d10+33 (71 hp)
*Initiative: *+1
*Speed: *20 ft. (4 squares), climb 10 ft.
*Armor Class: *19 (-1 size, +1 Dex, +9 natural), touch 10, flat-footed 18
*Base Attack/Grapple: *+4/+15
*Attack: *Bite +11 melee (1d8+7 plus 2d6 fire)
*Full Attack: *Bite +11 melee (1d8+7 plus 2d6 fire) and 2 claws +6 melee (1d6+3)
*Space/Reach: *10 ft./10 ft.
*Special Attacks: *Flaming bite, rend
*Special Qualities: *Damage reduction 5/slashing, darkvision 60 ft., construct traits
*Saves: *Fort +2, Ref +3, Will +2
*Abilities: *Str 24, Dex 13, Con—, Int—, Wis 10, Cha 1
*Feats:* Toughness
*Skills:* —
*Environment: *Any land or underground
*Challenge Rating: *3 _[more like a 4?]_
*Alignment: *Always neutral

*Rend (Ex)*
A dire ape burning zombie that hits with both claw attacks latches onto the opponent’s body and tears the flesh. This attack automatically deals an extra 2d6+10 points of damage.


*Medusa Burning Zombie*
*Type:* Medium Construct
*Hit Dice: *7d10+23 (61 hp)
*Initiative: *+1
*Speed: *20 ft. (4 squares)
*Armor Class: *18 (+1 Dex, +7 natural), touch 11, flat-footed 17
*Base Attack/Grapple: *+4/+4
*Attack: *Bite +5 melee (1d6+1 plus 1d6 fire) or shortbow +5 ranged (1d6/×3) or dagger +5 melee (1d4+1/19–20) or snakes +5 melee (1d4 plus 1d6 fire)
*Full Attack: *Bite +5 melee (1d6+1 plus 1d6 fire) and dagger +0 melee (1d4/19–20) and snakes +0 melee (1d4 plus 1d6 fire) or shortbow +5 ranged (1d6/×3)
*Space/Reach: *5 ft./5 ft.
*Special Attacks: *Flaming bite
*Special Qualities: *Damage reduction 5/slashing, darkvision 60 ft., construct traits
*Saves: *Fort +2, Ref +3, Will +2
*Abilities: *Str 12, Dex 13, Con—, Int—, Wis 10, Cha 1
*Feats:* Toughness
*Skills:* —
*Environment: *Any land or underground
*Challenge Rating: *3
*Alignment: *Always neutral


----------



## Shade (Jul 29, 2008)

Wow!  I was thinking more along the lines of just a single example of each size, but I suppose that could work.

For simplicity's sake, I think we should eliminate any weapons/armor and assume they are destroyed by the wall's digestive juices.

I also would rather not "cheat" and drop all special abilities.  Creative DMs can always make a judgement call to retain abilities like the stirges.

Can someone explain again why these aren't undead (and therefore can simply use the zombie template with a few modifications)?   Sorry, I've lost track of the thread.


----------



## freyar (Jul 29, 2008)

The original adventure gives stats for the burning zombies, which indicates that they are constructs. I'd argue that they should basically just be slightly modified zombies (change to constructs, drop single action SQ), and I think that's more or less what Cleon's template does now.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 30, 2008)

Shade said:


> Wow!  I was thinking more along the lines of just a single example of each size, but I suppose that could work.
> 
> For simplicity's sake, I think we should eliminate any weapons/armor and assume they are destroyed by the wall's digestive juices.
> 
> ...




Welcome back, Shade.

I thought about dropping the equipment since the original monster stats only had a bite attack, but then original AD&D zombies mostly only had a slam attack, while 3E ones tend to use weapons. In the end I left the weapons/armour from the original zombie template in, so the DM can use them or not. Personally, I would keep the melee weapons and drop the missile weapons (a burning zombie firing a bow just doesn't feel right).

As for some of the base creatures Special Attacks staying on, it feels  right in some cases (e.g. Rend, Swallow Whole) but I was a bit dubious, so I didn't include any SA sample burning zombies with the proposed Template, but kept them apart in posts #280, 283 & 284.

Oh, and they're Constructs because the original stats specify that burning zombies are not Undead and can't be turned.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 30, 2008)

Shade said:


> Wow!  I was thinking more along the lines of just a single example of each size, but I suppose that could work.




By the way, when you said examples for each size, do you fancy any bigger than Large? I statted up a few Huge burning zombies (_Megaraptor, Triceratops, Tyrannosaurus_), partially to see how they'd work but mostly 'cause I like dinosaurs. I've left in most of their Special Attacks, but it'd be simple enough to drop them. A _Triceratops _Burning Zombie is *nasty *if it keeps its Trample attack.

*Megaraptor Burning Zombie*
*Type:* Huge Construct
*Hit Dice: *12d10+43 (109 hp)
*Initiative: *+1
*Speed: *40 ft. (8 squares)
*Armor Class: *21 (-2 size, +1 Dex, +12 natural), touch 9, flat-footed 20
*Base Attack/Grapple: *+8/+22
*Attack: *Bite +12 melee (2d6+6 plus 3d6 fire) or talons +12 melee (2d8+5)
*Full Attack: *Bite +12 melee (2d6+6 plus 3d6 fire) and talons +7 melee (2d8+3) and 2 foreclaws +7 melee (1d4+3)
*Space/Reach:* 15 ft./10 ft.
*Special Attacks: *Flaming bite
*Special Qualities: *Damage reduction 5/slashing, darkvision 60 ft., construct traits
*Saves: *Fort +4, Ref +5, Will +4
*Abilities: *Str 23, Dex 13, Con—, Int—, Wis 10, Cha 1
*Feats:* Toughness
*Skills:* —
*Environment: *Any land or underground
*Challenge Rating: *5_ [more like a 6?]_
*Alignment: *Always neutral



*Triceratops Burning Zombie*
*Type:* Huge Construct
*Hit Dice: *20d10+43 (153 hp)
*Initiative: *-2
*Speed: *20 ft. (4 squares)
*Armor Class: *23 (-2 size, -2 Dex, +17 natural), touch 6, flat-footed 23
*Base Attack/Grapple: *+15/+34
*Attack: *Bite +24 melee (2d6+11 plus 3d6 fire) or gore +24 melee (2d8+11)
*Full Attack: *Bite +24 melee (2d6+11 plus 3d6 fire) and gore +19 melee (2d8+5)
*Space/Reach:* 15 ft./10 ft.
*Special Attacks: *Flaming bite
*Special Qualities: *Damage reduction 5/slashing, darkvision 60 ft., construct traits
*Saves: *Fort +4, Ref +5, Will +4
*Abilities: *Str 32, Dex 7, Con—, Int—, Wis 10, Cha 1
*Feats:* Toughness
*Skills:* —
*Environment: *Any land or underground
*Challenge Rating:* 7_ [more like an 8?]_
*Alignment: *Always neutral

*Combat*
Since the burning zombie version is slower and clumsier than a living _Triceratops_, it makes sense to lose the powerful charge & trample, but if it kept them they'd be:
*Powerful Charge (Ex):* When a triceratops charges, its gore attack deals 4d8+22 points of damage.
*Trample (Ex):* Reflex half DC 31, damage 2d12+16. The save DC is Strength-based.
With those tricks I think its CR should bump up to 9.


*Tyrannosaurus Burning Zombie *(modified)
*Type:* Huge Construct
*Hit Dice: *22d10+43 (164 hp)
*Initiative: *+1
*Speed:* 30 ft. (6 squares)
*Armor Class: *19 (-2 size, +11 natural), touch 8, flat-footed 19
*Base Attack/Grapple: *+16/+34
*Attack: *Bite +24 melee (3d6+10 plus 3d6 fire)
*Full Attack: *Bite +24 melee (3d6+10 plus 3d6 fire)
*Space/Reach:* 15 ft./10 ft.
*Special Attacks: *Flaming bite, improved grab, swallow whole
*Special Qualities: *Damage reduction 5/slashing, darkvision 60 ft., construct traits
*Saves: *Fort +7, Ref +7, Will +7
*Abilities: *Str 30, Dex 10, Con—, Int—, Wis 10, Cha 1
*Feats:* Toughness
*Skills:* —
*Environment: *Any land or underground
*Challenge Rating: *8_ [more like a 9?]_
*Alignment: *Always neutral


*Combat*
*Improved Grab (Ex):* To use this ability, a _Tyrannosaurus_ burning zombie must hit an opponent of up to one size smaller with its bite attack. It can then attempt to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. If it wins the grapple check, it establishes a hold and can try to swallow the foe the following round.
*Swallow Whole (Ex):* A _Tyrannosaurus _burning zombie can try to swallow a grabbed opponent of up to two sizes smaller by making a successful grapple check. The swallowed creature takes 2d8+10 points of bludgeoning damage and 8 points of acid* damage per round from the _Tyrannosaurus’s _gizzard. A swallowed creature can cut its way out by using a light slashing or piercing weapon to deal 25 points of damage to the gizzard (AC 12). Once the creature exits, muscular action closes the hole; another swallowed opponent must cut its own way out.
A Huge _Tyrannosaurus’s _gizzard can hold 2 Medium, 8 Small, 32 Tiny, or 128 Diminutive or smaller opponents.

_*Maybe switch digestive juices acid damage to fire from burning liquid, although the Carnivorous Wall's internal fluids do acid, so it makes sense to leave it as is.
_


----------



## Shade (Jul 30, 2008)

Updated.

If we're happy with the template, let return to the wall itself.



> The interior fluids of a carnivorous wall ignite on contact with air; any slicing or piercing weapon that strikes a wall causes an equal amount of fire damage to its wielder.




We can borrow this.  

Pyrophoric Blood (Ex): A firedrake’s blood is highly flammable and will ignite in a burst of flame upon contact with the air.A successful hit with a slashing or piercing weapon draws blood and causes it to ignite dealing 1d3 points of damage to the attacker (Reflex save at DC 13 to avoid).


----------



## freyar (Jul 30, 2008)

Looks good to me.  Let's up the damage to 1d6 or 1d8 at least.  Should we specify that the save is Con-based?


----------



## Echohawk (Jul 30, 2008)

Aside: The dense pudding can be removed from the list of unconverted oozes, since I've just notice that it was already updated in _Bestiary of the Realms, Volume 2_.


----------



## Shade (Jul 30, 2008)

Thanks.  I removed them from the first entry.


----------



## Cleon (Aug 1, 2008)

freyar said:


> Looks good to me.  Let's up the damage to 1d6 or 1d8 at least.  Should we specify that the save is Con-based?




The original AD&D stats say the damage dealt is equal to the wound that provoked it. So if we don't keep that rule we should say it does a typical weapon damage - how about 2d6, the same as the Flaming Bite fire damage for a Large Burning Zombie according to the template?


----------



## Cleon (Aug 1, 2008)

Thinking about whether a _Tyrannosaurus _Burning Zombie would cause fire or acid damage in its gizzard, I realized that the original description of the Carnivorous Wall made no mention of them having a corrosive interior, instead it drains its engulfed victims dry.



> Any creature pulled into the carnivorous wall suffocates in 3 rounds, _is drained of fluids_ and spit back out as a burning zombie 10 rounds later.



So, should we have it do Con drain to engulfed victims instead of acid damage? That would let it kill high-level victims faster (since they have much less Con than HP), and it would explain why any zombies it contains aren't consumed (since they don't have Con to drain, and are immune to ability loss anyway).


----------



## freyar (Aug 1, 2008)

Well, the thing is the standard engulf ability does acid damage, I think.  But you could model this with Con damage (I think drain is probably too much here for those creatures that can escape the engulfing).  We could do something like the following.  Let's see what everyone else thinks.

Engulf (Ex): A carnivorous wall can engulf a grappled opponent of a smaller size than itself as a standard action by making a successful grapple check against that opponent. It automatically succeeds in engulfing a paralyzed opponent. Engulfed creatures begin to drown (see suffocation rules in the DMG) and are considered to be grappled and trapped within the wall's body. Engulfed creatures continue to be subject to the wall's paralyzing slime and take 1d4 Con damage per round from the wall's digestive processes (on a failed DC X Fortitude save?). Creatures that die while engulfed are immediately animated as burning zombies (see below) and expelled from the wall. A Large carnivorous wall's interior can hold 2 Medium, 8 Small, 32 Tiny or 128 Diminutive or smaller opponents.


----------



## Shade (Aug 1, 2008)

Hmmm...the 3x "standard" for being drained of fluids isn't Con damage, but simply additional damage.   See horrid wilting and dessication damage in Sandstorm, for example.

Of course, the suffocation needs to be worked in, and should do the trick regardless of what type of damage we deal.


----------



## freyar (Aug 1, 2008)

Suffocation is already present in the homebrews version.   So why don't we keep the damage that we have as acid but change it to untyped?  We need to figure out how much, though.  Currently we have 2d6 with a ?, but I'm amenable to going up a step.


----------



## Cleon (Aug 2, 2008)

freyar said:


> Well, the thing is the standard engulf ability does acid damage, I think. But you could model this with Con damage (I think drain is probably too much here for those creatures that can escape the engulfing). We could do something like the following. Let's see what everyone else thinks.
> 
> Engulf (Ex): A carnivorous wall can engulf a grappled opponent of a smaller size than itself as a standard action by making a successful grapple check against that opponent. It automatically succeeds in engulfing a paralyzed opponent. Engulfed creatures begin to drown (see suffocation rules in the DMG) and are considered to be grappled and trapped within the wall's body. Engulfed creatures continue to be subject to the wall's paralyzing slime and take 1d4 Con damage per round from the wall's digestive processes (on a failed DC X Fortitude save?). Creatures that die while engulfed are immediately animated as burning zombies (see below) and expelled from the wall. A Large carnivorous wall's interior can hold 2 Medium, 8 Small, 32 Tiny or 128 Diminutive or smaller opponents.




Sorry, I meant Con Damaged not Drained, I keep getting the two mixed up. I was basically thinking that if it sucked out its victims' fluids then it would attack Con like the Stirge's _Blood Drain_ Special Attach - which does Con Damage despite the attack being called Drain. I'd have it do 1d6 Con damage though, so the Wall kills an average human in three rounds through blood drain (3d6 Con).



freyar said:


> Suffocation is already present in the homebrews version.  So why don't we keep the damage that we have as acid but change it to untyped? We need to figure out how much, though. Currently we have 2d6 with a ?, but I'm amenable to going up a step.




Yes, that could work. Do engulfed victim get to hold their breath, or are they considered to have failed their saves to hold breath and go unconscious in the first round, -1 HP in the second, dead in the third? If so, they'd survive an identical number of rounds to the AD&D original (although the actual time will be tenfold, three minutes versus eighteen seconds). I always assumed they started making Con saves to continue holding their breath as soon as they were swallowed, without the 2*Con rounds of 'free' air. I'd like them to stay conscious for a few rounds in the Wall's interior.


----------



## Big Mac (Aug 2, 2008)

Shade said:


> Can someone explain again why these aren't undead (and therefore can simply use the zombie template with a few modifications)?   Sorry, I've lost track of the thread.




I think the burining zombie creation process is similar to the aruchai creation process (from the last monster), althought it is more of a sub-creature creation process than a child creation process. It reminds me of the Witchlight Marauder (from Spelljammer) which has three forms.

This also reminds me of the Shivak constructs created by The Spelljammer.

These two creatures are the reason why I think that Burning Zombies should bring food back to the wall.



freyar said:


> Suffocation is already present in the homebrews version.   So why don't we keep the damage that we have as acid but change it to untyped?  We need to figure out how much, though.  Currently we have 2d6 with a ?, but I'm amenable to going up a step.




Hmm. Should this creature be able to kill creatures that don't breath? If it doesn't melt people or sufforcate people I'd say no. The blurb says this: "Touching the pseudopod or the wall's surface causes paralysis for 5d4 rounds (save negates); paralyzed creatures are pulled into the wall in 2 rounds. Any creature pulled into the carnivorous wall suffocates in 3 rounds, is drained of fluids and spit back out as a burning zombie 10 rounds later."

I'd say that any creature (like an air genasi) that didn't breath, can't be suffocated, so can't be drained of fluids (at least not on a 3 rounds timescale). If a wall eats an air genasai (or similar creature) that creature should have a very high chance to cut its way out.

I'd say that creatures immune to being paralysed wouldn't get pulled into the wall either (i.e. the wall shouldn't be that good at pulling people in).


----------



## Cleon (Aug 2, 2008)

Big Mac said:


> I'd say that creatures immune to being paralysed wouldn't get pulled into the wall either (i.e. the wall shouldn't be that good at pulling people in).




Well the Carnivorous Wall is a Large creature and although it isn't very strong for its size, it still has a Grapple bonus of +12. That's pretty good compared to the mid- to low- level characters it will probably be fighting.

Note: I just saw a small error in the Worg Burning Zombie's stat block, its Attack and Full attack should both be 1d6+6+1d6 fire damage, I've just fixed it on post #255. Hopefully Shade will fix the master conversion the next time it gets updated.


----------



## freyar (Aug 3, 2008)

On the suffocation bit: I'm a believer for the most part in standardization, so I really meant that suffocation should follow the standard rules in the DMG -- you can hold your breath, etc.  

Rather than Con damage, Shade mentioned that being drained of fluids, like dessication, is usually untyped hp damage, so we've gone back to that.  We currently have 2d6, but I could see increasing that.


----------



## Shade (Aug 4, 2008)

Updated (and fixed the Worg Burning Zombie's full attack line).


----------



## Shade (Aug 4, 2008)

> The interior fluids of a carnivorous wall ignite on contact with air; any slicing or piercing weapon that strikes a wall causes an equal amount of fire damage to its wielder.




Borrow this again?

Pyrophoric Blood (Ex): A firedrake’s blood is highly flammable and will ignite in a burst of flame upon contact with the air.  A successful hit with a slashing or piercing weapon draws blood and causes it to ignite dealing 1d3 points of damage to the attacker (Reflex save at DC 13 to avoid).

Here's how we modified it earlier...

Boiling Blood (Ex): A geyser dragon’s blood is highly pressurized and erupts in a burst of boiling liquid and steam upon contact with the air. A creature that makes a successful attack with a slashing or piercing weapon (including natural weapons) against a geyser dragon must succeed on a DC 12 Reflex save or take 1d3 points of fire damage from the splashing blood. The save DC is Constitution-based.


----------



## freyar (Aug 4, 2008)

Pyrophoric blood is good as is, I think, except maybe it should be "Fluid" rather than Blood.  We just need to adjust the DC and probably bump the damage a bit to maybe 1d6.


----------



## Shade (Aug 4, 2008)

Updated.

CR 6?  They are about as deadly as a white pudding or creeping stone, both CR 6.

Skills:  11

Feats:  3

Environment: Any?

Treasure: x

Advancement: x

A carnivorous wall is 10 feet tall, 10 feet wide, and 5 feet thick. A typical specimen weighs about x pounds.


----------



## Cleon (Aug 5, 2008)

freyar said:


> On the suffocation bit: I'm a believer for the most part in standardization, so I really meant that suffocation should follow the standard rules in the DMG -- you can hold your breath, etc.




The reason I asked is because the Engulf description says "Engulfed creatures *begin to drown* (see suffocation rules in the DMG)", and the SRD rules for drowning describe what happens after the PC stops holding their breath.



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Any character can hold her breath for a number of rounds equal to twice her Constitution score. After this period of time, the character must make a DC 10 Constitution check every round in order to continue holding her breath. Each round, the DC increases by 1. See also: Swimhttp://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/swim.htm skill description.
> 
> When the character finally fails her Constitution check, *she begins to drown*. In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hp). In the following round, she drops to -1 hit points and is dyinghttp://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#dying. In the third round, she drowns.




Read literally, that means an Engulfed character does not get to hold their breath and begins drowning immediately, so goes unconscious in the first round and is dead in three.

I prefer the compromise of having them get the DC 10+rounds engulfed Con saves to continue to hold their breath.


----------



## Cleon (Aug 5, 2008)

freyar said:


> Pyrophoric blood is good as is, I think, except maybe it should be "Fluid" rather than Blood.  We just need to adjust the DC and probably bump the damage a bit to maybe 1d6.




  The Pyrophoric Fluid special attack looks good to me, I'm tempted to have the damage identical to a flask of alchemist's fire, with the Reflex save (DC 21, based on Con) to avoid a direct hit, although just having it do the same damage as a Large Burning Zombies' bite attack is simpler and may make more sense.


----------



## Cleon (Aug 5, 2008)

Shade said:


> Updated.
> 
> CR 6?  They are about as deadly as a white pudding or creeping stone, both CR 6.
> 
> ...




CR 6 looks good to me.

Skills - _probably put them all into _Spot _and/or _Listen_. I'd give the 'Mimic' version _Listen_, plus _Disguise _with a hefty racial bonus._

Feats - _hmm, have to think about that one. _Weapon Focus (slam)? Improved Grapple?

Environment - Underground.

Treasure - 1/10th coins; 50% goods; 50% items. _like a Mimic and Gelatinous Cube._

Advancement - 9-12 HD (Large) 13-24 HD (Huge) _following the profile of most other Oozes and the Mimic. _

Weight ~7500 lbs, as I suggested in an earlier post.


----------



## Shade (Aug 5, 2008)

Updated.

It can't qualify for Improved Grapple, but good suggestions on the rest.

Maybe Skill Focus (Spot)?  Improved Initiative?


----------



## Cleon (Aug 6, 2008)

Shade said:


> Updated.
> 
> It can't qualify for Improved Grapple, but good suggestions on the rest.
> 
> Maybe Skill Focus (Spot)?  Improved Initiative?




Oops, I wasn't thinking about the Prereqs while brainstorming. I'd prefer Improved Initiative to compensate for its low Dex. Don't think Skill Focus is worth having. Combat Reflexes would be useful, as it has a 10' reach, if only it had a Dex bonus to benefit from it. Improved Overrun would be handy for engulfing victims, but it lacks the prerequisite Power Attack.

What about one of the saving throw improving feats - Lightning Reflexes maybe, like a Mimic has?

So what about Weapon Focus (Slam), Improved Initiative, Lightning Reflexes.

Did you include Weapon Focus (Slam) in the update's stats, since it has a +8 melee attack with Slam (+6 from HD, +2 Str, -1 size, +1 weapon focus = +8), or did you just leave out the attack penalty for it being Large?

I'd put the 'Ambush Wall' variant description in front of the Burning Zombie template, were people are less likely to miss it.

Speaking of missing things, what happened to the Burning Zombie Harpy?


----------



## Shade (Aug 6, 2008)

Cleon said:


> So what about Weapon Focus (Slam), Improved Initiative, Lightning Reflexes.




Sounds good.



Cleon said:


> Did you include Weapon Focus (Slam) in the update's stats, since it has a +8 melee attack with Slam (+6 from HD, +2 Str, -1 size, +1 weapon focus = +8), or did you just leave out the attack penalty for it being Large?




Probably the former.



Cleon said:


> I'd put the 'Ambush Wall' variant description in front of the Burning Zombie template, were people are less likely to miss it.




Good suggestion.



Cleon said:


> Speaking of missing things, what happened to the Burning Zombie Harpy?




I felt we had too many samples, so dropped it.  Would you prefer it in place of another?

Updated.


----------



## freyar (Aug 6, 2008)

Cleon said:


> The reason I asked is because the Engulf description says "Engulfed creatures *begin to drown* (see suffocation rules in the DMG)", and the SRD rules for drowning describe what happens after the PC stops holding their breath.
> 
> Read literally, that means an Engulfed character does not get to hold their breath and begins drowning immediately, so goes unconscious in the first round and is dead in three.
> 
> I prefer the compromise of having them get the DC 10+rounds engulfed Con saves to continue to hold their breath.




Ok, I see what you're getting at.  Let's change Engulf to read:

Engulfed creatures must succeed at Constitution checks each round or begin to drown (see drowning rules in the DMG) and are considered to be grappled and trapped within the wall's body.

I think the rest looks pretty good.


----------



## Shade (Aug 6, 2008)

That makes sense.

Updated.


----------



## freyar (Aug 6, 2008)

These done then, everybody?


----------



## Cleon (Aug 8, 2008)

Shade said:


> I felt we had too many samples, so dropped it.  Would you prefer it in place of another?




No need to bother if you don't want to go overboard on the samples, it'll just be a way of rewarding people who actually check the thread.



freyar said:


> These done then, everybody?




Let me just give it the once over ...

Looks pretty good to me, there's a small typo in the Ambush Wall entry ("These *abush* walls can soften, resculpt, and change"), and I suppose Shade should remove my explanatory note about the Burning Zombies' CR ("[I've bumped it up from a regular zombie since it doesn't have the "single action only" quality and gains slightly better AC and a flaming bite]").

Apart from those quibbles I'd consider it finished.

So what's next on the list?


----------



## Shade (Aug 8, 2008)

I fixed the typo and extranneous text Cleon pointed out.

I can't believe a monster from the orginal Fiend Folio still remains unconverted!

*IMORPH*
FREQUENCY: Very rare (at best)
NO. APPEARING: 1
ARMOUR CLASS: 5 [see below)
MOVE: 6" /see below)
HIT DICE: 5 (see below)
% IN LAIR: 10%
TREASURE TYPE: Nil
NO. OF ATTACKS: 2
SPECIAL ATTACKS: Nil
SPECIAL DEFENCES: See below
MAGIC RESISTANCE: Standard
INTELLIGENCE: Animal
ALIGNMENT: Neutral
SIZE: M
PSlONlC ABILITY: Nil
LEVEL/X.P. VALUE:
DAMAG E/ATTAC K:'1-4/1-4
Attack/Defence Modes: Nil
111/130 + 5per hit point

The natural form of this beast is a grey-green lumpy cylinder about 4' high and 2' average diameter. A short single leg trails behind the main body and has a suction cup like that of a snail. Other similar suction cups under the main body itself permit the beast a jerky mode of locomotion. Two 5' long tentacles emerge from the top of the body but there are no apparent eyes, ears or other features - indeed the whole creature is a constantly changing mass of a rubbery, dough-like substance the same colour as bilious human flesh.

The creature will not normally attack unless threatened, but when it does so it strikes with its tentacles for 1-4 hit points of damage each.  

When engaged in melee the creature exhibits a startling power of irnorphisrn. At the beginning of each melee round (except the first) it changes its hit dice and armour class by 1 point each towards the values of its opponent, at the same time gradually changing its shape to resemble its opponent's shape.  When hit dice and armour class (and hence appearance) are the same as those of its opponent, the creature instantly alters its attack and movement to fit the subject.

Note that the imorph assumes only the physical appearance of its opponent; though it will grow various appendages to copy its opponent's weapons and limbs, it will still strike with the equivalent of two tentacles each round for 1-4 hit points of damage each (even though one tentacle may look like an arm wielding a sword and the other an arm holding a shield, for example). The hit points of the imorph remain the same even when the hit dice value changes.  However, the creature will change its hit probability to conform to its new hit dice value.

When the imorph is exactly the same shape as its opponent, has the same hit dice and the same armour class, it changes to the appropriate attack matrix for its hit probability (the fighter table, for example if it is attacking a human fighting man). It remaims attacking on that table until it starts to change back again towards its original form.

When the melee is over, or when the imorph is down to 8 hits or fewer, it will revert to its original form by the reverse process, changing armour class and hit dice by 1 point each per melee round.

If faced with more than one attacker, the imorph will select one at random to attack and to emulate. If the original 'model' dies during melee, or retreats, the imorph will immediately start to alter in order to emulate another opponent.

Within the creature's body there is a small organ, corresponding to the human liver, made of a rubbery green substance. Within the organ is a liquid of similar colour which, when mixed with water in equal quantity, serves as a potion of polymorph self. There will be sufficient liquid in a single imorph to make 1-3 draughts of such a potion, and it is for this reason that the imorph is attacked by adventurers.

Originally appeared in Fiend Folio (1981).


----------



## freyar (Aug 8, 2008)

Shade said:


> I can't believe a monster from the orginal Fiend Folio still remains unconverted!




Well, it does say they're very rare.   More seriously, it might be because these are quite weird.

Type: I'm inclined to agree that these are oozes, but I could also go aberration.  Other thoughts?

In terms of the morphing, I'm not so sure about changing the HD, BAB, etc.  Seems complicated.  Ideas?


----------



## Cleon (Aug 9, 2008)

freyar said:


> Well, it does say they're very rare.   More seriously, it might be because these are quite weird.
> 
> Type: I'm inclined to agree that these are oozes, but I could also go aberration.  Other thoughts?
> 
> In terms of the morphing, I'm not so sure about changing the HD, BAB, etc.  Seems complicated.  Ideas?





It looks like an Aberration to me, not an Ooze. They have discrete organs ('liver') and limbs (tentacles, suckers).

As for the changing Hit Dice / BAB I'm not sure that'd be necessary. The original monster doesn't get extra HPs or attacks when its HD go up.

In 1st edition a monster's attack is usually entirely defined by its HD, and some monsters with particularly accurate attacks are just treated as attacking as a higher-HD monster (i.e. a Stirge attacked as a 4-HD monster).  I suspect something of the same kind is going on here, so I'd just give it a racial (?) bonus to attack that increases until it matches its foes BAB.

EDIT: No, that's not right. What about the Imorph's saves and resistance to level-dependent spells? Those would also increase as it emulates a foe, going by the original description.


----------



## GrayLinnorm (Aug 9, 2008)

I'd go with aberration, with shapechanger subtype.

I think Erica started a conversion of this guy, but never finished it.


----------



## freyar (Aug 9, 2008)

Yeah, aberration (shapechanger) seems good to me.

Went looking for a started conversion, but it doesn't seem to have made it to the boards.


----------



## Big Mac (Aug 13, 2008)

I'm glad the Carnivorous Wall is finally done. That was a lot more work than some other monsters. The Pyrophoric Fluid was pretty good.

The Imorph also looks like it is going to be tough. As freyar said: it is weird.

I'd agree that it is an abberation, rather than an ooze as it has suction cups and tenticles. It seems like a giant shapechanging squid to me. Did Fiend Folio have a picture of this beastie?

I think the "irnorphisrn"* ability is going to be the toughest part of this monster. Apart from that it is pretty normal.

_* = Is that a typo for "imorphism"?_

Why don't we do this in two stages? We can convert the basic (non-shapechanging) monster first and then work out what the Imorphism (Ex) ability should be when the basic creature is done.



Shade said:


> ARMOUR CLASS: 5 [see below)
> MOVE: 6" /see below)
> HIT DICE: 5 (see below)




These should convert over fairly easily. The Imporphism can probably just change them all to "as per opponent".



Shade said:


> SPECIAL ATTACKS: Nil




Hmm. Should the imorph get the Special Attacks of its opponent?



Shade said:


> SPECIAL DEFENCES: See below




This is going to be "Special Qualities: Imophism (Ex)" plus whatever you want to give this creature. Do you think it should pick up the Special Qualities of its opponent.



Shade said:


> MAGIC RESISTANCE: Standard




Should it gain this sort of thing via its Imophism?



Shade said:


> INTELLIGENCE: Animal




Should it keep its original intellegence when it copies a creature?



Shade said:


> ALIGNMENT: Neutral




I'm happy for it to keep its alignment.



Shade said:


> SIZE: M




Hmm. So what happens when an Imorph meets a Stone Giant? Do we get a mini-me version of a Stone Giant?



Shade said:


> PSlONlC ABILITY: Nil




Hmm. No psionics when the Imporphism kicks in. So far it looks like the imorph gains the physical form, but not anything else.

Maybe we should just base the Imporphism on the Polymorph spell. It seems to do a bit more than Polymorph, but that spell would make a good start. Then this creature could just be a weird squid that has a Polymorph-like defence.



Shade said:


> The natural form of this beast is a grey-green lumpy cylinder about 4' high and 2' average diameter. A short single leg trails behind the main body and has a suction cup like that of a snail. Other similar suction cups under the main body itself permit the beast a jerky mode of locomotion. Two 5' long tentacles emerge from the top of the body but there are no apparent eyes, ears or other features - indeed the whole creature is a constantly changing mass of a rubbery, dough-like substance the same colour as bilious human flesh.
> 
> The creature will not normally attack unless threatened, but when it does so it strikes with its tentacles for 1-4 hit points of damage each.




OK, maybe it isn't quite like a squid. I can't quite get my head around how these look or how they might move.



Shade said:


> When engaged in melee the creature exhibits a startling power of irnorphisrn. At the beginning of each melee round (except the first) it changes its hit dice and armour class by 1 point each towards the values of its opponent, at the same time gradually changing its shape to resemble its opponent's shape.  When hit dice and armour class (and hence appearance) are the same as those of its opponent, the creature instantly alters its attack and movement to fit the subject.
> 
> Note that the imorph assumes only the physical appearance of its opponent; though it will grow various appendages to copy its opponent's weapons and limbs, it will still strike with the equivalent of two tentacles each round for 1-4 hit points of damage each (even though one tentacle may look like an arm wielding a sword and the other an arm holding a shield, for example). The hit points of the imorph remain the same even when the hit dice value changes.  However, the creature will change its hit probability to conform to its new hit dice value.
> 
> When the imorph is exactly the same shape as its opponent, has the same hit dice and the same armour class, it changes to the appropriate attack matrix for its hit probability (the fighter table, for example if it is attacking a human fighting man). It remaims attacking on that table until it starts to change back again towards its original form.




Cleon's comments about 1st edition rules are probably key to how we convert this and create an Imophisim ability.

I think we can either:

copy the 1st edition game mechanics to create a literal translation,
copy the transition duration (monster X HD - monster Y HD) but come up with a more 3rd edition mechanic,
come up with something that takes a fixed number of rounds (or variable number of rounds) or
Make the transformation take one round.

A shift in HD and a parallel shift in AC give a GM two different things to track. It is hard enough having to apply templates to creatures without having to alter creatures on the fly.

I don't especially mind what way we go with this part of the conversion, but how that the one we pick isn't too hard for a GM to track.

One question the original stats don't answer is: what happens when an imorph is attacked by a creature that is weaker than itself (or has a worse AC than itself). It doesn't seem to make sense for it to drop HD and/or AC.

Another question the original stats don't answer is: what happens if an imorph meets an opponent with the same AC and same HD? Does it transform as a free action instead of after one round?

A third question the stats don't answer is: does the imorph duplicate the natural AC of its opponent or can it also duplicate any equipment that provides AC (such as armour or shields)?

I personally think that there should be some limit to its shape changing power. How about "any of the following types: aberration, animal, dragon, fey, giant, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, ooze, plant, or vermin"? How about "The assumed form can’t have more Hit Dice than...15 HD"? How about "An *imorph* can’t...assume a form smaller than Fine, nor can *it*...assume an incorporeal or gaseous form."?

I don't think an imorph should use its Imorphism if it would be worse off in the new form.

I'd be tempted to say that the imorph can use its ability to raise its HD above 5 (at the rate of 1 HD per round). And that it can also use its ability to raise its AC above 15 (again at the rate of 1 HD per round).

I'd be tempted to say that it does not have to use its ability to lower its HD or AC (so gets its own stats or the stats of its opponent - whatever is higher).

When it maxes out both its HD and AC, I'd say it transforms its apperance to match its opponent and then takes on their movement rate and then gains "all extraordinary special attacks possessed by the form but does not gain the extraordinary special qualities possessed by the new form or any supernatural or spell-like abilities".



Shade said:


> When the melee is over, or when the imorph is down to 8 hits or fewer, it will revert to its original form by the reverse process, changing armour class and hit dice by 1 point each per melee round.




It looks like the slow transformation is important to the creature, so maybe a one round change wouldn't be the right way. (Not unless the opponent was one HD/AC away from the imorph.

Should we make the imorph slowly change back when killed? I think we will have to if people are going to be able to cut out the "liver".



Shade said:


> If faced with more than one attacker, the imorph will select one at random to attack and to emulate. If the original 'model' dies during melee, or retreats, the imorph will immediately start to alter in order to emulate another opponent.




This sounds fairly logical. Again I have to ask about duration. If an imorph is copying an elf and the elf dies, but then it tries to copy another elf, that second elf could have similar game stats.

I'd be tempted to say it should take at least one round for the transformation in appearance to occur and that if the original opponent is killed it should take at least one round for the new transformation to occur.

One side benifit to this ability is that people assisting opponents may need to make spot checks or intellegence checks to work out which of the two identical combatants to attack. I think the imorph should try to circle around its opponent and cause other opponents to doubt which of the two is their friend.

(It might also be good if it could repeat the speech of anyone it is fighting.)



Shade said:


> Within the creature's body there is a small organ, corresponding to the human liver, made of a rubbery green substance. Within the organ is a liquid of similar colour which, when mixed with water in equal quantity, serves as a potion of polymorph self. There will be sufficient liquid in a single imorph to make 1-3 draughts of such a potion, and it is for this reason that the imorph is attacked by adventurers.




I'd say this probably turns into treasure. You probably need to make some sort of skill check to cut out the "liver" without spilling the liquid.


----------



## freyar (Aug 13, 2008)

I agree with working out the non-shapechanging bits first.  (Though I'll say that I'm wary of changing HD, etc.)

We're agreed on aberration (shapechanger), then?  Size sounds like Medium.  Not much to go on for the abilities.  Any thoughts?  I guess we have Int 1-2.  Probably most else seems kind of average (Dex might even be a little low the way these move around).


----------



## Cleon (Aug 13, 2008)

I wouldn't have the imorph acquire any of the Special Attacks or Qualities of those it mimics. The original text gives no mention of it doing so, and it'd be complicated to interpret.

Going by the original description it looks like the monster only changes shape, not size, so we would have it pretending to be mini-me Stone Giants or enormous halflings. I'd just stick to it adopting its opponent's AC, BAB and movement. It should have the ability to replicate artificial armour types, otherwise it'd be unable to match most PCs defenses.

If it imitates an opponent with lower offensive/defensive stats it just keeps its own, presumably getting its opposite numbers appearance and movement rates in a single round.

Now, here's a tricky question - say it's imitating one creature which dies and it quickly switches over to emulate another. Do its attack/defense stats instantly drop down to its default value or do they start changing from whatever value they reached while it was imorphing into its original victim?

i.e. Say it's copying a high level fighter so has melee attack +12, then the fighter dies and switches over to a thief with attack +7. Does it attack go back to its default bonus (probably ~+3 or +4 from its default 5 HD and maybe a stat bonus and/or feat) and it has to bring it up to +7 from scratch, or does its current +12 attack start dropping?


----------



## Big Mac (Aug 15, 2008)

freyar said:


> I agree with working out the non-shapechanging bits first.  (Though I'll say that I'm wary of changing HD, etc.)




So we make the updated version just change its AC instead of its AC and its HD? That is likely to make the final stage (the shape changing) happen a bit faster.



freyar said:


> We're agreed on aberration (shapechanger), then?  Size sounds like Medium.  Not much to go on for the abilities.  Any thoughts?  I guess we have Int 1-2.  Probably most else seems kind of average (Dex might even be a little low the way these move around).




Agreed on the medium sized.

I can imagine suction cups slowing people down, but then again I can imagine the tentacles whipping about really quickly. I'm not sure if that would give a good or bad Dex score. It might make them have Stability, like a dwarf:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Stability: A dwarf gains a +4 bonus on ability checks made to resist being bull rushed or tripped when standing on the ground (but not when climbing, flying, riding, or otherwise not standing firmly on the ground).






Cleon said:


> I wouldn't have the imorph acquire any of the Special Attacks or Qualities of those it mimics. The original text gives no mention of it doing so, and it'd be complicated to interpret.




The original creature says this: _"Within the creature's body there is a small organ, corresponding to the human liver, made of a rubbery green substance. Within the organ is a liquid of similar colour which, when mixed with water in equal quantity, serves as a potion of polymorph self."_ So I think the imorph would get the Polymorph special ability. (That is based on the Polymorph spell, which in turn is based on the Alter Self spell.)

Here is what the SRD says about the Polymorph special ability:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Polymorphed creatures gain the Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution of their new forms, as well as size, extraordinary special attacks, movement capabilities (to a maximum of 120 feet for flying and 60 for nonflying movement), natural armor bonus, natural weapons, racial skill bonuses, and other gross physical qualities such as appearance and number of limbs. They retain their original class and level, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma, hit points, base attack bonus, base save bonuses, and alignment.




I think we should go with all of that, except where it specifically clashes with the original monster description. So it should gain special attacks, but only the (Ex) ones.



Cleon said:


> Going by the original description it looks like the monster only changes shape, not size, so we would have it pretending to be mini-me Stone Giants or enormous halflings. I'd just stick to it adopting its opponent's AC, BAB and movement. It should have the ability to replicate artificial armour types, otherwise it'd be unable to match most PCs defenses.




From the above special ability description, I think that the basic Polymorph would not grant them the BAB of their new form, but the movement *is* included. (The original description says they don't get that until they after they transform.)

I think we should have a second ability that grants the improved BAB of its opponent. How about "Imitate Attack" as a name? I think it might be fun to give the imorph any weapon related feats (like Cleave or Improved Sunder) as well as the BAB.



Cleon said:


> If it imitates an opponent with lower offensive/defensive stats it just keeps its own, presumably getting its opposite numbers appearance and movement rates in a single round.




Keeping its own stats makes sense, although it is possible to read the original as having a small delay while the imorph becomes less effective.



Cleon said:


> Now, here's a tricky question - say it's imitating one creature which dies and it quickly switches over to emulate another. Do its attack/defense stats instantly drop down to its default value or do they start changing from whatever value they reached while it was imorphing into its original victim?




They don't need to die. They can retreat too. Lets have a look at the exact words:



			
				imorph said:
			
		

> If faced with more than one attacker, the imorph will select one at random to attack and to emulate.




So the person the imorph attacks becomes its model and if two people attack an imorph the one it hits back is the one it models itself on.



			
				imorph said:
			
		

> If the original 'model' dies during melee, or retreats, the imorph will immediately start to alter in order to emulate another opponent.




Hmm. Looks like this monster has a RPG flaw. If several PCs want to fight the imorph, they can rotate out of battle before the creature has time to take their form and gain their BAB. The imorph would be forced to start imorphing the next party member and the next party member and so on.

To stop that crashing the game, I'd probably say that the imorph should change from whatever it is now to whatever the new oponent looks like. And if you want to make it "drop down" instantly, then there should only be a delay when it fights the opponent with the highest BAB.



Cleon said:


> i.e. Say it's copying a high level fighter so has melee attack +12, then the fighter dies and switches over to a thief with attack +7. Does it attack go back to its default bonus (probably ~+3 or +4 from its default 5 HD and maybe a stat bonus and/or feat) and it has to bring it up to +7 from scratch, or does its current +12 attack start dropping?




This part of the original description is pretty interesting:



			
				imorph said:
			
		

> When the imorph is exactly the same shape as its opponent, has the same hit dice and the same armour class, it changes to the appropriate attack matrix for its hit probability (the fighter table, for example if it is attacking a human fighting man). It remaims attacking on that table until it starts to change back again towards its original form.




I would argue that translates to: _"An imorph doesn't revert to its natural BAB until it starts to transform back into the shape of an imorph."_ So if it changes directly from a fighter to a thief (which we know from the word "immediately" that it does) this rule doesn't apply. I'd argue an imorph that changes from fighting (and duplicating) a fighter to fighting (and duplicating) a thief keeps the fighter BAB until it is ready to have the thief BAB.


----------



## Cleon (Aug 15, 2008)

Big Mac said:


> I can imagine suction cups slowing people down, but then again I can imagine the tentacles whipping about really quickly. I'm not sure if that would give a good or bad Dex score. It might make them have Stability, like a dwarf:




Its suckers are used for locomotion, like the pseudofeet of a caterpillar. The original text compares the main sucker to the foot of a snail. There's nothing to indicate they're used to grab & slow opponents although giving them dwarf-style Stability is a good idea.



Big Mac said:


> I think we should go with all of that [The SRD's Polymorph Special Ability], except where it specifically clashes with the original monster description. So it should gain special attacks, but only the (Ex) ones.




Oh no, it'd be a nightmare having to recalculate the Imorph's Str, Dex, Con, Siz and AC bonuses _every round_. Besides which the Imorphing ability has some obvious differences from Polymorph, it makes no mention of the Imorph gaining the opponents natural weapons, racial skills or special attacks, but it does gain the opponents BAB and all of its AC, which polymorph doesn't. I think it's best to just build up the ability from scratch, with a few ideas from the _Polymorph_ spell_._

I'd suggest something like the following for AC - the Imorph's AC increases until it matches the target, except that the Imorph uses its own Size adjustment for AC instead of the target's. The imitated AC has the same bonuses (so an Imorph imitating a man in chainmail gains a +5 armour bonus), except that instead of its opponent's Dex bonus it gains a dodge bonus of equal value, which adds to any other dodge bonus its opponent may have.*

*I suggest this because there's nothing to indicate an Imorph gains increased Dexterity or Initiative through its Imorphism, but I wanted its AC to still match up to its victim's.

On second thoughts, scratch the "use its own Size adjustment bit", might as well have the Imorph changing size as well, it'd throw off the attack adjustments as well. Pity, I liked the idea of mini-me Stone Giants. Perhaps we could include a limit to what Sizes it can assume - Small or Medium only, then it can make a convincing halfling but an amusingly small giant. That will allow it to copy most PC races.

That still leaves the question of whether it gains the AC types in a particular order (natural - dodge - enhancement - size or whatever), I'd say no, it either picks each point at random, or uniformly distributed. (So, if its half way through imitating a knight with +8 armour it's got +4 armour).

Hmm, it'd be a lot easier if it imorphed into its opponent's form in a set number of rounds - say, 25% of armour/attack in the first round, 50% in the second, 90% in the third, complete imitation in the fourth.



Big Mac said:


> Hmm. Looks like this monster has a RPG flaw. If several PCs want to fight the imorph, they can rotate out of battle before the creature has time to take their form and gain their BAB. The imorph would be forced to start imorphing the next party member and the next party member and so on.




Yes, I don't see why a party can't do that once they have got the monster's special ability figured out. Actually, my main concern is that the Imorph will probably be killed in a couple of round and not get to imitate anybody, considering the higher damage that 3rd edition PCs do compared to 1st. Maybe this updated version should Imorph at a faster rate than the original -  a fixed three or four points of attack/defense per round or a random amount per round, say 1d4+1?



Big Mac said:


> I would argue that translates to: _"An imorph doesn't revert to its natural BAB until it starts to transform back into the shape of an imorph."_ So if it changes directly from a fighter to a thief (which we know from the word "immediately" that it does) this rule doesn't apply. I'd argue an imorph that changes from fighting (and duplicating) a fighter to fighting (and duplicating) a thief keeps the fighter BAB until it is ready to have the thief BAB.




Okay, from my reading of the text that only applies if its completed its imitation of the opponent, since it says "When the imorph is exactly the same shape as its opponent, has the same hit dice and the same armour class", I was wondering what happened in a situation like the one you describe above, when the imorph has to switch to a new opponent before completing its mimicry of the previous one.

I think the relevant bit of the original text is this:



Imorph (via Shade) said:


> When the melee is over, or when the imorph is down to 8 hits or fewer, it will revert to its original form by the reverse process, changing armour class and hit dice by 1 point each per melee round.
> 
> If faced with more than one attacker, the imorph will select one at random to attack and to emulate. If the original 'model' dies during melee, or retreats, the imorph will immediately start to alter in order to emulate another opponent.




To me, the first paragraph indicates that the Imorph stops mimicking an opponent at exactly the same rate as it mimicked them. I'd argue that means that if the 'model' dies or retreats then the imorph will begin to re-morph towards its next opponent's attacks & defenses from its current condition, rather than reverting back to its default stats.


----------



## Big Mac (Aug 16, 2008)

Cleon said:


> Its suckers are used for locomotion, like the pseudofeet of a caterpillar. The original text compares the main sucker to the foot of a snail. There's nothing to indicate they're used to grab & slow opponents although giving them dwarf-style Stability is a good idea.




Erm, I don't know who suggested the sucker-feet grab things, but it wasn't me. Maybe the tenticles could grapple. Was that what you were getting at? I'm not especially thinking the tenticles would be good at grappling, but they could have a fast reaction time and balance out slow movement of the creatures "foot".



Cleon said:


> Oh no, it'd be a nightmare having to recalculate the Imorph's Str, Dex, Con, Siz and AC bonuses _every round_.




This entire monster is a nightmare. It would be a lot easier if it just did two things instead of having a hybrid state that lasted for an unknown period.



Cleon said:


> Besides which the Imorphing ability has some obvious differences from Polymorph, it makes no mention of the Imorph gaining the opponents natural weapons, racial skills or special attacks, but it does gain the opponents BAB and all of its AC, which polymorph doesn't. I think it's best to just build up the ability from scratch, with a few ideas from the _Polymorph_ spell_._




It also has the changing HD thing, that we have decided to drop.

I'd like to see the text of the Polymorph spell from that edition of D&D. If there are elements of the old school Polymorph that match the abilities of the monster, I'd say we duplicate those parts of the 3rd edition Polymorph ability (or spell). But if the old school spell differs from the imorphication process, then we should flag the Polymorph spell/ability up as a red herring and move on.



Cleon said:


> I'd suggest something like the following for AC - the Imorph's AC increases until it matches the target, except that the Imorph uses its own Size adjustment for AC instead of the target's. The imitated AC has the same bonuses (so an Imorph imitating a man in chainmail gains a +5 armour bonus), except that instead of its opponent's Dex bonus it gains a dodge bonus of equal value, which adds to any other dodge bonus its opponent may have.*
> 
> *I suggest this because there's nothing to indicate an Imorph gains increased Dexterity or Initiative through its Imorphism, but I wanted its AC to still match up to its victim's.
> 
> On second thoughts, scratch the "use its own Size adjustment bit", might as well have the Imorph changing size as well, it'd throw off the attack adjustments as well. Pity, I liked the idea of mini-me Stone Giants. Perhaps we could include a limit to what Sizes it can assume - Small or Medium only, then it can make a convincing halfling but an amusingly small giant. That will allow it to copy most PC races.




I quite liked the idea of it not changing size too. I don't think I've seen many other creatures that do that.



Cleon said:


> That still leaves the question of whether it gains the AC types in a particular order (natural - dodge - enhancement - size or whatever), I'd say no, it either picks each point at random, or uniformly distributed. (So, if its half way through imitating a knight with +8 armour it's got +4 armour).
> 
> Hmm, it'd be a lot easier if it imorphed into its opponent's form in a set number of rounds - say, 25% of armour/attack in the first round, 50% in the second, 90% in the third, complete imitation in the fourth.




Hmm. Here is an idea. Instead of altering the monster by one point of AC per round, why not switch to altering one feature/ability per round? That way you could have one set of stats for the imorph form and change one stat to the attacker's stat per round. When all the stats in the list were changed it could look identical to its attacker.



Cleon said:


> Yes, I don't see why a party can't do that once they have got the monster's special ability figured out. Actually, my main concern is that the Imorph will probably be killed in a couple of round and not get to imitate anybody, considering the higher damage that 3rd edition PCs do compared to 1st. Maybe this updated version should Imorph at a faster rate than the original -  a fixed three or four points of attack/defense per round or a random amount per round, say 1d4+1?




If the imoph took on the general shape of its attacker in the first round the players would see the transformation start even if they killed the creature before it turned into one of them.



Cleon said:


> Okay, from my reading of the text that only applies if its completed its imitation of the opponent, since it says "When the imorph is exactly the same shape as its opponent, has the same hit dice and the same armour class", I was wondering what happened in a situation like the one you describe above, when the imorph has to switch to a new opponent before completing its mimicry of the previous one.
> 
> I think the relevant bit of the original text is this:
> 
> ...




Thats funny, because I read the first paragraph as only applying after a battle was over or if an imorph became too injured to keep up its altered apperance. So I was thinking of the creature changing straight away. The word "immediately" made me think there would not be a delay.

I suppose it could change back into its original form first, but as you say that might be too slow for it to finish changing into its first form.


----------



## Cleon (Aug 17, 2008)

Big Mac said:


> Erm, I don't know who suggested the sucker-feet grab things, but it wasn't me. Maybe the tenticles could grapple. Was that what you were getting at? I'm not especially thinking the tenticles would be good at grappling, but they could have a fast reaction time and balance out slow movement of the creatures "foot".




It'd be easier just giving it the Improved Initiative Feat if you want an Imorph to have such a talent.



Big Mac said:


> This entire monster is a nightmare. It would be a lot easier if it just did two things instead of having a hybrid state that lasted for an unknown period.




Yes, that's why I didn't want it to just copy over the SRD's Polymorph power.



Big Mac said:


> I'd like to see the text of the Polymorph spell from that edition of D&D.




1st edition had two 4th level Polymorph spells, _Polymorph Self_ and _Polymorph Other_. Since the imorph's 'liver' contains _Polymorph Self_
bile we can presume imorphism is more like that. Polymorph Self is pretty similar to the 3.5 edition's Polymorph spell. It allows for changing appearance, movement rates and some natural abilities (like breathing water or a bat's sonar). Doesn't give you the monster's physical stats, but then most 1st edition monsters didn't have Str, Dex or Con stats. If I recall correctly it didn't give you the form's natural weapons either.



Big Mac said:


> I quite liked the idea of it not changing size too. I don't think I've seen many other creatures that do that.




Right, if Shade likes the idea shall we got for it always keeping its own size.



Big Mac said:


> Hmm. Here is an idea. Instead of altering the monster by one point of AC per round, why not switch to altering one feature/ability per round? That way you could have one set of stats for the imorph form and change one stat to the attacker's stat per round. When all the stats in the list were changed it could look identical to its attacker.




What, so it gets all the creature's AC in one round, all their attack bonus in another, one (or all three) of their saves in another one and then mimics their appearance and movement rates? That'd work, but is quite at odds with the original progression.



Big Mac said:


> If the imoph took on the general shape of its attacker in the first round the players would see the transformation start even if they killed the creature before it turned into one of them.




Yeah, but if it only lives for a round or two it may only have turned into a vaguely humanoid blob, that just isn't the same as fighting yourself!


----------



## Shade (Aug 19, 2008)

Wow...much discussion to wade through.

I'm on-board with Medium aberration (shapechanger), no size changes, and it slowly assuming the victim's AC bonus, saves, etc.

Let's try to figure out some ability scores.

Int is animal, so 2.

Most animals are around Wis 12, so that would probably work.

It doesn't appear incredibly self-aware, so maybe Cha 2 (like many reptiles)?

Physical ability scores appear average, and would probably be easier to track with the shapechanging if they lacked bonuses or penalties.

How about Str 11, Dex 10, Con 11, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 2?


----------



## freyar (Aug 19, 2008)

Abilities are about what I thought, so those sound good to me!

Agreed that the imorph ability is a lot to think about...  I'm going to suggest transforming in a fixed number of rounds, to start.


----------



## Cleon (Aug 20, 2008)

Shade said:


> How about Str 11, Dex 10, Con 11, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 2?




Those look alright to me. So what other stats have we got left. Most of them are pretty straight forward:

Medium Aberration
*Hit Dice:* 5d8 (22 hp)
_[source 5 HD monster, no Con adjustment]
_*Initiative:* +0
_[no Dex adjustment]_
Speed: 20 ft (4 squares)
_[source move 6", half of an unencumbered human]_
*Armor Class: *15 (+5 natural armor), touch 10, flat 15
_[from the source's AC 5 and no Dex adjustment]
_*Base Attack/Grapple: *+3/+3
_[no Str or Size adjustment, assumes no racial bonus for tentacles]
_ *Attack:* Tentacle +3 melee (1d4)
*Full Attack:* Two tentacles +3 melee (1d4)
*Space/Reach:* 5 ft./5 ft.
*Special Attacks:* Imorphism
*Special Qualities:* imorphism
*Saves:* Fort +1 Ref +1 Will +4
*Abilities:* Str 11, Dex 10, Con 11, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 2
*Skills:* _8 skill points - Spot +8?_
*Feats:* _Pick two!_
*Environment:* _The source makes no mention of habitat, Any land? Does it appear in the Fiend Folio encounter tables?_
*Organization:* Solitary
*Challenge Rating:* _hmm, have to think about that
_*Treasure:* None
*Alignment:* Always neutral
*Advancement:* _How about _6-10 HD (Medium); 11-15 (Large)


----------



## Echohawk (Aug 20, 2008)

Cleon said:


> *Environment:* _The source makes no mention of habitat, Any land? Does it appear in the Fiend Folio encounter tables?_



Not as far as I can see, no.


----------



## GrayLinnorm (Aug 20, 2008)

Actually it appears on Temperate and Subtropical Conditions, Uninhabited/Wilderness Areas (p. 112); it's listed with the enveloper.  

An enveloper/imorph appears in scrub, forest, rough terrain, and hills.  The imorph is also on the dungeon encounter tables (p. 103).


----------



## Echohawk (Aug 21, 2008)

GrayLinnorm said:


> Actually it appears on Temperate and Subtropical Conditions, Uninhabited/Wilderness Areas (p. 112); it's listed with the enveloper.



Heh, well spotted! Who knew to look under "enveloper" for the imorph?


----------



## freyar (Aug 21, 2008)

Well, that fleshes out some of the peripheral stuff.  I guess we need to get down to imorphing seriously.  Let's settle a couple of questions:

1) How long should the transformation take (a fixed length of time, like 3 rounds or 1d4 rounds, or something based on the degree of transformation)?

2) Can the imorph transform into anything or just humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and giants, etc?

3) What changes?  I believe we're agreed on AC, but I'm not sure what else.


----------



## Cleon (Aug 22, 2008)

freyar said:


> Well, that fleshes out some of the peripheral stuff.  I guess we need to get down to imorphing seriously.  Let's settle a couple of questions:
> 
> 1) How long should the transformation take (a fixed length of time, like 3 rounds or 1d4 rounds, or something based on the degree of transformation)?




Depends how close to the original we want it, I'd go for it changing at a fixed rate (say 2 or 3 points of AC/attack per round), but a fixed number of rounds would work. Don't much fancy a random number of rounds, since that conflicts with it taking longer to imorph into a more powerful creature.



freyar said:


> 2) Can the imorph transform into anything or just humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and giants, etc?




I'd say any (or almost any) living creature, not just man-shaped beings. So Aberration, Animal, Dragon, Giant, Humanoid, Magical Beast, Monstrous Humanoid and Vermin. That leaves out Elemental, Fey, Ooze, Outsider, Plant & Undead - and I'm not 100% decided on whether it can copy Oozes or Plants.



freyar said:


> 3) What changes?  I believe we're agreed on AC, but I'm not sure what else.




Armour Class, Attack/Grapple and Saves would probably be enough, I wouldn't bother with "virtual Hit Dice", since that'd be trickier.


----------



## Cleon (Aug 22, 2008)

GrayLinnorm said:


> Actually it appears on Temperate and Subtropical Conditions, Uninhabited/Wilderness Areas (p. 112); it's listed with the enveloper.
> 
> An enveloper/imorph appears in scrub, forest, rough terrain, and hills.  The imorph is also on the dungeon encounter tables (p. 103).




Thanks Linnorm, I suspected it was in the FF encounter tables but was too lazy to dig out my copy and check. So would a good fit to 3rd edition be:

Environment: Temperate and warm forests, hills or badlands and underground.


----------



## Shade (Sep 2, 2008)

Added to Homebrews.


----------



## freyar (Sep 3, 2008)

Cleon said:


> Armour Class, Attack/Grapple and Saves would probably be enough, I wouldn't bother with "virtual Hit Dice", since that'd be trickier.




The problem is that BAB/Grapple and Saves are defined by HD, so I'm not sure how I'd like to handle that.  Maybe some other kind of bonus, like a racial bonus?


----------



## Shade (Sep 4, 2008)

Hmmm...

I'm almost thinking it would be easier to simply grant the imorph a +1 enhancement bonus to natural armor, a +1 racial bonus on saving throws, and a +1 racial bonus on attack rolls each round until it matches the morphed creature.

Thus, an imorph mimicking a troll would gain...

1st round:  No natural armor (they are already the same), +1 attack, +1 Fort and Ref (Will is already superior to troll's)
2nd round: +1 attack, +1 Fort and Ref
3rd round: +1 attack, +1 Fort and Ref
4th round: +1 attack, +1 Fort (Reflex is now the same)

The trick is determining when it would take on the troll's attack modes and speed.   We could just subtract the imorph's HD from the victim's to determine the number of round before full transformation occurs.  Of course, that would make it gain the full troll abilities in one round, so my above example would be unnecessary.

I'm thinking imorphs should be able to take any shape, but only gain natural attacks and Ex abilities.   So an imorph white dragon might gain claw, bite, wing buffets, and tail attacks, as well as icewalking, but wouldn't gain a breath weapon, spells, or SLAs.

We could but a HD cap of the creature it can mimic.  Maybe double (or triple) the imorph's HD?


----------



## freyar (Sep 4, 2008)

Shade said:


> Hmmm...
> 
> I'm almost thinking it would be easier to simply grant the imorph a +1 enhancement bonus to natural armor, a +1 racial bonus on saving throws, and a +1 racial bonus on attack rolls each round until it matches the morphed creature.
> 
> ...



Yes, I like this approach.


> The trick is determining when it would take on the troll's attack modes and speed.   We could just subtract the imorph's HD from the victim's to determine the number of round before full transformation occurs.  Of course, that would make it gain the full troll abilities in one round, so my above example would be unnecessary.



I say that it gains natural attacks and speed when natural armor, adjusted attack bonus, and saves all equal or exceed the target creature's.  Regarding natural attacks, should there be no Str bonus applied, or should we give an enhancement bonus to damage, too?



> I'm thinking imorphs should be able to take any shape, but only gain natural attacks and Ex abilities.   So an imorph white dragon might gain claw, bite, wing buffets, and tail attacks, as well as icewalking, but wouldn't gain a breath weapon, spells, or SLAs.



So no type limitation on shapes?  Sounds fair.  I definitely agree on natural attacks and Ex only.


> We could but a HD cap of the creature it can mimic.  Maybe double (or triple) the imorph's HD?




I'd maybe go with double.

Since imorphism starts when the imorph is in melee, should it have to make a successful attack (either tentacle or special touch) on the target?  I could see that being the first round it starts to transform.

Reversion to a regular imorph should occur in exact reverse order of the transformation, I think.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 5, 2008)

Shade said:


> Hmmm...
> 
> I'm almost thinking it would be easier to simply grant the imorph a +1 enhancement bonus to natural armor, a +1 racial bonus on saving throws, and a +1 racial bonus on attack rolls each round until it matches the morphed creature.
> 
> ...




While I agree with treating the attacks & save bonuses as a racial bonus, I'd make the progression faster - although not AC, for reasons I've already given.

Maybe +3 attack, +2 armour and +1 saves per round.

A HD cap on the creature it can mimic makes sense but I'm not sure if it's worth bothering with since it may never take effect in play. They don't get extra HP, so it's highly unlikely they'd live long enough to imorph into a monster of over 10-15 HD, let alone a PC of such a high level (10-15th!). 

Might as well throw the poor critter a bone and not give it an Imorphing HD cap, it'd have the advantage of making the power description less complicated.

As for copying natural attacks & Ex abilities, it depends how close you want to be to the source material. The original description says the monster does not adopt the mimicked creatures special abilities or attack forms, it just uses its own tentacle attacks although they _look_ like weapons appropriate to the duplicated creature (the example is a pair of tentacle-attacks that appear to be a sword and a shield).

That still leaves the question of reach though, does an imorph tentacle pretending to be a longspear gain a 10' melee range?


----------



## Cleon (Sep 5, 2008)

freyar said:


> So no type limitation on shapes?  Sounds fair.  I definitely agree on natural attacks and Ex only.




I'd prefer it if they could only imitate natural, living creatures, so no Constructs, Elementals, Outsiders or Undead. Still haven't decided about Fey, Plants & Oozes, but I'd be game for saying it can copy them too. All the other types (Aberration, Animal, Dragon, Giant, Humanoid, Magical Beast, Monstrous Humanoid & Vermin) should be fair game.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 7, 2008)

Here's my first shot at a write-up for the Imorphism power. I think it covers everything.

*Imorphism (Su): *
  When engaged in melee an imorph begins to emulate its opponent, altering both its appearance and some of its combat abilities. If faced with more than one attacker, the imorph will select one at random to emulate. An imorph can emulate any living animal life with a defined shape that is within one size category of its own, thus a typical imorph can mimic any Aberration, Animal, Dragon, Fey, Giant, Humanoid, Magical Beast, Monstrous Humanoid & Vermin of Small to Large size.

At the end of each melee round of imorphism, the imorph's attack modifier, grapple check and armour class changes three points towards that of its emulated opponent, while its saving throws modifier changes by one point towards the emulated foe. At the same time, the imorph gradually changes shape until it appears identical to its opponent. The emulation is complete when the imorph has matched its foes primary attack, grapple, AC (including touch & flat-footed), Fort, Ref and Will saves, whereupon the creature instantly gains its foes movement rates, Size and reach. The hit points and other attributes of the imorph remain unchanged.

  An imorph only assumes the external likeness of its opponent. Although it will grow appendages that mimic its opponent's weapons and limbs, they still attack with two tentacles for the listed damage, even though one tentacle may look like an arm wielding a sword and the other an arm holding a shield. The imorph can gain reach with its tentacle attacks if it completely emulates a creature of sufficient size, or one wielding a reach weapon.

The imorphism bonus or penalty to its scores is considered a racial adjustment for its attack, grapple, flat-footed AC and saves and a dodge bonus/penalty for its touch AC adjustment, if any. An imorph emulates its foes flat-footed AC before its touch AC, its full AC may include both a racial bonus from flat-footed AC and a dodge bonus from touch AC in order to match its emulated opponent.

  If the original 'model' dies during melee, or retreats, the imorph will immediately start to alter in order to emulate another opponent. When the melee is over, or when the imorph is down to 8 hits or fewer, it will revert to its original form by the reverse process, changing attacks and AC by 3 point each per round and saving throws by 1 point per round.


----------



## Shade (Sep 8, 2008)

That looks pretty good.  While I agree with not emulating constructs or undead, I think they should be able to imitate outsiders.  With elementals I'm can go either way.


----------



## freyar (Sep 8, 2008)

I'm with Shade on the Outsiders.  I don't care much about elementals, I guess.

I think we need to specify when in the round the change happens.  At the end of the imorph's turn, I guess.  It can start the first round it's engaged in melee (counting attempted attacks either by the imorph or the target), maybe.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 9, 2008)

freyar said:


> I'm with Shade on the Outsiders.  I don't care much about elementals, I guess.
> 
> I think we need to specify when in the round the change happens.  At the end of the imorph's turn, I guess.  It can start the first round it's engaged in melee (counting attempted attacks either by the imorph or the target), maybe.




I'd nix the Outsiders and Elementals. In D&D (or AD&D) changing into either of those Types is an upper-tier ability, requiring the Shapechange spell, a high-level Druid or the like. It just seems inappropriate for a creature whose shapeshifting power level seems equivalent to AD&D _Polymorph Self_ and some buff spells.

I think the power description of how its AC changes could use some work, how about:

The imorphism bonus or penalty to its scores is considered a racial adjustment for its attack, grapple, flat-footed AC and saves and a dodge bonus/penalty for its touch AC adjustment, if any. Its full AC may include both a racial bonus from flat-footed AC and a dodge bonus from touch AC in order to match its emulated opponent's. An imorph applies the AC adjustment from its imorphism power to its flat-footed AC before its touch AC, with any surplus points carrying over from flat-footed to touch AC until both completely match its emulated foe's.

Here's an example of how it works.

An imorph seeks to emulate a creature with AC 22 (flat-footed 19, touch 13).
In its first round of melee it has not yet applied any to adjustment, so its:
*AC 15 (flat-footed 15, touch 10)(+5 natural)
*In its second round of melee it ahs changed its AC by 3 points, applying all three points as a racial bonus to its flat-footed AC, so now its.
*AC 18 (flat-footed 18, touch 10)(+5 natural plus +3 racial)*
In the third round of melee it's changed its AC by 3 points again, the first point increases its flat-footed AC to match its foe. the other two points spill over into touch AC.
*AC 21 (flat-footed 19, touch 12)(+5 natural plus +5 racial, +2 dodge)*
In the fourth round of melee it could only change its AC by one point, since that's all it needed to match its opponent's touch AC.
*AC 22 (flat-footed 19, touch 13)(+5 natural plus +5 racial, +3 dodge)*

Now that still leaves us with a tricky corner case, what happens when the imorph is copying a creature which is worse in one or both of its AC stats.

I.e. a Huge, soft armourless creature with high Dex could be AC 13 (flat 8, touch 13). Does an AC 15 (flat-footed 15, touch 10) imorph retain its 5 points of natural armour and end up AC 18 (flat-footed 15, touch 13)? What about if its copying a touch but clumsy critter with AC 15 (flat 18, touch 7)? Does the imorph become AC 18 (flat 18, touch 10)?

To follow the description for complete emulation the imorph will need to apply penalties to its AC. How would this work? I'm thinking it would apply a mix of bonus & penalty - i.e. 2 points of bonus to one AC and one point of penalty to the other, or 2 penalty & 1 bonus if necessary - but writing explicit rules for this may be tricky.

E.g. an imorph copying a AC 17 (flat-footed 20, touch 7) may go.
Round 1 - AC 15 (flat-footed 15, touch 10)
Round 2 - AC 16 (flat-footed 17, touch 9) +2 racial, -1 dodge
Round 3 - AC 17 (flat-footed 19, touch 8) +2 racial, -1 dodge
Round 4 - AC 17 (flat-footed 20, touch 7) +1 racial, -1 dodge, AC emulation finished.


----------



## Shade (Sep 9, 2008)

Cleon said:


> I'd nix the Outsiders and Elementals. In D&D (or AD&D) changing into either of those Types is an upper-tier ability, requiring the Shapechange spell, a high-level Druid or the like. It just seems inappropriate for a creature whose shapeshifting power level seems equivalent to AD&D _Polymorph Self_ and some buff spells.




I think those limitations aren't necessary, since the imorph only mimics the attacks, not the special abilities.   Most outsiders have a shape similar to mortal creatures, so I don't see why they couldn't imitate their arms and jaws.   Constructs and undead, being unliving, might not "register on its radar", while elementals are often somewhat amorphous.

For the AC, I think that might be a tad too complex.  How about just a flat racial bonus to AC, which would function for both touch and flat-footed as well?   It may result in the imorph having a slightly higher touch or flat-footed AC than what it resembles, but that would help offset not gaining increased Dexterity.   Thoughts?


----------



## freyar (Sep 10, 2008)

If the imorphs can't do oozes, I'd say they can't do elementals, esp as elementals may not register as living in the normal sense, either.  But I agree with Shade on Outsiders.

I also have to agree with Shade on the AC.  The original text can't be clear about the flat-footed and touch ACs bc they didn't exist in 2e, so I think we should interpret this as simply as possible. It's a complicated enough critter.


----------



## GrayLinnorm (Sep 10, 2008)

If we're letting the imorph copy outsiders, then I think it should be allowed to copy plants as well.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 10, 2008)

GrayLinnorm said:


> If we're letting the imorph copy outsiders, then I think it should be allowed to copy plants as well.




More to the point, if it can copy Aberrations it makes sense if it can do Plants and Oozes as well, since they all have wildly different biologies to regular living monsters. As for Outsiders I don't think they all have a biology like most material plane creatures. But if Shade fancies including Outsiders, then I won't kick up any more fuss.

That would mean an imorph can duplicate anything except for Undead, Constructs or Elementals. Oh, and Swarms too I suppose, since it can only copy one creature.

As for the AC, feel free to make it a flat racial bonus. I can always save the more complicated form (and nixing imorphing outsiders) for use at home.


----------



## Shade (Sep 10, 2008)

So...

Imorphism (Su):  When engaged in melee an imorph begins to emulate its opponent, altering both its appearance and some of its combat abilities. If faced with more than one attacker, the imorph will select one at random to emulate. An imorph can emulate any living creature with a defined shape that is within one size category of its own.  An imporph cannot emulate constructs, elementals, undead, or creatures with the swarm subtype (and possibly the shapechanger subtype, so we don't run into mass confusion?).

At the end of each round, the imorph gains a +3 racial bonus on attack rolls, grapple checks, and armor class, and a +1 racial bonus on saving throws, not to exceed the emulated creature's scores.  At the same time, the imorph gradually changes its appearance to match its opponent.  Once the imorphs AC, primary attack modifier, grapple modifier, and saving throws equal those of the emulated creature, the imorph completes the transformation.  It gains the emulated creature's size, reach, and speed (and all non-magical forms of movement). The hit points and other attributes of the imorph remain unchanged.

An imorph retains its own natural attacks; they simply appear as the weapons of its emulated opponent.  It deals standard damage for its two tentacles, even though one tentacle may look like an arm wielding a sword and the other an arm holding a shield. The imorph can gain reach with its tentacle attacks if it completely emulates a creature of sufficient size, or one wielding a reach weapon.

If the emulated foe dies during melee, or retreats, the imorph immediately begins to emulate another opponent. When the melee is over, or when the imorph is reduced to one-third or less of its maximum normal hit point total, it begins to revert to its original form.  This reverses the process, removing 3 points of racial bonus to AC, attack rolls, and grapple checks, and 1 point of racial bonus to saving throws each round until all scores have returned to normal.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 10, 2008)

Shade said:


> So...
> 
> Imorphism (Su):  When engaged in melee an imorph begins to emulate its opponent, altering both its appearance and some of its combat abilities. If faced with more than one attacker, the imorph will select one at random to emulate. An imorph can emulate any living creature with a defined shape that is within one size category of its own.  An imporph cannot emulate constructs, elementals, undead, or creatures with the swarm subtype (and possibly the shapechanger subtype, so we don't run into mass confusion?).
> 
> ...




I like the cleaned up description, it's a significant improvement on my rough draft. I approve of using 1/3 max HP rather than a flat 8 HP for the damage limit when it starts to revert to normal.

We don't need the "with a defined shape" bit, since it can copy Oozes and other amorphous monsters now. And you spelt imorph wrong in the next sentence - "imporph".

Referring back to the AC emulation, I've just thought of a compromise solution. We could just say the imorph can change each AC category by up to three points, and just not bother whether the intermediate states add up according to the normal Dodge/armour rules.

E.g. an imorph duplicating an AC 17 (flat-footed 20, touch 7) beast would go:
Round 1 - AC 15 (flat-footed 15, touch 10)
Round 2 - AC 17 (flat-footed 18, touch 7) +2 full, +3 flat, -3 touch.
Round 3 - AC 17 (flat-footed 20, touch 7) +2 flat, emulation finished.

While one duplicating an Erinyes AC 23 (flat-footed 18, touch 15) would go:
Round 1 - AC 15 (flat-footed 15, touch 10)
 Round 2 - AC 18 (flat-footed 18, touch 13) +3 full, +3 flat, +3 touch.
Round 3 - AC 21 (flat-footed 18, touch 15) +3 full, +2 touch; 
Round 4 - AC 23 (flat-footed 18, touch 15) +2 full, emulation finished.


----------



## Shade (Sep 10, 2008)

Sounds good.  Nice catches on the defined shape and "impmorph".  (That would be a good name for a spell that changes you into an imp, eh?)

Or could we make it even simpler and just state that the +3 racial bonus to AC affects all three at once?

With Int 2, it isn't really smart enough to use tactics, like increasing flat-footed when it realizes it is fighting a rogue.

Thoughts?


----------



## freyar (Sep 10, 2008)

Shade said:


> Sounds good.  Nice catches on the defined shape and "impmorph".  (That would be a good name for a spell that changes you into an imp, eh?)
> 
> Or could we make it even simpler and just state that the +3 racial bonus to AC affects all three at once?
> 
> ...



I'd prefer that the AC bonus just be flat, something that applies to all types of AC. This is looking pretty good, though.  As for the shapechanger subtype, why don't we put in a line that imorphs only copy the first form of each opponent they see? Or we could let DMs rule on when they change...


----------



## Cleon (Sep 11, 2008)

Shade said:


> Or could we make it even simpler and just state that the +3 racial bonus to AC affects all three at once?
> 
> With Int 2, it isn't really smart enough to use tactics, like increasing flat-footed when it realizes it is fighting a rogue.




But then it would probably have a much higher touch AC than its opponent, which could make quite a difference if it's attacked by rays, splash weapons et cetera.

I don't think of it as using tactics, but instinctively copying how its opponent moves to avoid attacks.



freyar said:


> I'd prefer that the AC bonus just be flat, something that applies to all types of AC. This is looking pretty good, though. As for the shapechanger subtype, why don't we put in a line that imorphs only copy the first form of each opponent they see? Or we could let DMs rule on when they change...




I'd think that if the opponent's emulation-worthy stats changes after the imorph achieves complete emulation, then the imorph just starts to copy them at its normal rate while retaining any emulated reach & movement rates, that seems more consistent with its behaviour.

Oh, and I'd say the imorph can copy creatures that possess the shapechanger subtype.

Speaking of shapechangers, shouldn't the imorph itself have the shapechanger subtype? I see Shade's already considered that possibility in its Homebrew entry


----------



## Shade (Sep 11, 2008)

Cleon said:


> But then it would probably have a much higher touch AC than its opponent, which could make quite a difference if it's attacked by rays, splash weapons et cetera.




I don't think I was clear in my intentions.  I was thinking +3 to all three with the same cap as the emulated opponent.  In other words, if the creature has AC 20, touch 14, flat-footed 19, then the imorph would gain like so:

First round:  AC 18, touch 14, flat-footed 18
Second round:  AC 20, touch 14, flat-footed 19

Is that acceptable?



Cleon said:


> I'd think that if the opponent's emulation-worthy stats changes after the imorph achieves complete emulation, then the imorph just starts to copy them at its normal rate while retaining any emulated reach & movement rates, that seems more consistent with its behaviour.




That seems reasonable.



Cleon said:


> Oh, and I'd say the imorph can copy creatures that possess the shapechanger subtype.




We'll just need to very clear what occurs if the emulate creature changes its own form once the imorph has begun emulation.



Cleon said:


> Speaking of shapechangers, shouldn't the imorph itself have the shapechanger subtype? I see Shade's already considered that possibility in its Homebrew entry




Yes, it should.  I'll remove the question mark.


----------



## freyar (Sep 11, 2008)

All sounds fine to me.  How's this shaping up?


----------



## Cleon (Sep 12, 2008)

Shade said:


> I don't think I was clear in my intentions.  I was thinking +3 to all three with the same cap as the emulated opponent.  In other words, if the creature has AC 20, touch 14, flat-footed 19, then the imorph would gain like so:
> 
> First round:  AC 18, touch 14, flat-footed 18
> Second round:  AC 20, touch 14, flat-footed 19
> ...




That's basically what I was proposing with my compromise solution of +/- 3 points to each AC until they match the opponent, so it looks like we mostly agree. As for your example.

Firstly, shouldn't the imorph have its base AC(s) in the first round of melee? I thought it gained the imorphism benefits at the end of the round after everything acts.

Secondly, why is the touch AC 14? Doesn't a base imorph have touch AC 10, in which case it should be touch AC 13 after its first round of duplication.

Thirdly, does the +3 mean you think imorphism should only give bonuses, not penalties? I was making it plus or minus 3 to attacks and armour class, in order for it to be able to exactly match both stronger and weaker opponents. Admittedly matching a softer foe's AC is not a very useful trait, but it matches the description.


----------



## Shade (Sep 12, 2008)

Cleon said:


> That's basically what I was proposing with my compromise solution of +/- 3 points to each AC until they match the opponent, so it looks like we mostly agree. As for your example.
> 
> Firstly, shouldn't the imorph have its base AC(s) in the first round of melee? I thought it gained the imorphism benefits at the end of the round after everything acts.




You are correct.



Cleon said:


> Secondly, why is the touch AC 14? Doesn't a base imorph have touch AC 10, in which case it should be touch AC 13 after its first round of duplication.




Oops.  I messed that up.



Cleon said:


> Thirdly, does the +3 mean you think imorphism should only give bonuses, not penalties? I was making it plus or minus 3 to attacks and armour class, in order for it to be able to exactly match both stronger and weaker opponents. Admittedly matching a softer foe's AC is not a very useful trait, but it matches the description.




Yeah, I was just thinking benefits.  I suppose we could rewrite it to be a racial bonus and penalty, but I'm not sure it is worth it, as it overcomplicates the creature without really making it a more interesting adversary, IMHO.

Thoughts?


----------



## freyar (Sep 12, 2008)

Evolutionarily speaking, it makes more sense only to have a bonus.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 13, 2008)

Shade said:


> Yeah, I was just thinking benefits.  I suppose we could rewrite it to be a racial bonus and penalty, but I'm not sure it is worth it, as it overcomplicates the creature without really making it a more interesting adversary, IMHO.
> 
> Thoughts?




The main problem is that if imorphism only provides bonuses the creature would never be able to completely imorph into a creature with an emulation-worthy stats lower than its own, at least as the power is currently written.

An imorph has a fairly good Will Save of +4, so it's quite likely to be fighting melee-types with a lower Will save who it should be able to emulate. We'd either need to allow it to imorph a penalty or add a line that if one of the imorph's base stats is already higher than its opponent it doesn't need to change it to complete imorphism.

Anyhows, I'm thinking the imorph only uses its shapeshifting powers in self defence, when it expects an attacker to be tougher than itself. It would not use imorphism when facing creatures it knows are really weak - presumably when hunting dire rats it wouldn't bother trying to pretend to be one.

As for it not making it a more interesting adversary, it would encourage the obvious tactic of sending in a squishy NPC to provoke the imorph into taking a vulnerable form ("Halfling torch bearer - attack!"), then the rest of the party pile on to it. I can imagine an encounter when the party may want to use such a tactic, e.g. a bunch of 1st level characters need to deal with a 10-HD imorph.



freyar said:


> Evolutionarily speaking, it makes more sense only to have a bonus.




Who said anything about the imorph being evolutionary well adapted. Why do you think they're extraordinarily rare?

The serious answer to your question is that the evolutionary cost of the adaptation may outweigh its advantages. Being able to imorph into a weaker form could help the creature produce more successful offspring, which would make evolutionary sense despite rendering the adults individually more vulnerable to predation.


----------



## Shade (Sep 15, 2008)

OK, I'm convinced.  

Updated.   Does that cover it?


----------



## freyar (Sep 15, 2008)

Works for me, too, and I'm happy with Imorphism.  

All ranks in Spot?

Not sure what the theme should be, which leaves me a little befuddled with feats.  But I could maybe see Power Attack (for when it gains attack bonuses) and perhaps Stealthy for crawling around dungeons.  Thoughts?


----------



## Shade (Sep 16, 2008)

freyar said:


> Not sure what the theme should be, which leaves me a little befuddled with feats.  But I could maybe see Power Attack (for when it gains attack bonuses) and perhaps Stealthy for crawling around dungeons.  Thoughts?




It appears to be one of those creatures that existed solely to be an unusual encounter.  Since it never made it into later editions, it missed out on habitat and ecology.

It doesn't sound like a predator, since it only attacks if harassed.  I imagine it eating leaves, stems, soft bark, fruit and algae like snails.

Assuming that sort of lifestyle, ranks in Spot or even Survival make sense.

Alertness probably makes sense, and I could see Stealthy.  I'd avoid Power Attack, since the poor DM already has plenty of numbers to keep track of with this creature.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 16, 2008)

Shade said:


> OK, I'm convinced.
> 
> Updated.   Does that cover it?




Let me mull it over for a bit...

Looks good, but we haven't explained what happens if an opponent's stats change. I suggest something like this:

If the opponent has its attributes changed by any means, such as shapechanging or an enhancement spell, the imorph will begin to emulate the modified attributes instead of the opponent's previous attributes. If the imorph has already achieved complete emulation, it retains any current changes to size, reach and movement forms until it completely matches its opponent's new form.

Now as for skills, I'm tempted to give it a couple of ranks in Climb and the rest in Spot. There's something about those suckers that makes me imagine it climbing around on things.

Feats I'm undecided on, how about Improved Initiative and Great Fortitude?

And finally, how much does it weigh? If it has the same density as a gelatinous cube and approximates a cylinder 4' long and 2' diameter that works out as 188 lbs, how about rounding that up to 200 lbs to allow for some irregularities and the extra flesh of the tentacles.


----------



## freyar (Sep 17, 2008)

The update to imorphism looks good, and so does 200lb.

Why not a racial bonus to Climb and all ranks in Spot?
I'm inclined to go with Alertness and Stealthy, but I'd be ok to swap Imp Init in for one of those.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 17, 2008)

freyar said:


> The update to imorphism looks good, and so does 200lb.
> 
> Why not a racial bonus to Climb and all ranks in Spot?
> I'm inclined to go with Alertness and Stealthy, but I'd be ok to swap Imp Init in for one of those.




Racial bonus to Climb sounds good. Any other skills that deserve racial bonuses? I suppose its imorphism technically gives it a bonus to Disguise checks when completely duplicating someone - say +10, like the Alter Self spell.

I'd prefer to keep Alertness than Stealthy, since we aren't thinking of giving it any ranks in Hide or Move Silently. I guess Improved Initiative makes more sense than Great Fortitude, since it will probably increase its Fort Save due to Imorphism anyway.


----------



## freyar (Sep 17, 2008)

Yeah, it's probably good to add a line to Imorphism that it gives a +10 to Disguise checks, though it would take an exceptionally smart imorph to take advantage of that.  (Oddly, should imorphs be allowed to control their imorphism?)

Rather than Alertness, we could do Skill Focus (Spot).


----------



## Cleon (Sep 17, 2008)

freyar said:


> Yeah, it's probably good to add a line to Imorphism that it gives a +10 to Disguise checks, though it would take an exceptionally smart imorph to take advantage of that.  (Oddly, should imorphs be allowed to control their imorphism?)
> 
> Rather than Alertness, we could do Skill Focus (Spot).




Would also be useful against exceptionally dumb opponents. For example, a nest of giant ants would probably stop attacking an imorph once it looks (or more likely _smells_) like one of their own.

As for controlling their imorphism, in what way? My impression is the power's basically instinctive once triggered, and the imorph can only control it by deciding it isn't under attack and not triggering it in the first place. They can't even decide which among multiple foes to replicate.

Otherwise it can act normally. I'm thinking it could try to swap positions and mimic the actions with its opponent, in order to confuse its opponent's allies. It may only have animal intelligence, but there are real-life creatures that use such tactics.

Oh, as for Skill Focus (Spot). I like the slightly greater versatility of Alertness. Gives the poor beast some change of hearing the fighter blundering around.


----------



## Shade (Sep 17, 2008)

Updated.

How about a climb speed (and the accompanying +8 racial bonus on Climb checks)?  Say, 10 feet?


----------



## freyar (Sep 17, 2008)

I think a Climb speed of 10ft is reasonable.

Cleon, I meant that a smarter imorph (say a "PC" kind of character) might want to use imorphism to infiltrate human society, for example.  If imorphism is truly completely instinctive, it couldn't do that.  I guess the question was whether the imorph's rigid use of shapechanging is due to low intelligence or whether it's subconscious.  But this thing is complicated enough already, and I don't want to confuse the issue any more.


----------



## Shade (Sep 17, 2008)

Updated.

CR 4?


----------



## freyar (Sep 17, 2008)

Sure.  Hard to gauge with the imorphism, but that sound reasonable.


----------



## Shade (Sep 17, 2008)

Yeah, the imorphism can radically alter its ability to hit and be hit, and survive saves, but it never gains hit points nor deals greater damage.  Plus, it gets better slowly.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 17, 2008)

freyar said:


> I think a Climb speed of 10ft is reasonable.
> 
> Cleon, I meant that a smarter imorph (say a "PC" kind of character) might want to use imorphism to infiltrate human society, for example.  If imorphism is truly completely instinctive, it couldn't do that.  I guess the question was whether the imorph's rigid use of shapechanging is due to low intelligence or whether it's subconscious.  But this thing is complicated enough already, and I don't want to confuse the issue any more.




Oh, right. So basically you're asking whether an "smart" imorph could do the Doppleganger trick. Going by the description I'd say no. Imorphism only works while the creature is in melee, so it would have to infiltrate human society while fighting an exact duplicate of itself who'll probably be shrieking "I'm the real me!"

That would likely attract attention even in a rowdy neighbourhood.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 17, 2008)

Shade said:


> Updated.
> 
> How about a climb speed (and the accompanying +8 racial bonus on Climb checks)?  Say, 10 feet?






Shade said:


> CR 4?




Climb speed 10' is fine by me, the skills & feats look good as well.

Not sure about the CR, my gut feeling was CR 3 based on its mediocre damage and HP, but it could merit a 4. As you say, its power makes it very hard to evaluate without extensive playtesting.

Indeed, its effective CR would change depending on what it's copying - an imorph emulating a Kobold obviously represents a lesser challenge than one copying a Gray Render.


----------



## Shade (Sep 17, 2008)

Yeah, CR 3 might be more appropriate.  It is average in so many ways other than its one trick.   Let's go CR 3.

Updated.

Are we finally finished?


----------



## Cleon (Sep 17, 2008)

Shade said:


> Yeah, CR 3 might be more appropriate.  It is average in so many ways other than its one trick.   Let's go CR 3.
> 
> Updated.
> 
> Are we finally finished?




The only remaining quibble I could find in its stats is to ask whether that Disguise modifier is correct. Shouldn't it be 0 (ranks) -4 (Cha 2) = Disguise -4?

Apart from that I think we're done.


----------



## Shade (Sep 17, 2008)

Cleon said:


> The only remaining quibble I could find in its stats is to ask whether that Disguise modifier is correct. Shouldn't it be 0 (ranks) -4 (Cha 2) = Disguise -4?
> 
> Apart from that I think we're done.




Good catch.  I'll fix it.

I'll post another ooze soon!


----------



## Cleon (Sep 17, 2008)

Shade said:


> Good catch.  I'll fix it.
> 
> I'll post another ooze soon!




Hold on, I've thought of another quibble. Rather than "When using imorphism, an imorph gains a +10 circumstance bonus on Disguise checks," I'd go for "When using imorphism to completely mimic an opponent, an imorph gains a +10 circumstance bonus on Disguise checks."

Don't think it should get the full Disguise bonus when it's only partially transformed, and having it increase round-by-round as it changes is (a) far too fiddly (b) its Disguise wouldn't be very effective while its still changing in front of the PCs' eyes.


----------



## Shade (Sep 17, 2008)

Cleon said:


> Hold on, I've thought of another quibble. Rather than "When using imorphism, an imorph gains a +10 circumstance bonus on Disguise checks," I'd go for "When using imorphism to completely mimic an opponent, an imorph gains a +10 circumstance bonus on Disguise checks."
> 
> Don't think it should get the full Disguise bonus when it's only partially transformed, and having it increase round-by-round as it changes is (a) far too fiddly (b) its Disguise wouldn't be very effective while its still changing in front of the PCs' eyes.




Agreed.  Good suggestion!  I'll make the change.


----------



## freyar (Sep 17, 2008)

Wow, ok, I think we've really ironed this out!


----------



## Shade (Sep 17, 2008)

*Goop Ghoul *
CLIMATE/TERRAIN: Any underground
FREQUENCY: Rare
ORGANIZATION: Solitary
ACTIVITY CYCLE: Any
DIET: Carnivorous
INTELLIGENCE: Low (5-7)
TREASURE: Nil
ALIGNMENT: Neutral
NO. APPEARING: 1 (5%: 2 or more)
ARMOR CLASS: 7
MOVEMENT: 1 (12 on skeleton, 6 otherwise)
HIT DICE: 2
THAC0: 19
NO. OF ATTACKS: 1
DAMAGE/ATTACK: By weapon type
SPECIAL ATTACKS: Paralysis, dissolving
SPECIAL DEFENSES: Disguise, immune to electricity, resistant to cold
MAGIC RESISTANCE: Nil
SIZE: M (4' diameter)
MORALE: Steady (11-12)
XP VALUE: 975

A goop ghoul is an amoeba-like creature similar to a black pudding or gray ooze. It is a translucent blob capable of only limited movement itself. However, when a goop ghoul flows over a skeleton (a normal one, not the undead type), it can attach itself to the bones like muscles and ligaments, and thus use the skeleton as a means of transportation. In this way the goop ghoul gains a movement rate of 12. A goop ghoul is usually encountered mounted on a skeleton, thus being 80% likely to be mistaken for an undead skeleton or deteriorated zombie (the stretched-out goop ghoul being seen as rotted tissue).

Combat: A goop ghoul attached to a skeleton is able to use simple hand-held weapons but cannot employ shields or metallic armor. In addition, the touch of a goop ghoul causes paralysis for 4-16 rounds unless a successful save vs. paralysis is made, Once a victim is paralyzed, the goop ghoul flows over him in one round, and its acidic secretions eat away flesh at the rate of 1d8 hp per round. This damage occurs only when a victim is totally engulfed, as the acid is rather weak in small quantities. For this reason, the goop ghoul cannot employ its acid as an attack in melee. If a victim regains movement before being dissolved, he may throw off the goop ghoul and flee, being immune to goop-ghoul paralysis for one full day.

As the flesh is eaten away from the goop ghoul's victim, the creature increases in size from its feast. By the time the skeleton has been picked clean, the goop ghoul will have doubled its size and be ready to split into two normal-sized goop ghouls, a process that takes only one round. Whichever of the two is closest to the freshly stripped skeleton will generally claim it for movement purposes. It takes one round for a goop ghoul to attach itself to a skeleton in such a way as to be able to manipulate it. 

A goop ghoul is immune to electrical attacks. Cold-based attacks do only half damage, but a goop ghoul is very susceptible to fire and great heat (taking double damage), and shuns them.  A goop ghoul engaged in dissolving the flesh off a paralyzed victim can be removed by applying flame. Similarly, a heal or cure disease spell also makes a goop ghoul withdraw from a victim, though such spells cause no harm to the monster.

It must be emphasized that as a goop ghoul is not undead, it cannot be turned by priests. However, it is possible for a goop ghoul to latch onto an undead, animated skeleton. In this case, the goop ghoul has no control over the skeleton's movement and is more or less just along for the ride. It would be possible for a priest to turn the undead skeleton, but the goop ghoul would be free to "abandon skeleton" and seek out a new source of transportation (probably the priest). Also, a goop ghoul is not confined to human or even humanoid skeletons; any two- or four-legged skeleton can be used, subject to size constraints of about 3' to 9', beyond which the goop ghoul is either too bunched up for fluid movement or stretched too thin. In any case, the movement rate when using any sort of skeleton remains 12.

On rare occasions, a goop ghoul can attach itself to sturdy rodlike objects that allow movement of the sort it is used to. Thus, several large sticks might be used as a "skeleton" of sorts, good enough for half-normal movement.  Weapons might thus be held together by the goop ghoul, so that a party might encounter a pile of swords stumping its way toward them. These attempts are rare, as a goop ghoul prefers the use of skeletons above all else.

Any being slain and dissolved by a goop ghoul cannot be raised from the dead without the use of a wish spell, though the skeleton is fit for use with an animate dead spell.

Habitat/Society: Goop ghouls are found exclusively underground; they dislike sunlight as it slowly dries out their skins.  They are solitary creatures, having no real social systems. If more than one are encountered at a time, more than likely it is because a large goop ghoul has just divided into two (or more, depending on the size of the victim-an ogre can provide enough flesh for a goop ghoul to split into three).

Ecology: Goop ghouls have no concept of money and so keep no treasure.  They cannot dissolve metal, and metallic armor is too heavy for them to move around in. For this reason, they prefer to attack victims who aren't wearing metallic armor.  Many valuables are often left behind when a goop ghoul acquires a new skeleton, as all the goop ghoul is interested in is the skeleton itself and maybe a hand weapon.

Goop ghouls are rare enough to be of little consequence unless a large number of them are present. They are fairly predatory but can go for days without eating, and they are also satisfied with scavenging.

Originally appeared in Dragon Magazine #198 (1993).


----------



## freyar (Sep 18, 2008)

Hooray, a new ooze!

So, should we add a mini-stat-block for the skeleton-mounted goop ghoul?


----------



## Shade (Sep 18, 2008)

freyar said:


> So, should we add a mini-stat-block for the skeleton-mounted goop ghoul?




Probably (or just use undead skeleton stats with minor adjustments).

Let's figure out ability scores.  We can probably borrow the gray ooze's physical scores (Str 12, Dex 1, Con 21).  Int is Low (5-7).  Wis and Cha are probably comparable or even in the 10-11 range.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 18, 2008)

freyar said:


> Hooray, a new ooze!
> 
> So, should we add a mini-stat-block for the skeleton-mounted goop ghoul?




I'd just add the extra info in a regular stat-block. Let's see, we can stick in a few of the basics.

Is it an Ooze or an Aberration? Regular Oozes lack both a goop ghoul's proficiency with weapons and intelligence, which argues for Aberration.. However, it is describes as "an amoeba-like creature similar to a black pudding or gray ooze" and this is the Finishing off the oozes thread, and enough of the poor things have switched to Aberrations already.

So how about this for starters:

*Goop Ghoul
*Medium Ooze?
Hit Dice: 2d10+8 (19 hp)
Initiative: 0?
Speed: 5 ft. (1 square) or 30 ft. (6 squares)[on skeleton] or 15 ft. (3 squares)[improvised armature]
Armor Class: 13 (+3 natural) touch 10, flat-footed 13
Base Attack/Grapple: +1/+1
Attack: Touch +1 melee touch (paralysis) or weapon +1 melee (weapon + paralysis?) - _the description is a bit vague here, do the goop ghoul's weapon attacks cause paralysis or just its flesh? Its only offense listed is one weapon attack, which implies that it covers its weapon with paralyzing slime._
Space/Reach: 5 ft./5 ft.
Special Attacks: Paralysis, dissolving
Special Qualities: immunity to electricity, ooze traits _[except for those it lacks, like Mindless - now can it be flanked when it's on a skeleton?]_, disguise (when on skeleton) or transparent (when not on skeleton), resistant to cold, vulnerable to fire
Saves: Fort +4, Ref +0, Will +0
Abilities: Str 11, Dex 10, Con 18, Int 7, Wis 10, Cha 1
_These stats are just placeholders, but I think they're in the right area_
Skills: _5 ranks_
Feats: _1 feat_
Environment: Underground
Organization: Solitary
Challenge Rating: 1_ - maybe 2 due to its Paralysis_?
Treasure: None
Alignment: Always neutral
Advancement: 3 HD (Medium) _The description suggests once it gets any bigger (4 HD) it will split into two 2-HD __goop __ghouls_
Level Adjustment: -


----------



## Shade (Sep 18, 2008)

Definitely ooze.

Precedents exist of intelligent oozes (slithering tracker, summoning ooze, assassin jelly to name a few).


----------



## freyar (Sep 19, 2008)

Have to agree: absolutely an ooze.
Cleon suggests Str 11, Dex 10, Con 18, Int 7, Wis 10, Cha 1 vs gray ooze Str 12, Dex 1, Con 21.  Also, Shade notes that Cha is probably closer to average.  How about the compromise Str 12, Dex 5, Con 18, Int 7, Wis 11, Cha 10?


----------



## Cleon (Sep 19, 2008)

freyar said:


> Have to agree: absolutely an ooze.
> Cleon suggests Str 11, Dex 10, Con 18, Int 7, Wis 10, Cha 1 vs gray ooze Str 12, Dex 1, Con 21.  Also, Shade notes that Cha is probably closer to average.  How about the compromise Str 12, Dex 5, Con 18, Int 7, Wis 11, Cha 10?




I would rather boost the Con that the Str, since the original does not have a damage bonus for its weapon and I get the impression it isn't as big as a Gray Ooze. As it only uses simple melee weapons, Dex isn't that vital so I'm OK with downgrading it - we'd need to bump up its natural armour to keep the AC at 13 though. That would make it something like:

Str 11, Dex 5, Con 20, Int 7, Wis 11, Cha 1

Which would change its other stats as follows:

Hit Dice: 2d10+10 (21 hp)
Initiative: -2
Armor Class: 13 (+5 natural, -2 Dex) touch 8, flat-footed 13
Saves: Fort +5, Ref -2, Will +0


----------



## Shade (Sep 19, 2008)

Let's bump Cha to 10, giving us...

Str 11, Dex 5, Con 20, Int 7, Wis 11, Cha 10

In this case, lets not adhere to strict translation of AC.  Very few oozes have natural armor bonuses, and the ones name-dropped for comparison lack it, so let's not give it any.

I'll get a Homebrews going shortly.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 19, 2008)

Shade said:


> Let's bump Cha to 10, giving us...
> 
> Str 11, Dex 5, Con 20, Int 7, Wis 11, Cha 10




Well I'm not sure it merits a Charisma  equaling an average human, but agree 1 may be too low. although it shoesn't make a great deal of difference as far as its skill use goes, maybe something in the Cha 6-8 range would be more suitably, that matches many "ugly dumb brute" type monsters such as Gargoyles, Rust Monsters etc. Furthermore, it just strikes me as weird having a ooze be more charismatic than it is intelligent, unless its tied in with the monster's powers or theme.

How about Cha 6, one point lower than its Int?



Shade said:


> In this case, lets not adhere to strict translation of AC. Very few oozes have natural armor bonuses, and the ones name-dropped for comparison lack it, so let's not give it any.




Yes I tend to apply an over-literal translation of their stats. Most Oozes have a much worse AC in 3rd edition D&D than the same monster under the 1st/2nd edition AD&D rules, so it would be appropriate to mark the goop ghoul's AC down. If it follows the standard 'no armour' Ooze paradigm it'd be:

Armor Class: 8 (-2 Dex) touch 8, flat-footed 8


----------



## freyar (Sep 22, 2008)

Cha 6 is ok by me.  Ready to deal with SAs?


----------



## Cleon (Sep 22, 2008)

freyar said:


> Cha 6 is ok by me.  Ready to deal with SAs?




Okay, I'll try to cover them all in one go. Half of the abilities are pretty straight forward, it's only the Attach to Skeleton, Engulf and Split into Spawn that look like they'll require much fiddling around with.

Here's my rough draft, it looks like it's too elaborate but should be easy enough to trim down:

*Blindsight 60 ft.*

*Acid (Ex)*
A goop ghoul's acid only affects flesh, it does not harm bone, metal or stone. They cannot employ its acid as an attack in melee, only using it to dissolve engulfed victims.

*Attach To Skeleton (Ex)*
A goop ghoul can flow over a skeleton and attach itself to the bones like muscles and ligaments, and thus use the skeleton as a means of transportation and attack. It takes one round for a goop ghoul to attach itself to a skeleton in such a way as to be able to manipulate it. A goop ghoul can use any skeleton of a two- or four-legged Medium sized creature, it gains a speed of 30 ft. when using any sort of skeleton.
Goop ghouls can use the skeleton's natural weaponry, such as teeth or claws, or wield simple weapons if the skeleton possesses that ability, but can not use any armour.
A goop ghoul is usually encountered mounted on a skeleton, the stretched-out goop ghoul resembles rotted tissue, so the creature is easily mistaken for an undead skeleton or deteriorated zombie, it requires a DC 15 Spot check to detect the imposture.
As a goop ghoul is not undead, it cannot be turned. However, it is possible for a goop ghoul to latch onto an undead, such as an animated skeleton. In this case, the goop ghoul has no control over the undead's movement and is more or less just along for the ride. It would be possible for a priest to turn the undead, but the goop ghoul would be free to "abandon skeleton" and seek out a new source of transportation (probably the priest).
Although a goop ghoul prefers the use of skeletons above all else, a goop ghoul can, on rare occasions, attach itself to sturdy rodlike objects that allow movement of the sort it is used to. Thus, several large sticks or a pile of swords might be used as a "skeleton" of sorts, good enough for half-normal movement (15 ft.).

*Engulf (Ex)*
A goop ghoul can engulf a paralyzed creature as a standard action, merely by flowing its body over them. It cannot make a slam attack during a round in which it engulfs. Engulfed creatures are subject to the cube’s paralysis and take 1d8 acid damage per round. If the victim regains movement before being dissolved, they may throw off the goop ghoul by succeeding in a grapple contest against the goop ghoul. A goop ghoul engulfing a victim can be removed by applying fire. Casting  _Heal_ or _Cure Disease_ on its victim also makes a goop ghoul withdraw, though such spells cause no harm to the monster.
Any being slain and dissolved by a goop ghoul cannot be raised from the dead without the use of a _Wish_ spell, though the skeleton is fit for use with an _Animate Dead_ spell.
The save DC is Strength-based and includes a +1 racial bonus.

*Paralysis (Ex)*
A goop ghoul secretes an anesthetizing slime. A target hit by a monster’s touch or engulf attack must succeed on a DC 16 Fortitude save or be paralyzed for 4d4 rounds. The goop ghoul can automatically engulf a paralyzed opponent. Once the duration of paralysis wears off the victim becomes immune to goop ghoul paralysis for one full day. The save DC is Constitution-based. (DC=10+1[½ of 2HD]+5[Con 20])

*Split (Ex)*
A normal-sized goop ghoul will double in size by completely devouring the flesh of an average Medium-sized creature and be ready to split into two normal-sized goop ghouls, a process that takes only one round. Whichever of the two is closest to the freshly stripped skeleton will generally claim it for movement purposes.
Larger creatures can provide enough flesh for goop ghouls to split more than once - it requires 150-200 lbs of flesh for a goop ghoul to reproduce, so a 600 pound ogre's corpse would typically provide enough flesh to spawn three goop ghouls.
A goop ghoul which absorbs 75-150 pounds of flesh will grow large enough to become a 3 HD monster, but is not big enough to reproduce.

*Immunity to Electricity*

*Ooze Traits*
Unlike a standard ooze, a goop ghoul lacks the mindless trait and has proficiency in simple weapons. It retains the oozes other traits of blindness; immunity to gaze attacks, visual effects, illusions, and other attack forms that rely on sight; immunity to poison, _sleep_ effects, paralysis, polymorph, and stunning; immunity to critical hits or flanking; no armour proficiencies and having to eat and breath, but not sleep.

*Transparent (Ex)*
Goop ghouls are hard to see, even under ideal conditions, and it takes a DC 15 Spot check to notice one.

*Resistance to Cold 10?*

*Vulnerability to Fire (Ex)*
A goop ghoul takes half again as much (+50%) damage as normal from the effect, regardless of whether a saving throw is allowed, or if the save is a success or failure. A goop ghoul will retreat from fire.


----------



## freyar (Sep 22, 2008)

Cleon said:


> Okay, I'll try to cover them all in one go. Half of the abilities are pretty straight forward, it's only the Attach to Skeleton, Engulf and Split into Spawn that look like they'll require much fiddling around with.



Wowsers, you're fast!



> *Blindsight 60 ft.*
> 
> *Acid (Ex)*
> A goop ghoul's acid only affects flesh, it does not harm bone, metal or stone. They cannot employ its acid as an attack in melee, only using it to dissolve engulfed victims.



Since it only uses acid on engulfed victims, I think we can leave this out and just have acid damage in Engulf.


> *Attach To Skeleton (Ex)*
> A goop ghoul can flow over a skeleton and attach itself to the bones like muscles and ligaments, and thus use the skeleton as a means of transportation and attack. It takes one round for a goop ghoul to attach itself to a skeleton in such a way as to be able to manipulate it. A goop ghoul can use any skeleton of a two- or four-legged Medium sized creature, it gains a speed of 30 ft. when using any sort of skeleton.
> Goop ghouls can use the skeleton's natural weaponry, such as teeth or claws, or wield simple weapons if the skeleton possesses that ability, but can not use any armor.
> A goop ghoul is usually encountered mounted on a skeleton.  The stretched-out goop ghoul resembles rotted tissue, so the creature is easily mistaken for an undead skeleton or deteriorated zombie. It requires a DC 15 Spot check to detect the imposture.
> ...



I like this quite a bit!  I did fix a run-on sentence and some spelling, but this seems pretty good.  We'll see what Shade thinks.


> *Engulf (Ex)*
> A goop ghoul can engulf a paralyzed creature as a standard action, merely by flowing its body over them. It cannot make a slam attack during a round in which it engulfs. Engulfed creatures are subject to the cube’s paralysis and take 1d8 acid damage per round. If the victim regains movement before being dissolved, they may throw off the goop ghoul by succeeding in a grapple contest against the goop ghoul. A goop ghoul engulfing a victim can be removed by applying fire. Casting  _Heal_ or _Cure Disease_ on its victim also makes a goop ghoul withdraw, though such spells cause no harm to the monster.
> Any being slain and dissolved by a goop ghoul cannot be raised from the dead without the use of a _Wish_ spell, though the skeleton is fit for use with an _Animate Dead_ spell.
> The save DC is Strength-based and includes a +1 racial bonus.



Wait, what's the DC for?  Also, the wish restriction seems a little harsh (I know it's in the original).  I'd argue that the need for either true resurrection or even resurrection (if a bit of the body is left over) is pretty bad for a 2HD critter.



> *Paralysis (Ex)*
> A goop ghoul secretes an anesthetizing slime. A target hit by a monster’s touch or engulf attack must succeed on a DC 16 Fortitude save or be paralyzed for 4d4 rounds. The goop ghoul can automatically engulf a paralyzed opponent. Once the duration of paralysis wears off the victim becomes immune to goop ghoul paralysis for one full day. The save DC is Constitution-based. (DC=10+1[½ of 2HD]+5[Con 20])



Looks good.



> *Split (Ex)*
> A normal-sized goop ghoul will double in size by completely devouring the flesh of an average Medium-sized creature and be ready to split into two normal-sized goop ghouls, a process that takes only one round. Whichever of the two is closest to the freshly stripped skeleton will generally claim it for movement purposes.
> Larger creatures can provide enough flesh for goop ghouls to split more than once - it requires 150-200 lbs of flesh for a goop ghoul to reproduce, so a 600 pound ogre's corpse would typically provide enough flesh to spawn three goop ghouls.
> A goop ghoul which absorbs 75-150 pounds of flesh will grow large enough to become a 3 HD monster, but is not big enough to reproduce.



Maybe we can put the poundage requirements in the flavor text?  In that case, we've done some split SAs before.  Basically, we need to specify how many HD the goop ghoul needs and how it splits them up.

Here's one we did before (ignore all the stuff about max hp; that was specific to the critter in question):
Split (Ex): A full healed grave watcher of 10 or more HD can split into two grave watchers. The two new grave watchers may have any combination of HD that totals to the HD of the original grave watcher, but each must have at least 5 HD. Each new grave watcher has maximum hit points for its Hit Dice. This process takes 4 rounds, during which the grave watcher may take no other actions.



> *Immunity to Electricity*
> 
> *Ooze Traits*
> Unlike a standard ooze, a goop ghoul lacks the mindless trait and has proficiency in simple weapons. It retains the oozes other traits of blindness; immunity to gaze attacks, visual effects, illusions, and other attack forms that rely on sight; immunity to poison, _sleep_ effects, paralysis, polymorph, and stunning; immunity to critical hits or flanking; no armour proficiencies and having to eat and breath, but not sleep.



Standard, don't even need to spell it all out.


> *Transparent (Ex)*
> Goop ghouls are hard to see, even under ideal conditions, and it takes a DC 15 Spot check to notice one.
> 
> *Resistance to Cold 10?*
> ...




Transparent is good, so is vulnerability (though the retreating bit might go under tactics).  Resistance to cold works for me.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 22, 2008)

I'll break this reply up into separate posts, for the sake of clarity.



freyar said:


> Since it only uses acid on engulfed victims, I think we can leave this out and just have acid damage in Engulf.




Yes, I was thinking of leaving that out in the final version to, but I wanted to have a line for all of the goop ghoul's special abilities, so we don't forget to discuss any. The only important difference about the acid is that it doesn't dissolve bone, but I'd think that's fairly obvious from the rest of the monster's write-up.

The Ooze traits, Transparency, Immunity to Electricity, Resistance to Cold 10, Vulnerability to Fire, Paralysis, Acid and Blindsight are all pretty standard D&D 3E boiler-plate that I think we can leave as they are.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 22, 2008)

freyar said:


> > *Attach To Skeleton (Ex)
> > *A goop ghoul can flow over a skeleton and attach itself to the bones like muscles and ligaments, and thus use the skeleton as a means of transportation and attack. It takes one round for a goop ghoul to attach itself to a skeleton in such a way as to be able to manipulate it. A goop ghoul can use any skeleton of a two- or four-legged Medium sized creature, it gains a speed of 30 ft. when using any sort of skeleton.
> 
> 
> ...




Breaking off a sentence about the Spot DC is fine. haven't spotted any spelling changes, so I don't know what I got wrong (if anything).

I'm not too fond of the first paragraph, it looks a bit clumsy. How about changing it to:

*Attach To Skeleton (Ex)
*A goop ghoul can attach itself to the bones of a skeleton and act like muscles and ligaments, thereby using the skeleton as a means of transportation and attack. It takes one round for a goop ghoul to flow over a skeleton and attach itself in order to manipulate it. A goop ghoul can use the skeleton of any  two- or four-legged Medium sized creature. It gains a speed of 30 ft. regardless of the sort of skeleton.
Goop ghouls can use the skeleton's natural weaponry, such as teeth or claws, or wield simple weapons if the skeleton possesses that ability, but can not use any armor.
A goop ghoul is usually encountered mounted on a skeleton. The stretched-out goop ghoul resembles rotted tissue, so the creature is easily mistaken for an undead skeleton or deteriorated zombie. It requires a DC 15 Spot check to detect the imposture.
As a goop ghoul is not undead, it cannot be turned. However, it is possible for a goop ghoul to latch onto an undead, such as an animated skeleton. In this case, the goop ghoul has no control over the undead's movement and is more or less just along for the ride. It would be possible for a priest to turn the undead, but the goop ghoul would be free to "abandon skeleton" and seek out a new source of transportation (probably the priest).
Although a goop ghoul prefers the use of skeletons above all else, a goop ghoul can, on rare occasions, attach itself to sturdy rodlike objects that allow movement of the sort it is used to. Thus, several large sticks or a pile of swords might be used as a "skeleton" of sorts, good enough for half-normal movement (15 ft.).


----------



## Cleon (Sep 22, 2008)

freyar said:


> > *Engulf (Ex)*
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, what's the DC for?  Also, the wish restriction seems a little harsh (I know it's in the original).  I'd argue that the need for either true resurrection or even resurrection (if a bit of the body is left over) is pretty bad for a 2HD critter.



The DC isn't for anything, I just forgot to delete it after copy-and-pasting the Gelatinous Cube's Engulf power to use as a template for the goop ghoul's version of the power. I'd also left the original monster name 'cube' in the write-up.

I agree the _Wish_ restriction is unwarranted. I'd only left it in the rough cut because, as you said, it was in the original. Resurrection seems more appropriate to me as well. How about this instead:

*Engulf (Ex)*
A goop ghoul can engulf a paralyzed creature as a standard action, merely by flowing its body over them. It cannot make a slam attack during a round in which it engulfs. Engulfed creatures are subject to the ooze’s paralysis and take 1d8 acid damage per round. If the victim regains movement before being killed, they may throw off the goop ghoul by succeeding in a grapple contest against the goop ghoul. A goop ghoul engulfing a victim can be removed by applying fire. Casting _Heal_ or _Cure Disease_ on its victim also makes a goop ghoul withdraw, though such spells cause no harm to the monster.
A goop ghoul will continue digesting an engulfed victim's flesh until their skeleton has been picked clean. A being dissolved in this fashion cannot be brought back to life by _Raise Dead_, a more powerful spell such as _Resurrection_ or _Wish _is required, though the skeleton is fit for use with an _Animate Dead_ spell.

Should we say how long it takes for a goop ghoul to strip the flesh of a skeleton - is it all over in a round or does the process take several minutes?


----------



## Cleon (Sep 22, 2008)

freyar said:


> > *Split (Ex)*
> > A normal-sized goop ghoul will double in size by completely devouring the flesh of an average Medium-sized creature and be ready to split into two normal-sized goop ghouls, a process that takes only one round. Whichever of the two is closest to the freshly stripped skeleton will generally claim it for movement purposes.
> > Larger creatures can provide enough flesh for goop ghouls to split more than once - it requires 150-200 lbs of flesh for a goop ghoul to reproduce, so a 600 pound ogre's corpse would typically provide enough flesh to spawn three goop ghouls.
> > A goop ghoul which absorbs 75-150 pounds of flesh will grow large enough to become a 3 HD monster, but is not big enough to reproduce.
> ...




Okay, I'll need to think about this for a bit. As I indicated in the stat-block write up I assumed that a 4 HD goop ghoul splits into two 2 HD ghouls. My first though is adding to the Engulf text a note that it gains Hit Dice after dissolving victims - say 1 HD for a Small creature, 2 HD for a Medium, 4 for a Large? - then adapt the 'Split' power you suggested to a 4 or more HD creature that takes 1 round to split.

I think I'll leave it at that for today, hopefully well get further tomorrow.


----------



## Shade (Sep 23, 2008)

Added to Homebrews.

Most of those abilities look great!

A few things...



			
				freyar said:
			
		

> I'd argue that the need for either true resurrection or even resurrection (if a bit of the body is left over) is pretty bad for a 2HD critter.




I agree.  Let's drop that bit altogether, as nothing really indicates that its acid is any more potent than other oozes, which don't impose such restrictions.  Additionally, the spells themselves indicate what needs to be left, and a skeleton is usually more than enough for restorative spells.



			
				Cleon said:
			
		

> Okay, I'll need to think about this for a bit. As I indicated in the stat-block write up I assumed that a 4 HD goop ghoul splits into two 2 HD ghouls. My first though is adding to the Engulf text a note that it gains Hit Dice after dissolving victims - say 1 HD for a Small creature, 2 HD for a Medium, 4 for a Large? - then adapt the 'Split' power you suggested to a 4 or more HD creature that takes 1 round to split.




I think the Hit Die gain mechanic makes the most sense, but let's slow it a bit.  Maybe 1 Medium creature consumed = 1 HD, a Large or larger = 2 HD, and Small or smaller = 1/2 HD?


----------



## Cleon (Sep 23, 2008)

Shade said:


> I think the Hit Die gain mechanic makes the most sense, but let's slow it a bit.  Maybe 1 Medium creature consumed = 1 HD, a Large or larger = 2 HD, and Small or smaller = 1/2 HD?




I set it at Medium = 2 HD because the original write-up indicates a regular 2-HD ooze that eats a man-sized victim will double in size and reproduce. Setting it as Medium = 1 HD would mean a goop ghoul would have to eat two humans before splitting.


----------



## Shade (Sep 23, 2008)

Cleon said:


> I set it at Medium = 2 HD because the original write-up indicates a regular 2-HD ooze that eats a man-sized victim will double in size and reproduce. Setting it as Medium = 1 HD would mean a goop ghoul would have to eat two humans before splitting.




Yeah, I just felt that slowing the advancement would help keep it in the CR range it will most likely occupy.  I suppose it's not a big deal either way.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 24, 2008)

Shade said:


> Yeah, I just felt that slowing the advancement would help keep it in the CR range it will most likely occupy.  I suppose it's not a big deal either way.




I'd favour leaving it closer to the original monster, but as you say it's no big deal. If we adopt your growth proposals then a DM will just need to have their PCs meet 3 HD goop ghouls if they want them to grow after victory.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 24, 2008)

Shade said:


> Added to Homebrews.
> 
> Most of those abilities look great!




Thanks, I've just checked Homebrews and you've copied over the first rough-cut of the SA write up, rather than the (slightly) improved versions of Engulf and Attack to Skeleton we've reached after a bit of brain storming.

Speaking of which, I think Attach to Skeleton needs a couple of tweaks regarding natural weapons (changes in _italics_):

*Attach To Skeleton (Ex)
*A goop ghoul can attach itself to the bones of a skeleton and act like muscles and ligaments, thereby using the skeleton as a means of transportation and attack. It takes one round for a goop ghoul to flow over a skeleton and attach itself in order to manipulate it. A goop ghoul can use the skeleton of any two- or four-legged Medium sized creature. It gains a speed of 30 ft. regardless of the sort of skeleton.

_Goop ghouls can wield simple weapons if the skeleton possesses that capability, but can not use any armor. An unarmed goop ghoul can make a slam attack for 1d3 damage, or make a single attack with natural weaponry the skeleton possesses, such as fangs or claws, if such exist. However, due to limitations of the goop ghoul's pseudo-musculature it can do no more than 1d6 damage with such skeletal weaponry, plus Strength bonus._

A goop ghoul is usually encountered mounted on a skeleton. The stretched-out goop ghoul resembles rotted tissue, so the creature is easily mistaken for an undead skeleton or deteriorated zombie. It requires a DC 15 Spot check to detect the imposture.

As a goop ghoul is not undead, it cannot be turned. However, it is possible for a goop ghoul to latch onto an undead, such as an animated skeleton. In this case, the goop ghoul has no control over the undead's movement and is more or less just along for the ride. It would be possible for a priest to turn the undead, but the goop ghoul would be free to "abandon skeleton" and seek out a new source of transportation (probably the priest).

Although a goop ghoul prefers the use of skeletons above all else, a goop ghoul can, on rare occasions, attach itself to sturdy rodlike objects that allow movement of the sort it is used to. Thus, several large sticks might be used as a "skeleton" of sorts, good enough for half-normal movement (15 ft.). _A goop ghoul using such an improvised armature cannot hold objects or wield a weapon in a normal fashion, but may use melee weapons incorporated into its "skeleton" as natural weapons. Thus, a goop ghoul animating a walking pile of swords and axes can strike with one of its weapon-limbs._


----------



## Cleon (Sep 24, 2008)

Just had a closer look at the Homebrew entry, and most of it does follow most of the (slightly improved) version of the SA write-ups, not the rough cut. It's only the Split ability that's a direct copy, and we haven't decided on a HD growth mechanism yet. 

However, there is a point I'd quibble about, the Engulf power is rewritten to "A cure, heal or remove disease spell targeted at the ooze or its victim also makes a goop ghoul withdraw, though such spells cause no harm to the monster" while my version says the spell has to target the *victim*.

Surely, if you cast a curative spell on the ooze it will result in the goop ghoul getting better, as it's the target of the spell. Why would this make it retreat?

Also I'm uncertain about you adding cure spells to the list. Am I right in thinking you want any spell of the cure wounds family to repel an engulfing goop ghoul so that low-level characters have a magical means to stop one eating a party-mate?

While understandable, I'm not sure why a goop ghoul would not just keep on digesting its victim if they recovered some of their hit points. _Remove Disease_ has more of a rationale to me, since it kills/expunges parasites, and the _Heal _spell also wipes away diseases.

How about if the goop ghoul withdraws if the victim receives a spell that opposes its acid or paralytic poison - i.e. _Delay Poison, Remove Paralysis, Resist Energy (Acid) or Protection from Energy (Acid)_? Some of those are pretty low level, and it would seem less arbitrary to me.

My proposed re-write is:

*Engulf (Ex)
*A goop ghoul can engulf a paralyzed creature as a standard action, merely by flowing its body over them. It cannot make a slam attack during a round in which it engulfs. Engulfed creatures are subject to the goop ghoul's paralysis and take 1d8 acid damage per round. If the victim regains movement before being dissolved, they may throw off the goop ghoul by succeeding on a grapple check against the goop ghoul.

A goop ghoul engulfing a victim will immediately release the victim if it takes fire damage. It will also withdraw if any healing magic which alleviates or removes disease, poison or paralysis is applied to the engulfed victim, or magic that provides resistance to acid, though such spells cause no harm to the monster.

_(Then something about it growing in HD as it digest a victim)_


----------



## Shade (Sep 24, 2008)

Cleon said:


> I'd favour leaving it closer to the original monster, but as you say it's no big deal. If we adopt your growth proposals then a DM will just need to have their PCs meet 3 HD goop ghouls if they want them to grow after victory.




Anyone else have a preference?



Cleon said:


> Speaking of which, I think Attach to Skeleton needs a couple of tweaks regarding natural weapons (changes in _italics_):
> 
> _Goop ghouls can wield simple weapons if the skeleton possesses that capability, but can not use any armor. An unarmed goop ghoul can make a slam attack for 1d3 damage, or make a single attack with natural weaponry the skeleton possesses, such as fangs or claws, if such exist. However, due to limitations of the goop ghoul's pseudo-musculature it can do no more than 1d6 damage with such skeletal weaponry, plus Strength bonus._




Is the damage limitation necessary?  I'd rather allow any damage dice, but disallow Strength bonus.  It seems less kludgy.



Cleon said:


> _A goop ghoul using such an improvised armature cannot hold objects or wield a weapon in a normal fashion, but may use melee weapons incorporated into its "skeleton" as natural weapons. Thus, a goop ghoul animating a walking pile of swords and axes can strike with one of its weapon-limbs._




It looks pretty good.  What happens if it has a greataxe, or another two-handed weapon, for a limb?



Cleon said:


> However, there is a point I'd quibble about, the Engulf power is rewritten to "A cure, heal or remove disease spell targeted at the ooze or its victim also makes a goop ghoul withdraw, though such spells cause no harm to the monster" while my version says the spell has to target the *victim*.
> 
> Surely, if you cast a curative spell on the ooze it will result in the goop ghoul getting better, as it's the target of the spell. Why would this make it retreat?




I got the impression that it had an aversion to healing magic.  Honestly, I think the whole bit should be dropped, as it really makes no sense.   I can kind of understand the remove disease, but even that is a bit of a stretch.



Cleon said:


> Also I'm uncertain about you adding cure spells to the list. Am I right in thinking you want any spell of the cure wounds family to repel an engulfing goop ghoul so that low-level characters have a magical means to stop one eating a party-mate?




Yep.  If we stick with the specific spells causing it to recoil, I think the cure spells are far more CR-appropriate than heal.



Cleon said:


> While understandable, I'm not sure why a goop ghoul would not just keep on digesting its victim if they recovered some of their hit points. _Remove Disease_ has more of a rationale to me, since it kills/expunges parasites, and the _Heal _spell also wipes away diseases.




Yeah, I can see that, but I still think it would be better if the goop ghoul itself had some sort of vulnerability to effects that remove disease.



Cleon said:


> How about if the goop ghoul withdraws if the victim receives a spell that opposes its acid or paralytic poison - i.e. _Delay Poison, Remove Paralysis, Resist Energy (Acid) or Protection from Energy (Acid)_? Some of those are pretty low level, and it would seem less arbitrary to me.




Interesting idea.  I'd rather not include the acid resistance effects, but the anti-paralysis concept makes more sense than remove disease.


----------



## freyar (Sep 25, 2008)

Shade said:


> Anyone else have a preference?



Let's go with Medium=2HD, Larger and Smaller as follows from that.  I kind of like the idea that they might become a bigger threat relatively easily.  'Course, a smart party should really hit it while it's splitting. Let's also rewrite Split as follows:

Split (Ex): A goop ghoul of 4 or more HD may split into two goop ghouls as a full-round action.  Each of the two new goop ghouls has half the HD and hp of the original goop ghoul (round down).  

Goop ghouls gain HD in order to reproduce by dissolving Engulfed creatures.  Each Medium creature that the goop ghoul kills while Engulfed allows the goop ghoul to gain 2HD (Small creatures allow it to gain 1HD, Large creatures 4HD).  If a goop ghoul Splits immediately after stripping a creature to its skeleton, one of the two children will generally claim the skeleton for movement purposes.

Note: should we put a size limitation on the creatures that the goop ghoul can Engulf?



> Is the damage limitation necessary?  I'd rather allow any damage dice, but disallow Strength bonus.  It seems less kludgy.



I'm with Shade here.



> It looks pretty good.  What happens if it has a greataxe, or another two-handed weapon, for a limb?



Treat it as being one size too large, so -2 to attack.



> I got the impression that it had an aversion to healing magic.  Honestly, I think the whole bit should be dropped, as it really makes no sense.   I can kind of understand the remove disease, but even that is a bit of a stretch.
> 
> Yep.  If we stick with the specific spells causing it to recoil, I think the cure spells are far more CR-appropriate than heal.
> 
> ...




Maybe anti-poison, anti-disease, anti-paralysis spells?  Doesn't matter too much to me.


----------



## Shade (Sep 25, 2008)

Updated.



freyar said:


> Note: should we put a size limitation on the creatures that the goop ghoul can Engulf?




Yeah, lets limit it to one size category larger.



freyar said:


> Treat it as being one size too large, so -2 to attack.




On second thought, this is probably a non-issue since it becomes a natural weapon.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 25, 2008)

Shade said:


> Is the damage limitation necessary? I'd rather allow any damage dice, but disallow Strength bonus. It seems less kludgy.




  I stuck in the damage limitation (and only one attack) because I didn't really like the idea of a goop ghoul mounting a _Deinonychus_ skeleton and getting a natural weapon more damaging (2d4 bite) than any simple weapon in the SRD, let alone multiple attacks including such weapons. I agree it's a bit of a niche circumstance, so can easily be left out.



Shade said:


> It looks pretty good. What happens if it has a greataxe, or another two-handed weapon, for a limb?




  Good point, I didn't consider that. I'd say it can only use a Light or One Handed weapon as a limb since, it's only got "one arm's worth" of pseudo-muscle attached to it.

  My rationale for it doing less damage with a battleaxe-arm than a skeleton arm wielding a battleaxe. Is that the battleaxe-arm won't articulate well, or have attachment sites & joint leverage like a skeleton-arm would so it seemed appropriate to reduce its damage. A simple damage penalty would be simpler though.

  I guess I wouldn't object too much to it, say, being able to use battleaxes for arms for their default 1d8 damage with the -4 to hit for it only being proficient in simple weapons. The original description indicates its willing to incorporate more complicated weapons (i.e. the "walking pile of swords").



Shade said:


> Interesting idea. I'd rather not include the acid resistance effects, but the anti-paralysis concept makes more sense than remove disease.




  I was thinking that if its victim gains Acid Resistance then the goop ghoul's digestive juices won't work on it properly, so it just instinctively spits it out as inedible. But my main reason was so a low level spell caster can save its victim with a _Resist Energy (Acid)_ spell.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 25, 2008)

freyar said:


> Split (Ex): A goop ghoul of 4 or more HD may split into two goop ghouls as a full-round action.  Each of the two new goop ghouls has half the HD and hp of the original goop ghoul (round down).
> 
> Goop ghouls gain HD in order to reproduce by dissolving Engulfed creatures.  Each Medium creature that the goop ghoul kills while Engulfed allows the goop ghoul to gain 2HD (Small creatures allow it to gain 1HD, Large creatures 4HD).  If a goop ghoul Splits immediately after stripping a creature to its skeleton, one of the two children will generally claim the skeleton for movement purposes.
> 
> Note: should we put a size limitation on the creatures that the goop ghoul can Engulf?




   Both look good to me. I'd put the growth bit in the Engulf description, but it's as good a fit in the Split write-up. I did originally have a size limitation in Engulf of up to one size category larger than itself, but left it out since the original description was a bit vague about whether a goop ghoul could digest a creature too big for it too envelop entirely (it seemed to imply it couldn’t engulf a creature larger than a man, but then it says it could eat an ogre).



freyar said:


> Maybe anti-poison, anti-disease, anti-paralysis spells?  Doesn't matter too much to me.




Works for me, although I like the idea of adding anti-acid it isn't in the original.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 25, 2008)

Shade said:


> It looks pretty good.  What happens if it has a greataxe, or another two-handed weapon, for a limb?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Isn't this a bit of a problem? That means a goop-ghoul is better off walking around with a Great Axe for an arm and the rest of its body a regular skeleton than if it uses two skeleton-arms to wield that same axe. Not having that -4 non-proficiency penalty is quite an advantage for a 'built-in' weapon.

Hmm... that suggests a tactic we could add to the notes. A goop ghoul using sticks and weapons for an armature is too slow to chase down most prey, so it may lie on the ground until a victim comes close enough for it to stand up and attack them. Of course it could "play dead" as a skeleton too, but has less incentive. Not to mention that adventurers often mistrust fully articulated skeletons that just happen to be lying around.


----------



## freyar (Sep 26, 2008)

Shade said:


> On second thought, this is probably a non-issue since it becomes a natural weapon.




Well, for Cleon's reasoning below, I'd still give it some kind of penalty.



Cleon said:


> I stuck in the damage limitation (and only one attack) because I didn't really like the idea of a goop ghoul mounting a _Deinonychus_ skeleton and getting a natural weapon more damaging (2d4 bite) than any simple weapon in the SRD, let alone multiple attacks including such weapons. I agree it's a bit of a niche circumstance, so can easily be left out.



A goop ghoul smart enough to hang around dino skeletons deserves the extra damage,  I say!   



> Good point, I didn't consider that. I'd say it can only use a Light or One Handed weapon as a limb since, it's only got "one arm's worth" of pseudo-muscle attached to it.
> 
> My rationale for it doing less damage with a battleaxe-arm than a skeleton arm wielding a battleaxe. Is that the battleaxe-arm won't articulate well, or have attachment sites & joint leverage like a skeleton-arm would so it seemed appropriate to reduce its damage. A simple damage penalty would be simpler though.
> 
> I guess I wouldn't object too much to it, say, being able to use battleaxes for arms for their default 1d8 damage with the -4 to hit for it only being proficient in simple weapons. The original description indicates its willing to incorporate more complicated weapons (i.e. the "walking pile of swords").



Yeah, I basically agree with this.



> I was thinking that if its victim gains Acid Resistance then the goop ghoul's digestive juices won't work on it properly, so it just instinctively spits it out as inedible. But my main reason was so a low level spell caster can save its victim with a _Resist Energy (Acid)_ spell.




Yeah, I can really go eithe rway on this.



Cleon said:


> Both look good to me. I'd put the growth bit in the Engulf description, but it's as good a fit in the Split write-up. I did originally have a size limitation in Engulf of up to one size category larger than itself, but left it out since the original description was a bit vague about whether a goop ghoul could digest a creature too big for it too envelop entirely (it seemed to imply it couldn’t engulf a creature larger than a man, but then it says it could eat an ogre).




Don't really mind where we put the growth bit.



Cleon said:


> Isn't this a bit of a problem? That means a goop-ghoul is better off walking around with a Great Axe for an arm and the rest of its body a regular skeleton than if it uses two skeleton-arms to wield that same axe. Not having that -4 non-proficiency penalty is quite an advantage for a 'built-in' weapon.
> 
> Hmm... that suggests a tactic we could add to the notes. A goop ghoul using sticks and weapons for an armature is too slow to chase down most prey, so it may lie on the ground until a victim comes close enough for it to stand up and attack them. Of course it could "play dead" as a skeleton too, but has less incentive. Not to mention that adventurers often mistrust fully articulated skeletons that just happen to be lying around.




Interesting tactic.  I do prefer the penalty for two-handed weapons.


----------



## Shade (Sep 26, 2008)

As currently written, the "weapon arms" become natural weapons, and thus no proficiencies (or non-proficiency penalties) apply.  That doesn't mean we can't impose a penalty of other sorts, though.

Here's another thought...what if we treat "weapon arms" as secondary natural attacks?   That would impose a -5 penalty.   Just a thought.

My main hesitation to include resistance to energy (acid) is that, along that line of reasoning, it shouldn't attack acid resistant creatures.  With 1d6 acid damage, it could (albeit slowly) dissolve a creature with resistance to acid 5.  It also can already be compelled to withdraw from a fire attack, so it's not like low-level characters are without options.


----------



## freyar (Sep 26, 2008)

Treating weapon arms as secondary attacks will make me happy, but using natural weapons of skeletons should be primary.

I think I'd agree with that reasoning against using resistance to acid, etc, to drive it off.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 26, 2008)

Shade said:


> As currently written, the "weapon arms" become natural weapons, and thus no proficiencies (or non-proficiency penalties) apply.  That doesn't mean we can't impose a penalty of other sorts, though.
> 
> Here's another thought...what if we treat "weapon arms" as secondary natural attacks?   That would impose a -5 penalty.   Just a thought.
> 
> My main hesitation to include resistance to energy (acid) is that, along that line of reasoning, it shouldn't attack acid resistant creatures.  With 1d6 acid damage, it could (albeit slowly) dissolve a creature with resistance to acid 5.  It also can already be compelled to withdraw from a fire attack, so it's not like low-level characters are without options.




OK, I'm not that fussed about the Acid resistance idea or the natural weapons damage cap, so why don't we just throw those ideas out.

As for the incorporated weapon-arm bit, I'd prefer to leave it with Strength adjustments (if any) and say it can use any Light or One Handed weapon with a competence penalty (-2 for Light? -4 for One-Handed?) on the attack roll, to reflect its clumsiness without a proper skeleton. I'd prefer it if they could not use 2-handed weapons in this fashion. Consider how ungainly it'd be fighting with a great-axe for an arm and longswords for legs. That's something like a human fencing with an ax-headed overweight crutch while both their legs are in plaster.


----------



## Shade (Sep 26, 2008)

Fair enough.  Updated.

Ready for skills and feats?

Skills: 5
Feats: 1


----------



## Cleon (Sep 26, 2008)

Shade said:


> Fair enough.  Updated.
> 
> Ready for skills and feats?
> 
> ...





Shouldn't we drop the "However, due to limitations of the goop ghoul's pseudo-musculature, it gains no Strength bonus when using the skeleton's natural or manufactured weaponry" from the second paragraph of Attach to Skeleton?

The rest of it looks fine at first sight.

As for Skills, my first guess is falling back to that old standby Spot.


----------



## Shade (Sep 26, 2008)

Sounds good.  Updated.

Improved Initiative for the feat?

Advancement: x

CR: 1?


----------



## Cleon (Sep 26, 2008)

Shade said:


> Sounds good.  Updated.
> 
> Improved Initiative for the feat?
> 
> ...




I wondered about suggesting Improved Initiative in my last post but started thinking "we always end up giving these beasties Improved Initiative, why can't we give them something different" but was then lost for ideas, and ended up forgetting about it. How about a weapon-related feat.although with its low-mediocre Str, Dex & Int it's not eligible for many. What do you think of Weapon Focus (Morningstar), or whatever other simple weapon we give it as a default?

Advancement should be 3 HD (Medium). Any larger and it Splits, remember.

Its paralysis ability might bump it up to CR 2.


----------



## Shade (Sep 26, 2008)

Cleon said:


> I wondered about suggesting Improved Initiative in my last post but started thinking "we always end up giving these beasties Improved Initiative, why can't we give them something different" but was then lost for ideas, and ended up forgetting about it. How about a weapon-related feat.although with its low-mediocre Str, Dex & Int it's not eligible for many. What do you think of Weapon Focus (Morningstar), or whatever other simple weapon we give it as a default?




The problem is that I don't see them as "riding" a particular skeleton very long, so the weapon in question might change.

On the other hand, Weapon Focus (claw) might work, as they'll likely gain claw attacks from most skeletons.

Actually, Weapon Focus (slam) might be best, as it needs to actually hit a victim in order to utilize its paralysis, which leads to the enfulf and skeletal body in the first place.  



Cleon said:


> Advancement should be 3 HD (Medium). Any larger and it Splits, remember.
> 
> Its paralysis ability might bump it up to CR 2.




Good points.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 26, 2008)

Shade said:


> The problem is that I don't see them as "riding" a particular skeleton very long, so the weapon in question might change.
> 
> On the other hand, Weapon Focus (claw) might work, as they'll likely gain claw attacks from most skeletons.
> 
> Actually, Weapon Focus (slam) might be best, as it needs to actually hit a victim in order to utilize its paralysis, which leads to the enfulf and skeletal body in the first place.




Yes, I did worry about it not sticking to one weapon - I suppose it could pick up its old weapon after it switches bones, but Weapon Focus (Slam) would be more useful as its default Feat. Did we ever decide for sure whether it paralysed with its weapon blows or just its Slam attack? The original description was vague about whether all its attacks could paralyze or not, it'd just need to cover its weapon in anaesthetising slime, and we know it has the ability to do so since when it's a "walking pile of longswords and handaxes" it has to cover these weapons in its body to move.

What about its size & weight. We know its 4' in diameter, and I'm guessing it'd be two or three inches thick. Scaling down the SRD oozes that would give it a weight range of 37-199 pounds, with the middle being around 120 pounds.

Actually, I'd prefer an even lower weigh, say 75 or 80 lbs? It doesn't seem that bulky a beast - I imagine it as being very thin, stretchy and tough, so it looks more skeletal than fleshy when its 'wearing' a set of bones.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 27, 2008)

Shade said:


> Sounds good.  Updated.




Okay, I've given the Updated stat-block a closer look and there are some errors.

The attack damage seem to be from the previous monster - slam +1 melee (1d6 plus 1d6 acid plus paralysis), since goop ghouls don't add acid damage and have weapon-use as well. How about the sample goop ghoul using the Morningstar I proposed earlier? I'm also wondering whether 1d6 is too much slam damage for such a lightweight Ooze, so downgrade it to d4? That would make it:

Attack/Full Attack: Morningstar +1 melee (1d8 plus paralysis) or Slam +2 melee (1d4 plus paralysis)

Note this includes your proposed Weapon Focus (Slam) and my preference of the goop ghoul coating its weapons with anaesthetising slime. (Speaking of that, if it doesn't slime-coat weapons its skeleton holds that would be another advantage of incorporating artificial weapons into its skeletons, since it could paralyse foes by punching them with handax, ah "hands".)

The Special Attacks also look like they're left over from a previous monster - adhesive and explosive acid? Our current list is:

Special Attacks: Attach to skeleton, engulf, paralysis, split

That's assuming we don't stick Attach to Skeleton in Special Qualities, were it may make more sense ... nah, it includes weapon-use, so belongs in Attacks.

Oh, and I like the name "Splitlings" for a small group of goop ghouls.


----------



## freyar (Sep 28, 2008)

I expect that most of the errors are just copy-and-pastes that haven't been changed yet.

I like the idea of "sliming" the weapons to provide paralysis.  I think I'd put claw in the attack line, though.

The suggested weight, etc, sounds good.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 28, 2008)

freyar said:


> I expect that most of the errors are just copy-and-pastes that haven't been changed yet.
> 
> I like the idea of "sliming" the weapons to provide paralysis.  I think I'd put claw in the attack line, though.
> 
> The suggested weight, etc, sounds good.




Ta, yes I was assuming it was the dreaded copy-and-paste error too.

As for the claw attack, it works for for. An undead human warrior's skeleton does 1d4 damage, same as the goop ghoul's slam, so it makes no difference damage wise. Should we apply the critters Weapon Focus to its claw attack? I'm guessing it spends a lot of its time using natural weaponry of the skeletons it rides. That'd make it:

*Attack/Full Attack:* Morningstar +1 melee (1d8 plus paralysis) or Claw +2 melee (1d4 plus paralysis)[Human skeleton] or Slam +1 melee (1d4 plus paralysis)[Ooze pseudopod]


----------



## Shade (Sep 29, 2008)

Updated.

Let's stick with Weapon Focus (slam), as it really needs to hit with its original form.  If you'd like, we could give it Weapon Focus (claw) as a bonus feat, and note in the flavor text that a goop ghoul instinctively knows how to use a skeleton's natural weaponry effectively.


----------



## freyar (Sep 29, 2008)

Shade said:


> Updated.
> 
> Let's stick with Weapon Focus (slam), as it really needs to hit with its original form.  If you'd like, we could give it Weapon Focus (claw) as a bonus feat, and note in the flavor text that a goop ghoul instinctively knows how to use a skeleton's natural weaponry effectively.



That sounds like the right approach.  In fact, does it have to take WF (claw) as a bonus feat since it doesn't actually have a claw?


----------



## Cleon (Sep 30, 2008)

Shade said:


> Updated.
> 
> Let's stick with Weapon Focus (slam), as it really needs to hit with its original form.  If you'd like, we could give it Weapon Focus (claw) as a bonus feat, and note in the flavor text that a goop ghoul instinctively knows how to use a skeleton's natural weaponry effectively.




Two Weapon Focus feats with one as a bonus feat would work for me, I'd think having Weapon Focus (slam) as the bonus makes more sense as the goop ghoul is more likely to be inherently/instinctively good with its pseudopod and then learn how to be good with claws.

After a look at your update there's a minor formatting error on the attach line (no closing bracket after the slam attack) and I don't think we need the "fused weapon" bit after the morningstar since don't goop ghouls usually wield weapons normally using their skeleton's hands.

That'd make it:

*Attack:* Slam +2 melee (1d4 plus paralysis) or claw +2 melee (1d4 plus paralysis)[Human skeleton] or morningstar +1 melee (1d8 plus paralysis)
*Feats:* Weapon Focus (claw), Weapon Focus (slam)B


----------



## Shade (Sep 30, 2008)

freyar said:


> That sounds like the right approach.  In fact, does it have to take WF (claw) as a bonus feat since it doesn't actually have a claw?




Yeah, I don't believe it can take the feat for that very reason.  But a bonus feat seems possible with only a slight stretch of reason.



Cleon said:


> Two Weapon Focus feats with one as a bonus feat would work for me, I'd think having Weapon Focus (slam) as the bonus makes more sense as the goop ghoul is more likely to be inherently/instinctively good with its pseudopod and then learn how to be good with claws.




See above.  I don't believe it can actually take the feat since it doesn't possess a claw in its natural form.  A bonus feat seems more likely.  The end result is the same, though, so we shouldn't worry too much about it.



Cleon said:


> After a look at your update there's a minor formatting error on the attach line (no closing bracket after the slam attack) and I don't think we need the "fused weapon" bit after the morningstar since don't goop ghouls usually wield weapons normally using their skeleton's hands.
> 
> That'd make it:
> 
> ...




The "fused weapon" text is probably poor wording, but I do feel we need to note how it is wielding a morningstar, as it can't do so in its natural form.  How about "morningstar +1 melee (1d8 plus paralysis)[wielded as human skeleton]"?


----------



## freyar (Sep 30, 2008)

I thought the morningstar was used in the "pile of weapons" form.  I think I am a touch confused here.


----------



## Shade (Sep 30, 2008)

freyar said:


> I thought the morningstar was used in the "pile of weapons" form.  I think I am a touch confused here.




Ahh...OK, I was a bit confused.

The original text seemed to indicate that a goop ghoul that took over a skeleton would often keep its weapons.


----------



## freyar (Sep 30, 2008)

Shade said:


> Ahh...OK, I was a bit confused.
> 
> The original text seemed to indicate that a goop ghoul that took over a skeleton would often keep its weapons.



That's also true.  I guess we need to decide which weapon we're writing up (or should we add another option for the pile of weapons form?).


----------



## Cleon (Sep 30, 2008)

Shade said:


> The "fused weapon" text is probably poor wording, but I do feel we need to note how it is wielding a morningstar, as it can't do so in its natural form.  How about "morningstar +1 melee (1d8 plus paralysis)[wielded as human skeleton]"?




So something like this?

*Attack:* Slam +2 melee (1d4 plus paralysis) or claw +2 melee (1d4 plus paralysis)[using human skeleton] or morningstar +1 melee (1d8 plus paralysis)[using human skeleton] or morningstar -3 melee (1d8 plus paralysis)['pile of weapons' form]

That's a bit messy, but appears to cover all the options.


----------



## Shade (Sep 30, 2008)

That works!  And with that, I believe we are done.

Check the latest update once more.


----------



## freyar (Oct 1, 2008)

I believe I'm happy with that.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 1, 2008)

Shade said:


> That works!  And with that, I believe we are done.
> 
> Check the latest update once more.




I could only find a few minor problems with it.

Firstly, the Attach to Skeleton lists a different slam damage to the stat-block:
Goop ghouls can wield simple weapons if the skeleton possesses that capability, but cannot use any armor. An unarmed goop ghoul can make a slam attack for *1d3* damage, or make a single attack with natural weaponry the skeleton possesses, such as fangs or claws.​So we need to change either the description or the stack block (personally I prefer the 1d3 damage slam). I'm also tempted to mention that it's with an ooze's pseudopod, like this:
Goop ghouls can wield simple weapons if the skeleton possesses that capability, but cannot use any armor. An unarmed goop ghoul can make a slam attack with a pseudopod for 1d3 damage, or make a single attack with natural weaponry the skeleton possesses, such as fangs or claws.​Secondly, I'd prefer the words _remove paralysis_ and _remove disease_ in the Engulf write-up to be _italicized_, to follow the normal D&D formatting for spell names.

Thirdly, the "A goop ghoul may coat any weapons assumed into its form or wielded by a skeleton it controls as a free(?) action." is a good addition. Free action is fine by me, so shall we drop the question mark.


----------



## Shade (Oct 1, 2008)

Cleon said:


> Firstly, the Attach to Skeleton lists a different slam damage to the stat-block:
> Goop ghouls can wield simple weapons if the skeleton possesses that capability, but cannot use any armor. An unarmed goop ghoul can make a slam attack for *1d3* damage, or make a single attack with natural weaponry the skeleton possesses, such as fangs or claws.​So we need to change either the description or the stack block (personally I prefer the 1d3 damage slam). I'm also tempted to mention that it's with an ooze's pseudopod, like this:
> Goop ghouls can wield simple weapons if the skeleton possesses that capability, but cannot use any armor. An unarmed goop ghoul can make a slam attack with a pseudopod for 1d3 damage, or make a single attack with natural weaponry the skeleton possesses, such as fangs or claws.​




No need to mention the slam damage again if it's on the attack lines, and I'm fine with 1d3 damage. 



Cleon said:


> Secondly, I'd prefer the words _remove paralysis_ and _remove disease_ in the Engulf write-up to be _italicized_, to follow the normal D&D formatting for spell names.




Since the Homebrews posts are simply waiting spots until they get uploaded to the Creature Catalogue, I generally don't pay too much attention to formatting until I upload 'em. (Mostly because formatting is lost in the cut and paste, and I need to add html tags for italics and so forth). At that point, I'm very critical of proper formatting.  



Cleon said:


> Thirdly, the "A goop ghoul may coat any weapons assumed into its form or wielded by a skeleton it controls as a free(?) action." is a good addition. Free action is fine by me, so shall we drop the question mark.




Will do.

Updated.


----------



## freyar (Oct 1, 2008)

Our first creepy of the month!


----------



## Cleon (Oct 1, 2008)

Shade said:


> No need to mention the slam damage again if it's on the attack lines, and I'm fine with 1d3 damage.
> 
> Updated.




Right, I think that's the goop ghoul done then.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 1, 2008)

freyar said:


> Our first creepy of the month!




So does that mean Shade will present us with something Ooky for our next conversion?


----------



## freyar (Oct 1, 2008)

Cleon said:


> So does that mean Shade will present us with something Ooky for our next conversion?



I expect so.  He's promised that the next ooze will be suitably vile.


----------



## Shade (Oct 1, 2008)

It's ooky and its kooky (and quite a bit gooey)!

*Necromantic Sludge*
CLIMATE/TERRAIN: Sewers
Frequency: Uncommon
Organization: Pack
Activity Cycle: Any
Diet: Life energy
Intelligence: Low
Treasure: C (incidental)
Alignment: Neutral Evil
NO. APPEARING: 1-6
ARMOR CLASS: 10, 8 as zombie
MOVEMENT 1, 6 as zombie
HIT DICE: 4+2
THAC0: 17
NO. OF ATTACKS: 1
DAMAGE/ATTACK: 1d4+2 and poison, 1d8 as zombie
SPECIAL ATTACKS: Nil
SPECIAL DEFENSES: See below
MAGIC RESISTANCE: See below
SIZE: M (4’ diameter)
MORALE: Elite (14)
XP VALUE: 975

Necromantic Sludge is a black puddle of vile goo, an accidental byproduct of the necromancers experiments in the pursuit of extended existence. Rather than creating potions that could transform him into an undying lich, the necromancer ended up with this foul mess, which he dumped into the sewer.

Combat: Necromantic sludge can sense sentient humanoid life within 100 yards, and it attacks relentlessly with little regard for its own safety, seeking to feed on the life energy of its victims, This keen perception makes it impossible to surprise the monstrous goo. 

Necromantic sludge is poisonous to the touch, and casual contact inflicts 1 hp damage per round. In melee, the sludge lashes out with a pseudopod, inflicting 1d4+2 hp damage per successful strike. If the sludge slays an opponent, it attaches itself to the body to be absorbed through the skin, which turns dark gray within one round, regardless of the victim’s original skin color. The body becomes a zombie in all respects, under the control of the sludge. After a few months, the decaying zombie body is discarded, unless a fresh body is encountered earlier. Necromantic sludge reflects spells as a ring of spell turning, except that it reflects 100% of a spell’s or magical item’s effect. The sludge is vulnerable to normal weapons, but magical attack and damage bonuses are not counted. In zombie form, the sludge sometimes employs a weapon, but like normal zombies, it inflicts 1d8 hp damage regardless of whether it uses a weapon.

Habitat/Society: Necromantic sludge exists only in the sewers, close to the old necromancer’s lair, but lately some has been because of their singular behavior, but some speculate that they attack because of some nameless necromantic urge to destroy life. Others suggest that necromantic sludge attacks because of an urge to fulfill its “purpose” of bestowing undeath on its creator. Groups of necromantic sludge display some intelligence in the way they interact. They employ crude tactics sometimes, with one sludge lying still upon a sewer floor while in zombie form, with the others lurking nearby to attack when foolish intruders investigate the “corpse.”

Ecology: These monsters have little place in the noisome food chain of the sewers, since they can subsist only on humanoid lifeforce. They never bother mundane animals or other monsters, unless attacked. Since they are composed of magical, inedible slime, they are not themselves preyed upon by other spawn of the sewers.

Originally appeared in Dragon Magazine #238 (1997).


----------



## Shade (Oct 1, 2008)

> Combat: Necromantic sludge can sense sentient humanoid life within 100 yards, and it attacks relentlessly with little regard for its own safety, seeking to feed on the life energy of its victims, This keen perception makes it impossible to surprise the monstrous goo.




Lifesense rather than blindsight?



> Necromantic sludge is poisonous to the touch, and casual contact inflicts 1 hp damage per round.




Contact poison or acid?  



> In melee, the sludge lashes out with a pseudopod, inflicting 1d4+2 hp damage per successful strike. If the sludge slays an opponent, it attaches itself to the body to be absorbed through the skin, which turns dark gray within one round, regardless of the victim’s original skin color. The body becomes a zombie in all respects, under the control of the sludge. After a few months, the decaying zombie body is discarded, unless a fresh body is encountered earlier.




I think the normal zombie template should suffice.



> Necromantic sludge reflects spells as a ring of spell turning, except that it reflects 100% of a spell’s or magical item’s effect.




Something like the nerra's reflective spell resistance?



> The sludge is vulnerable to normal weapons, but magical attack and damage bonuses are not counted.




Interesting…


----------



## freyar (Oct 1, 2008)

4HD Medium ooze.  Gray ooze at 3HD has Str 12, Dex 1, Con 21, Int —, Wis 1, Cha 1.  Basing the +2 damage on Str, maybe Str 14, Dex 1, Con 18, Int 3, Wis 8, Cha 7?  I'm guessing Wis and Cha to be a little low based on low Int.  I'm also not sure Con should be quite as high as gray given the bonus hp in the original.  Low Dex is fitting for something that makes zombies.



> Necromantic sludge is poisonous to the touch, and casual contact inflicts 1 hp damage per round.



How do we want to handle this?  A wounding ability but via some kind of caustic sludge?


----------



## freyar (Oct 1, 2008)

Oops, missed your second post on this.  Lifesense is fine, reflective spell resistance is fine, regular zombie is fine.  See above for my take on the "poison."  The magic weapon resistance is indeed interesting.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 1, 2008)

freyar said:


> 4HD Medium ooze.  Gray ooze at 3HD has Str 12, Dex 1, Con 21, Int —, Wis 1, Cha 1.  Basing the +2 damage on Str, maybe Str 14, Dex 1, Con 18, Int 3, Wis 8, Cha 7?  I'm guessing Wis and Cha to be a little low based on low Int.  I'm also not sure Con should be quite as high as gray given the bonus hp in the original.  Low Dex is fitting for something that makes zombies.




Four Hit Dice is good, as is Shade's proposal of Lifesense.

They've got Low intelligence (5-7 in old AD&D terms) so I'd give them more than Int 3. Say Int 7, for the sake of argument, with maybe a high Wis as they've got "keen perception" - Wis 13?

That would make them:

Str 14, Dex 1, Con 18, Int 7, Wis 13, Cha 7



freyar said:


> How do we want to handle this?  A wounding ability but via some kind of caustic sludge?




I'd go for acid touch rather than poison.

As you say, ignoring magical weapons bonuses is an interesting trait. How does it cancel out bonuses to hit it I wonder? Presumably it is somehow connected to its spell reflection power.

How does it feed on humanoid life energy, there's no mention of energy drain or Vampiric Touch type HP drain?

How does this zombie power work. Must attackers destroy the zombie before damaging the Necromantic Sludge? If the body becomes a zombie "in all respects" does that include the zombie's sluggishness, so it gets the "Single Actions Only" of a 3E D&D zombie or the "always loses initiative" of an AD&D zombie?


----------



## freyar (Oct 2, 2008)

Those stats are good.

I like the continuing hp loss mechanic for the acid touch, though, so I'd like to go with something like the bearded devil here.  Maybe
Caustic Wound (Ex): The touch of the necromantic sludge is highly caustic.  Any creature that touches a necromantic sludge (or makes a successful natural or unarmed attack against a necromantic sludge), including taking damage from the sludge's slam attack, takes 1 point of acid damage each round afterward.  This continuing damage can be stopped by a cure spell, heal spell, or a DC X Heal check.

That can probably be tidied up.

I'd really say just use a regular zombie.  As for hp, I could see either giving the zombie its own hp (representing the integrity of the corpse) or having attacks directly damage the sludge.  Thoughts?


----------



## Shade (Oct 2, 2008)

Good stuff so far.  Added the basics to Homebrews.


----------



## freyar (Oct 2, 2008)

Looks like a good framework.  Should the Heal DC for caustic wound be fixed or Con-based?


----------



## Cleon (Oct 2, 2008)

freyar said:


> Those stats are good.
> 
> I like the continuing hp loss mechanic for the acid touch, though, so I'd like to go with something like the bearded devil here. Maybe
> Caustic Wound (Ex): The touch of the necromantic sludge is highly caustic. Any creature that touches a necromantic sludge (or makes a successful natural or unarmed attack against a necromantic sludge), including taking damage from the sludge's slam attack, takes 1 point of acid damage each round afterward. This continuing damage can be stopped by a cure spell, heal spell, or a DC X Heal check.




How about having this HP damage/round be how the monster feeds on lifeforce. Say, make it a Supernatural power and note that the damage provides nourishment for the sludge if they're from a humanoid victim? If you like that tack, it would be better to rename the power to something like "Necromantic Touch".



freyar said:


> Looks like a good framework.  Should the Heal DC for caustic wound be fixed or Con-based?




Might as well be Con & HD based, so a tougher sludge is harder to remove from its victim.


----------



## Shade (Oct 2, 2008)

Cleon said:


> How about having this HP damage/round be how the monster feeds on lifeforce. Say, make it a Supernatural power and note that the damage provides nourishment for the sludge if they're from a humanoid victim? If you like that tack, it would be better to rename the power to something like "Necromantic Touch".




I like this idea.  Maybe deal negative energy damage, and for every 5 points dealt, the sludge heals 1 hp (or gains 1 temporary hp if at max already), like the ability drain of many undead?



Cleon said:


> Might as well be Con & HD based, so a tougher sludge is harder to remove from its victim.




Agreed.  I prefer scaling DCs.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 3, 2008)

Shade said:


> I like this idea.  Maybe deal negative energy damage, and for every 5 points dealt, the sludge heals 1 hp (or gains 1 temporary hp if at max already), like the ability drain of many undead?




Works for me.


----------



## freyar (Oct 3, 2008)

I like the necromantic touch with healing suggested by Shade, too.

By Con-based, I meant the usual 10+HD/2+Con bonus.  And that works for me.


----------



## Shade (Oct 3, 2008)

Updated.

Shall we work on the "zombify" ability?

Here's a start...

"Zombify" (Su):  As a full-round action, a necromantic sludge can flow into the skin of a slain opponent.  The victim gains the zombie template for as long as the necromantic sludge inhabits it.  The necromantic sludge may discard the body at any time (another full-round action), at which point it becomes an inanimate corpse again.

While controlling a zombie, all damage directed at the creature is absorbed by the zombie first.  Targeted spells may not be directed at the sludge, but can be directed at the zombie.   If the zombie sustains enough damage in a single attack to destroy it, any remaining damage is transferred to the sludge.  The zombie does not benefit from the sludge's reflective spell resistance.

The necromantic sludge uses its own mental ability scores while controlling the zombie.  It may wield weapons with the zombie body, and is considered proficient in all simple weapons.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 3, 2008)

Shade said:


> Updated.
> 
> Shall we work on the "zombify" ability?
> 
> ...




The mechanics look fine to me. I'd specify that it only works on Humanoid corpses though.


----------



## Shade (Oct 3, 2008)

Let's revisit this...



> Necromantic sludge reflects spells as a ring of spell turning, except that it reflects 100% of a spell’s or magical item’s effect.




Here are a few existing creatures with similar mechanics.

Spell Reflection (Ex): Any spell or effect that targets the mirror mephit and does not overcome its SR is reflected directly back at the caster or the user of the item that generated it. This new target is entitled to a saving throw if the effect permits one. Area spells are never reflected unless they are visual effects, such as color spray. In this case, only the portion of the area that surrounds the mirror mephit is reflected; all other creatures in the area are affected normally.

Reflective Spell Resistance (Sp): A nerra has a special type of spell resistance that causes any targeted spell it successfully resists to bounce off and reflect back at the caster. The caster becomes either the spell's target or the point of origin for the spell's effect, as appropriate. In addition, nerras are immune to gaze attacks, and such an effect is reflected back to its origin.


For starters, I'm not fond of the fact that the nerra's is spell-like.  I think the mirror mephit's could work, if we leave out the visual effect part.

Alternatively, we could give it a new ability, and simply state that it functions as the spell turning spell, with no limits on spell levels.

Preferences?


----------



## Cleon (Oct 4, 2008)

Shade said:


> Let's revisit this...
> 
> Here are a few existing creatures with similar mechanics.
> 
> ...




The latter option (as the spell with no level limits) is the closest to the original text, but it's a potent ability for a 4 HD monster.

I'll vote for something like the mephit's Spell Reflection, although with it "Supernatural" rather than "Extraordinary".


----------



## freyar (Oct 6, 2008)

Zombify works for me, too.

I think I also agree with the mirror mephit version.  Change to Su and drop the visual effects bit.  What kind of SR should we give this thing?


----------



## Shade (Oct 6, 2008)

Since it was originally assumed to essentially auto-succeed, we could either give it a really high SR (like CR + 15), or just change the ability to something like this...

Spell Reflection (Su): Any spell or effect that targets the necromantic sludge is reflected directly back at the caster or the user of the item that generated it. This new target is entitled to a saving throw if the effect permits one. Area spells are never reflected.


----------



## freyar (Oct 6, 2008)

Looks good to me.  One last thing on zombify: should we specify that a "zombie" reduced to 0 hp is hacked to pieces or something and unsuitable for another use as a "zombie vehicle"?

If we're fine with the names zombify and spell reflection, I say we move on to skills and feats.  I'd suggest maxing Spot.  For feats, maybe Weapon Focus (slam) and maybe Iron Will?


----------



## Shade (Oct 6, 2008)

freyar said:


> Looks good to me.  One last thing on zombify: should we specify that a "zombie" reduced to 0 hp is hacked to pieces or something and unsuitable for another use as a "zombie vehicle"?




An excellent suggestion!



freyar said:


> If we're fine with the names zombify and spell reflection, I say we move on to skills and feats.  I'd suggest maxing Spot.  For feats, maybe Weapon Focus (slam) and maybe Iron Will?




Before moving on, we still need to tackle its odd ability to negate magical weapon bonuses.

Maybe something like a personal-range antimagic field?  Particularly this bit:  "Furthermore, while a magic sword does not function magically within the area, it is still a sword (and a masterwork sword at that)."


----------



## Cleon (Oct 6, 2008)

freyar said:


> Looks good to me.  One last thing on zombify: should we specify that a "zombie" reduced to 0 hp is hacked to pieces or something and unsuitable for another use as a "zombie vehicle"?




Well a regular zombie can't be reanimated once destroyed, going by the Animate Dead spell, so it's arguably unnecessary. No harm in restating it if you want to.



freyar said:


> If we're fine with the names zombify and spell reflection, I say we move on to skills and feats. I'd suggest maxing Spot. For feats, maybe Weapon Focus (slam) and maybe Iron Will?




I'd go for giving it a high Spell Resistance for its level - SR 18? - rather than automatic reflection. 

As for feats, Weapon Focus (slam) looks good but I'm not so sure about Iron Will. Lightning Reflexes or Improved Initiative would be of more use, considering the sludge has only got Dex 1.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 6, 2008)

Shade said:


> Before moving on, we still need to tackle its odd ability to negate magical weapon bonuses.
> 
> Maybe something like a personal-range antimagic field?  Particularly this bit:  "Furthermore, while a magic sword does not function magically within the area, it is still a sword (and a masterwork sword at that)."




Well obviously it can't be a full antimagic field, since that would make it immune to all sorts of magic, including spells.

How about this:

Quell Enhancement (Su) - A necromantic sludge ignores any enhancement bonus of weapons used against it. Thus, a _+3 longsword_ is effectively just a masterwork longsword when attacking the creature. This protection extends to corpses the sludge is animating with its Zombify power.


----------



## Shade (Oct 6, 2008)

Sounds good.  Do we want to extend the quelling to additional magical weapon properties as well, such as keen or shock?   We should also negate enhancement bonuses to natural weapons, such as that provided by magic fang.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 7, 2008)

Shade said:


> Sounds good.  Do we want to extend the quelling to additional magical weapon properties as well, such as keen or shock?   We should also negate enhancement bonuses to natural weapons, such as that provided by magic fang.




I'd say it only works against straight enhancement bonuses. There's no mention of it being immune to other magical weapon properties in the original text, and that's a pretty powerful ability to add to the sludge. I agree that it should cover natural weapons. How about revising the power description to:

Quell Enhancement (Su) - A necromantic sludge ignores any enhancement bonus on weapons used against it, including natural weapons. Thus, a _+3 longsword_ is effectively just a masterwork longsword when attacking the creature, and the _magic fang_ spell provides no enhancement bonus to a natural weapon's attack or damage rolls against this monster. This protection extends to corpses the sludge is animating with its Zombify power.


----------



## Shade (Oct 7, 2008)

Cleon said:


> I'd say it only works against straight enhancement bonuses. There's no mention of it being immune to other magical weapon properties in the original text, and that's a pretty powerful ability to add to the sludge.




The original text probably didn't include it since additional weapon properties weren't really an option in earlier editions (except as special items like flame tongues and frost brands).  However, I'm fine with simply negating enhancement bonuses only.

 I agree that it should cover natural weapons. How about revising the power description to:



Cleon said:


> Quell Enhancement (Su) - A necromantic sludge ignores any enhancement bonus on weapons used against it, including natural weapons. Thus, a _+3 longsword_ is effectively just a masterwork longsword when attacking the creature, and the _magic fang_ spell provides no enhancement bonus to a natural weapon's attack or damage rolls against this monster. This protection extends to corpses the sludge is animating with its Zombify power.




Looks good. 

Updated.


Challenge Rating: 5?  They are tougher than a gray ooze at CR 4.

Treasure: Standard?  (Type "C" has a good mix and quantity)

Advancement: x


----------



## freyar (Oct 7, 2008)

I'm fine with the CR (wow, unusual CR>HD) and treasure.  How about Advancement: 5-6 HD (Medium), 7-12 HD (Large)?


----------



## Shade (Oct 7, 2008)

Updated.

Anything left?


----------



## freyar (Oct 8, 2008)

I'm happy with it if Cleon is.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 8, 2008)

freyar said:


> I'm happy with it if Cleon is.




Hmm, well there's one error in the stat block. The Hit Dice should be 4d10+16 (38), from four Ooze dice with Con 18.

As for Challenge Rating, I'd prefer CR 4. It's very resistant to magical attacks for its HD, but can be hacked/shot apart by mundane combatants pretty easily with its low AC. It's comparable to a fragile golem, if you like, who tend to have CR of around 75-90% of their Hit Dice. Its one of those monsters that can be very party-dependent, it would be very nasty against a spellcaster-strong party but .

Using Gray Oozes as a CR comparison doesn't work for me, since I feel that monster has an exaggerated Challenge Rating - going by their stats I feel gray oozes should be a CR 3.

Also, what if its riding a zombie? Should we add zombie-walking to its speed, a note about it "zombie buffer" hp to its Hit Dice and a simple weapon to its Attacks? Not to mention that it gets a zombie's natural armour. Hmm, it's probably better just to add a sub-stat block.

When riding a zombie commoner:
Speed: 30 ft. (6 squares; can't run)
Armor Class: 7 (-5 Dex, +2 natural), touch 5, flat-footed 7
Hit Dice: 4d10+32 (54) [Includes 16 hp buffer from zombie commoner's 2d12+3 hit dice]
Attacks: Slam +6 melee (1d6+2 plus necromantic sludge) or club +5 melee (1d6+2)


----------



## freyar (Oct 8, 2008)

CR 4 is also ok by me.

But I thought the point of using real zombies as the basis of "zombify" was to avoid the need for an extra statblock?


----------



## Shade (Oct 8, 2008)

Cleon, nice catch on the Hit Dice line.  I'm not sure where that came from.  



freyar said:


> CR 4 is also ok by me.




OK, I'm convinced.



freyar said:


> But I thought the point of using real zombies as the basis of "zombify" was to avoid the need for an extra statblock?




Exactly.  I'd prefer to not clutter the statblock with an array of possibilities.

Updated.


----------



## freyar (Oct 8, 2008)

Once again, I think it looks pretty good.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 8, 2008)

Shade said:


> Cleon, nice catch on the Hit Dice line.  I'm not sure where that came from.




Presumably it carried over with a copy-and-paste, it often happens.



Shade said:


> Exactly.  I'd prefer to not clutter the statblock with an array of possibilities.
> 
> Updated.




Does that mean a "sludge zombie" just uses a regular zombies stats, including attacks, with the addition of quell enchantment?

I'd rather the zombie had the sludge's reflective spell resistance too, since without it a sludge using Zombify is fairly easy to damage with an attack spell's overspill. Also, if the sludge can't use the sludge's Necromantic Touch through a zombie it makes it a lot harder for the creature to feed.

I'm not thinking of changing the main statblock, but adding a minor stat-block in Zombify that lists the changes applied to a corpse-riding sludge, similar to the sub-block that's sometimes used to give the stats for a Barbarian-class monster while Berserk.

It just seems the easiest and clearest solution to me.


----------



## Shade (Oct 8, 2008)

Fair enough.  Updated.


----------



## freyar (Oct 8, 2008)

The problem I see with the "mini-stat-block" is that it's not small changes to the sludge stat-block, it's really small changes to a zombie stat-block.  However, I'm happy to add necro touch and reflective spell resistance to the zombie, too.

Edit: I see that Shade added a zombie human.  That's fine!  Typos in that stat-block: the slam damage should be "plus necromantic touch" not "necromantic sludge."  There should also be an SQ line for Quell Enhancement (and possibly for reflective SR).


----------



## Shade (Oct 9, 2008)

Updated.

I removed the limitation on spell reflection where the zombie form didn't get it.

Anything else?


----------



## freyar (Oct 9, 2008)

It's fine by me.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 10, 2008)

Sorry for the delay, have been busy with work.

The latest update is fine by me, so it looks like the necromantic sludge is finished.

What do we have up next, Shade?


----------



## Shade (Oct 10, 2008)

This one may not actually end up being an ooze, but it is the most horrific of the remaining ones earmarked as possible oozes.

*Black Slime*
CLIMATE/TERRAIN: Ocean surface
FREQUENCY: Rare
ORGANIZATION: Colony
ACTIVITY CYCLE: Any
DIET: Omnivore
INTELLIGENCE: Non- (0)
TREASURE: Nil
ALIGNMENT: Neutral
NO. APPEARING: 1-4
ARMOR CLASS: 9
MOVEMENT: 0
HIT DICE: 2
THAC0: 19
NO. OF ATTACKS: 0
DAMAGE/ATTACK: Nil
SPECIAL ATTACKS: See below
SPECIAL DEFENSES: See below
MAGIC RESISTANCE: Nil
SIZE: S (1'-4')
MORALE: Average (10)
XP VALUE: 175

Also called oil slime, black slime is an aquatic version of the colony creature known to subterranean explorers as green slime. Looking much like a small oil slick, black slime floats on the top of the ocean, attacking creatures with which it comes into contact. It has no means of self-propulsion, moving about only at the whims of the winds and the waves.

Combat: Like both green and olive slime, black slime attacks all living matter that it touches, absorbing it into itself and creating more slime in the process. Any living creature, whether plant or animal, that brushes against the black slime colony finds slime adhering to itself. Within four rounds, that creature turns into slime. However, unlike both green and olive slime, black slime has a limited ability to change its basic shape-it can form strands that float below the surface of the ocean.  These strands act like the tentacles of a jellyfish, allowing the slime to adhere to any fish that might pass beneath it.

Black slime attacks anything touching its upper surface as well. A swimmer bumping into a floating patch of black slime finds himself coated in the stuff, as does a sea bird landing in it.

If a victim can scrape the slime away quickly, he can save himself.  Unfortunately, it's much more difficult to scrape black slime off of one's body while in the water than it is to scrape green slime off while on land, as scraped-off patches usually float right back into contact with the victim's skin, and a person in the water doesn't always an object with which he can scrape off the slime.

Black slime is a form of plant life and is subject to spells affecting plants, although even some of those are virtually useless. A hold plant spell, for instance, does not prevent black slime from moving, for the movement is a result of wave action, not any intention on the slime's part. Black slime is immune to cold-based attacks but burns readily upon contact with flame (another reason for the name "oil slime"). Cure disease spells instantly destroy a black slime colony, but the creature is immune to most other spells. and weapon attacks cause it no damage.

Habitat/Society: Black slime is a colony creature but has no intelligence of its own. Like other slimes, it has a limited awareness of the world around through its ability to sense vibrations, which allows it to target prey. As the colony absorbs other creatures, it grows in size, eventually splitting into two approximately equally-sized colonies, each with the creature's original Hit Dice. Several colonies are often found together, but this is merely the result of the tides. Every once in a while, several colonies drift together and form an extra-large patch of slime floating on the ocean, but these do not stay together long, nor do they merge into a single creature--once separated, black slime does not unite together again.

Ecology: Unlike green slime, which also eats through metals and wood, black slime dissolves only living matter. For this reason, many sailors and pirates actively harvest the stuff. The slime, when carefully poured into a glass vial, can be stoppered and stored for 4d4 days (until the isolated slime starves), then used as a weapon against enemy ships. The vials are catapulted onto enemy ships to break and splash all over the enemy crew, or can be sent hurling at the enemy with a flaming wick attached, creating an organic version of the Molotov cocktail.

Black slime vials are treated as flasks of oil when used in this fashion; consult Table 45: Grenade-like Missile Effects on page 63 of the DUNGEON MASTER Guide (see also "Incendiary Attacks" in Of Ships and the Sea, pages 41-43) for details.

Originally appeared in Dragon Magazine #250 (1998).


----------



## freyar (Oct 11, 2008)

Think this might be a hazard, then?


----------



## Cleon (Oct 11, 2008)

freyar said:


> Think this might be a hazard, then?




That was my first thought as well, it's more a hazard than a monster in 3rd edition terms. A good start would be the SRD entry for green slime:*Green Slime (CR 4)
*This dungeon peril is a dangerous variety of normal slime. Green slime devours flesh and organic materials on contact and is even capable of dissolving metal. Bright green, wet, and sticky, it clings to walls, floors, and ceilings in patches, reproducing as it consumes organic matter. It drops from walls and ceilings when it detects movement (and possible food) below

 A single 5-foot square of green slime deals 1d6 points of Constitution damage per round while it devours flesh. On the first round of contact, the slime can be scraped off a creature (most likely destroying the scraping device), but after that it must be frozen, burned, or cut away (dealing damage to the victim as well). Anything that deals cold or fire damage, sunlight, or a _remove disease_ spell destroys a patch of green slime. Against wood or metal, green slime deals 2d6 points of damage per round, ignoring metal’s hardness but not that of wood. It does not harm stone. ​So how about:*Black Slime (CR 4)
*Also called oil slime, this marine hazard is an aquatic variety of green slime. Black slime devours flesh on contact, but unlike green slime it can not dissolve non-living materials like metal or wood. Looking much like a small oil slick, black slime floats on the top of the ocean, attacking creatures with which it comes into contact, reproducing as it consumes organic matter. It has no means of self-propulsion, moving about only at the whims of the winds and the waves.

Black slime has a limited ability to change its basic shape - it can form strands that float below the surface of the ocean. These strands act like the tentacles of a jellyfish, allowing the slime to adhere to any fish that might pass beneath it. Black slime attacks anything touching its upper surface as well. A swimmer bumping into a floating patch of black slime finds himself coated in the stuff, as does a sea bird landing in it.

Black slime is a colony creature but has no intelligence of its own. Like other slimes, it has a limited awareness of the world around through its ability to sense vibrations, which allows it to target prey. As the colony absorbs other creatures, it grows in size, eventually splitting into two approximately equally-sized colonies. Several colonies are often found together, but this is merely the result of the tides. Every once in a while, colonies drift together and form an extra-large floating slick of slime, but these do not stay together long, nor do they merge into a single creature - once separated, black slime does not unite together again.

A black slime colony occupies a single 5-foot square and deals 1d6 points of Constitution damage per round while it devours flesh. On the first round of contact, the slime can be scraped off a creature (most likely destroying the scraping device), but after that it must be burned, or cut away (dealing damage to the victim as well). Black slime is a form of plant life and is subject to spells affecting plants. It is immune to cold damage, but fire damage  or a _remove disease_ spell destroys a patch of black slime.

Black slime is sticky and highly flammable, doing damage equivalent to alchemist's fire when alight. Unscrupulous sailors and pirates may harvest the stuff to use as a weapon. The slime, when carefully poured into a glass vial, can be stoppered and stored for 4d4 days, until the isolated slime starves. _The vials need to be a transparent material such as glass because black slime needs sunlight to live, dying after 24 hours in darkness. Thus, opaque pottery flasks are unsuitable containers for storing black slime alive_. The vials are catapulted onto enemy ships to break and splash all over the enemy crew, or can be sent hurling at the enemy with a flaming wick attached, creating an organic version of the Molotov cocktail. ​Most of that is just a merging of the green slime SRD and extracts from the Dragon write-up, but I've added an explanation as to why they require glass vials for storage _in italics_.


----------



## freyar (Oct 11, 2008)

Looks pretty good!  I don't have any suggestions, so let's see what Shade thinks.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 11, 2008)

freyar said:


> Looks pretty good!  I don't have any suggestions, so let's see what Shade thinks.




I've rephrased the explanation for the glass phials to "_The vials need to be a transparent material such as glass because black slime needs sunlight to live, dying after 24 hours in darkness. Thus, opaque pottery flasks are unsuitable containers for storing black slime alive_." since I thought my first draft's phrasing was a little clumsy.

Currently, the only other thing I'm tempted to add is having something in the third paragraph about how much flesh it needs to eat to split into two colonies, and how fast this process takes. I'm thinking one Medium victim is usually enough for it to reproduce.


----------



## Shade (Oct 13, 2008)

That looks fantastic!

About the only thing I'd add is the text about scraping it off while in water just risks re-exposure the following round.  I found that delightfully rat-bastardly.


----------



## freyar (Oct 14, 2008)

Yet another one done, then?  Or should we take a glance over it in homebrews first?


----------



## Shade (Oct 14, 2008)

Added to Homebrews.

I added the bit in italics, but otherwise it is Cleon's excellent conversion.   Does that additional bit look OK?


----------



## Cleon (Oct 14, 2008)

Shade said:


> Added to Homebrews.
> 
> I added the bit in italics, but otherwise it is Cleon's excellent conversion.   Does that additional bit look OK?




Looks good to go.

I like the addition of the re-attachment risk. I'd tried to draft something like that when I was writing the conversion but I started including DCs and reflex saves and it all got unnecessarily complicated, so I just cut it out. The simple approach looks fine.


----------



## Shade (Oct 14, 2008)

Only 3 left!

*Living Pool*
AC:7 MV:3 HD:13 hp:100 #AT:1/target Dmg:3-12 each SA:Acid (1-8) SD: Disguise AL:N(E) THAC0:9 

The pool appears to be perhaps ten feet deep. Green algae and brown mud line the pond bed, and from this soil, small green leafy fronds float on the surface. No fish or bug swims in or on the clear water. Hidden among the weeds at the bottom of the pool a human skeleton in rusting armor may be sighted. Nearby lies an untarnished broad sword glinting silver.

This pool is actually a living predator, related to the parasitic fungi, oozes and jellies. It has the ability to change the consistency of its form from a thin syrupy liquid to a firm gel. It lures prey to drink or swim in its "water" and then attacks with pseudopods and digestive juices. Characters pulled beneath the surface of the creature not only suffer acid damage, but after the first round must make a save vs. death magic each round or suffocate.

Originally appeared in Adventure Pack I (1987).


----------



## Shade (Oct 14, 2008)

At first glance, it appears a modified form of the drown attack of the aballin may be appropriate.



			
				Aballin said:
			
		

> Drown: The first victim hit by an aballin's pseudopods must make an opposed grapple check with the aballin (the monster's bonus on this check is +11). If the aballin wins this check, it draws the victim into its fluid body. The victim is at risk of drowning (see Water Dangers in the DMG for the risks and effects of drowning). Because the aballin is composed of acid, not water, spells such as water breathing offer no help in surviving the effect of drowning in their fluids.
> 
> A trapped victim can attack the aballin or make additional grapple checks to escape its grasp. The character cannot cast spells with a verbal component or use any other item or ability that requires speech. If other characters use edged weapons to attack the aballin while it is holding a victim, those attacks have a 25% chance of hitting the trapped character, and they do no harm to the aballin.
> 
> While holding a victim, the aballin continues to attack with its pseudopods, dealing slam damage to other characters.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 15, 2008)

Interesting beastie, I'm sure I've seen the concept of a man-eating slime that masquerades as a pool somewhere else. I like these kinds of monster, it's just credible enough you could imagine such an animal really existing on an alien world somewhere.



Shade said:


> At first glance, it appears a modified form of the drown attack of the aballin may be appropriate.




Couldn't we just modify the drowning bit of the Carnivorous Wall's Engulf attack we wrote a few conversions back?

As far as the stat-block goes, I'm thinking it would be easier modifying the Gelatinous Cube. (Take the *SRD Cube*, up the HD to 13 (equal to a Size Huge Gelatinous Cube?), reduce its move and drop its paralysis - that's most of the way there). That comes out as something like the following, I've italicized a few additional suggestions:

*Living Pool*
*Huge Ooze*
*Hit Dice:*13d10+130 (202 hp)
*Initiative:* –5
*Speed:* 10 ft. (2 squares)
*Armor Class:* 3 (–2 size, –5 Dex), touch 3, flat-footed 3
*Base Attack/Grapple:* +8/+20
*Attack:* Slam +10 melee (3d4+4 plus 1d8 acid)
*Space/Reach:* 15 ft./10 ft.
*Special Attacks:* Acid, engulf, _improved grab_
*Special Qualities:* Blindsight 60 ft., ooze traits, transparent
*Saves:* Fort +14, Ref –1, Will –1
*Abilities:* Str 18, Dex 1, Con 30, Int—, Wis 1, Cha 1
*Skills:* _(max ranks in Disguise with a racial bonus?)_
*Feats:* —
*Environment:* _Any non-arctic land_ or underground
*Organization:* Solitary
*Challenge Rating:* 7_ (About as nasty as a black pudding?)_
*Treasure:* 1/10th coins, 50% goods (no nonmetal or nonstone), 50% items (no nonmetal or nonstone)
*Alignment:* Always neutral _evil (seems a bit of an odd alignment for an Ooze)_
*Advancement:* _14-26 HD (Huge); 27–52 HD (Gargantuan)_
*Level Adjustment:* —


_A typical living pool is about ten feet thick and twenty feet in diameter, weighing some 50,000 pounds._


----------



## freyar (Oct 15, 2008)

What if we advance an aballin to 13HD?  I'd like to see the comparison to the advanced cube.

As far as the drowning, etc, I'd go with imp grab and then an adapted version of the aballin's drown (minus the stuff that goes into imp grab).  Since these are so similar to aballins, I think it's good to keep the mechanics similar also.  We might also be able to something with the changing consistency bit.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 15, 2008)

freyar said:


> What if we advance an aballin to 13HD?  I'd like to see the comparison to the advanced cube.
> 
> As far as the drowning, etc, I'd go with imp grab and then an adapted version of the aballin's drown (minus the stuff that goes into imp grab).  Since these are so similar to aballins, I think it's good to keep the mechanics similar also.  We might also be able to something with the changing consistency bit.




I've got a copy of Monsters of Faerun, but it's buried somewhere in my collection and would be difficult to find, so would someone else care to do the comparison?

Both the Aballin and Living Pool monsters strongly remind me of a creature from John Norman's _*Nomads of Gor*_ - there's a good description of it on this *webpage* under "Yellow Pool of Turia". Since the book was published in 1969, it's possible it actually inspired one or both of these monsters. I certainly remember thinking I could steal the idea after reading the book.


----------



## freyar (Oct 15, 2008)

Cleon said:


> I've got a copy of Monsters of Faerun, but it's buried somewhere in my collection and would be difficult to find, so would someone else care to do the comparison?
> 
> Both the Aballin and Living Pool monsters strongly remind me of a creature from John Norman's _*Nomads of Gor*_ - there's a good description of it on this *webpage* under "Yellow Pool of Turia". Since the book was published in 1969, it's possible it actually inspired one or both of these monsters. I certainly remember thinking I could steal the idea after reading the book.



I may be able to do this tonight, but I'm not sure if I'll have time...


----------



## Shade (Oct 15, 2008)

Here ya go...

*Advanced Aballin*
Huge Ooze
Hit Dice: 13d10+52 (123 hp)
Initiative: +0
Speed: 20 ft. (4 squares), swim 40 ft.
Armor Class: 8 (-2 size), touch 8, flat-footed 8
Base Attack/Grapple: +8/+25
Attack: Slam +15 melee (2d6+13 plus drown)
Full Attack: Slam +15 melee (2d6+13 plus drown)
Space/Reach: 15 ft./15 ft.
Special Attacks: Drown
Special Qualities: Blindsight 60 ft., damage reduction 10/magic and bludgeoning, immunity to cold, electricity, and fire, ooze traits, passive state, vulnerability to water-affecting spells
Saves: Fort +8, Ref +4, Will +3
Abilities: Str 29, Dex 11, Con 18, Int -, Wis 9, Cha 6
Skills: -
Feats: -
Environment: Warm and temperate land and underground
Organization: Solitary
Challenge Rating: 6
Treasure: None
Alignment: Always neutral
Advancement: -
Level Adjustment: -


----------



## freyar (Oct 16, 2008)

I think I like the advanced aballin ability scores a bit better as a starting point.  Maybe adjust physical scores a couple of points toward the advanced gelatinous cube?


----------



## Cleon (Oct 16, 2008)

Shade said:


> Here ya go...
> 
> *Advanced Aballin*
> Huge Ooze
> ...




That's some difference. I was a bit surprised by the CR 6, but then I checked the Advanced Monster Challenge Rating Rules and realized a 13 HD Gelatinous Cube is only CR 5, since oozes get +1CR per +4HD. I'd thought it was +1 per +3HD for some reason.

The Living Pool's original write-up has no special defences like the Aballin, only "Disguise", which could translate as just blindsight, ooze traits and transparent for the Living Pool's Special Qualities, although that "vulnerability to water-affecting spells" Quality is tempting.

As for freyar's question about doing something with the Living Pool being able to change consistency, I found inspiration in the writeup of the tanglefoot bag's goo, and am thinking engulfed victims count as _entangled_ when the living pool thickens its interior, but when the pool "firms up" its own movement speed halves as well.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 16, 2008)

freyar said:


> I think I like the advanced aballin ability scores a bit better as a starting point.  Maybe adjust physical scores a couple of points toward the advanced gelatinous cube?




How about averaging the ability scores of the two advanced monsters? That would make:

Str 24, Dex 6, Con 24, Int —, Wis 5, Cha 4


----------



## freyar (Oct 17, 2008)

The physical scores are fine by me, but I'd like to push Wis a bit more toward average.  Maybe Wis 7, Cha 3?


----------



## Cleon (Oct 17, 2008)

freyar said:


> The physical scores are fine by me, but I'd like to push Wis a bit more toward average.  Maybe Wis 7, Cha 3?




We could just give it the same Wis & Cha scores as the aballin, making it:

Str 24, Dex 6, Con 24, Int —, Wis 9, Cha 6

It doesn't make a great deal of difference either way.


----------



## Shade (Oct 17, 2008)

Cleon said:


> It doesn't make a great deal of difference either way.




Agreed.  In fact, I'm inclined to simply follow the traditional ooze model for mental ability scores of Int —, Wis 1, Cha 1.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 17, 2008)

Shade said:


> Agreed.  In fact, I'm inclined to simply follow the traditional ooze model for mental ability scores of Int —, Wis 1, Cha 1.




Well it's have been a lot easier if the original writeup gave it an intelligence score. Roughly half the AD&D oozes were non-intelligent, most of the rest were animal-intelligent. Since the Living Pool needs to find an appropriate spot, then settle down and disguise itself that suggests it has at least some awareness of its surroundings and ability to modify its behaviour appropriately. Although a counter-argument would be that most AD&D insects have a similar level of intelligence and have a non-intelligent rating, but then vermin in 2rd edition can have worthwhile Wis and Cha scores despite having no Int.

Overall, I'm leaning toward Int —, Wis 9, Cha 6, just as a matter of flavour.


----------



## Shade (Oct 17, 2008)

That works for me.

Added to Homebrews.


----------



## freyar (Oct 18, 2008)

If we're not going with DR X/bludgeoning, let's take out the line from drowning that slashing or piercing weapons do no damage to the ooze.

If we want to do something with the change of consistency, we could either go with a racial grapple bonus or something along the lines of 


			
				Cleon said:
			
		

> As for freyar's question about doing something with the Living Pool being able to change consistency, I found inspiration in the writeup of the tanglefoot bag's goo, and am thinking engulfed victims count as entangled when the living pool thickens its interior, but when the pool "firms up" its own movement speed halves as well.



The only thing I'm not sure about on this one is how the engulfed victim is additionally penalized, since it's already grappled.  Penalty to its attack rolls, maybe?


----------



## Cleon (Oct 18, 2008)

freyar said:


> If we're not going with DR X/bludgeoning, let's take out the line from drowning that slashing or piercing weapons do no damage to the ooze.
> 
> If we want to do something with the change of consistency, we could either go with a racial grapple bonus or something along the lines of
> 
> ...




Here's the description on *Entangled creatures* from the SRD, basically it's -2 attack*, -4 Dex, half move, can't run or charge, DC 15+spell level concentration check to cast spell without losing it. I'd think an "engooped" creature should also suffer a penalty to grapple checks (or the Living Pool gains one, which works out the same).

Does the -2 on an attack roll due to being entangled also apply to grapple checks? That would seem to make sense.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 18, 2008)

Shade said:


> That works for me.
> 
> Added to Homebrews.




Didn't you fancy the intermediate Physical Stats Str 24, Dex 6, Con 24 then?


----------



## freyar (Oct 19, 2008)

The thing is that a grappled critter also can't really move independently of the living pool, so entangled doesn't do much besides the attack rolls (and I guess Dex penalty has some cascading effects that being held doesn't do).  We already have a spellcasting difficulty in drowning, which we could swap out with the Concentration check, but maybe we should just go with a grapple bonus for the living pool.  What do you think?


----------



## Cleon (Oct 19, 2008)

freyar said:


> The thing is that a grappled critter also can't really move independently of the living pool, so entangled doesn't do much besides the attack rolls (and I guess Dex penalty has some cascading effects that being held doesn't do).  We already have a spellcasting difficulty in drowning, which we could swap out with the Concentration check, but maybe we should just go with a grapple bonus for the living pool.  What do you think?




Yes I'll agree with much of that, although I like the idea of it being a Grapple penalty to the victim rather than a grapple bonus for the Pool.

How about dropping the duplicated effects and saying victims of the thickening suffers -2 attacks, -4 Dex and -4 grapple?


----------



## freyar (Oct 19, 2008)

That seems fair.  And the ooze takes a 5 ft speed penalty or something?


----------



## Shade (Oct 20, 2008)

Cleon said:


> Didn't you fancy the intermediate Physical Stats Str 24, Dex 6, Con 24 then?




Oops.  I didn't even notice you'd reduced the physical stats.   I'm OK with that.  Any thoughts, freyar (or others)?



Cleon said:


> Yes I'll agree with much of that, although I like the idea of it being a Grapple penalty to the victim rather than a grapple bonus for the Pool.
> 
> How about dropping the duplicated effects and saying victims of the thickening suffers -2 attacks, -4 Dex and -4 grapple?






freyar said:


> That seems fair.  And the ooze takes a 5 ft speed penalty or something?




Sounds good, so "thickening" as a separate ability from the drown?


----------



## freyar (Oct 20, 2008)

I'm fine with reducing the abilities.

I guess thickening could be a separate ability, but it affects "drowning" victims.  Since the living pool is mindless, though, maybe we should just make this an automatic thing that happens as soon as the pool engulfs someone.


----------



## Shade (Oct 20, 2008)

Sounds good.  Updated.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 20, 2008)

freyar said:


> I'm fine with reducing the abilities.
> 
> I guess thickening could be a separate ability, but it affects "drowning" victims.  Since the living pool is mindless, though, maybe we should just make this an automatic thing that happens as soon as the pool engulfs someone.




I'd describe Thickening as a separate ability, but include the drowning attack in its Engulf write-up.

Earlier on, freyar mentioned the Aballin's DR/bludgeoning. Maybe a "thickened" Living Pool gets DR/slashing, since its body is now a firm gel - Bludgeoning blows would just be absorbed by its resilient jelly, and it has no vitals to be stabbed by Piercing weapons.


----------



## Shade (Oct 21, 2008)

Cleon said:


> Earlier on, freyar mentioned the Aballin's DR/bludgeoning. Maybe a "thickened" Living Pool gets DR/slashing, since its body is now a firm gel - Bludgeoning blows would just be absorbed by its resilient jelly, and it has no vitals to be stabbed by Piercing weapons.




I could go for that.   Freyar?


----------



## freyar (Oct 21, 2008)

Works for me.  So...

Thicken (Ex): A living pool can partially solidify its internal make up into a gel as a move action (and revert to its normal form as a move action).  When it thickens, it takes a 5 ft penalty to its base speed, but it gains DR 5/slashing.  In addition, any victim of the living pool's Drown ability take the following penalties: -2 attacks, -4 Dex, and -4 grapple.

Check the numbers!  We might also put in tactics that most living pools automatically Thicken once they're Drowning someone.


----------



## Shade (Oct 21, 2008)

Revising...

Thickening (Ex): Once a living ooze begins to drown a victim, it instinctively thickens its consistency. The living pool's speed is reduced by 5 feet, but it gains damage reduction 5/bludgeoning.  Additionally, any trapped victims suffer a -2 penalty on attack rolls, -4 penalty on Dexterity, and -4 penalty on grapple checks.

So do we add this back to drown?

"If other characters use slashing or piercing weapons to attack the living pool while it is holding a victim, those attacks have a 25% chance of hitting the trapped character, and they do no harm to the living pool."


----------



## Cleon (Oct 21, 2008)

Shade said:


> Revising...
> 
> Thickening (Ex): Once a living ooze begins to drown a victim, it instinctively thickens its consistency. The living pool's speed is reduced by 5 feet, but it gains damage reduction 5/bludgeoning.  Additionally, any trapped victims suffer a -2 penalty on attack rolls, -4 penalty on Dexterity, and -4 penalty on grapple checks.
> 
> ...




Well, I still don't see why a thick gel should be vulnerable to bludgeoning weapons, wouldn't DR 5/slashing make more sense? I know Aballin's have DR vs bludgeoning, but they're watery creatures who would be splashed about by a blunt weapon...

Hmm, that gives me an idea, maybe a Living Pool has DR 5/bludgeoning when its a thin liquid, and its DR type changes to 5/slashing when it thickens? Or, maybe it gains an slashing damage-type resistance and becomes DR 5/bludgeoning and slashing, although I can't think of a precedent for a 3.0+ beastie having resistance to two types of weapon simultaneously.

As for the drowning, did you ever say why we're using the Aballin version as opposed to the Carnivorous Wall's? The Wall's version is so much simpler, and I quote:*Engulf (Ex):* A carnivorous wall can engulf a grappled opponent of a smaller size than itself as a standard action by making a successful grapple check against that opponent. It automatically succeeds in engulfing a paralyzed opponent. Engulfed creatures must succeed at Constitution checks each round or begin to drown (see drowning rules in the DMG) and are considered to be grappled and trapped within the wall's body. Engulfed creatures continue to be subject to the wall's paralyzing slime and take 2d6 points of damage per round as the fluids are drained from their bodies. Creatures that die while engulfed are immediately animated as burning zombies (see below) and expelled from the wall. A Large carnivorous wall's interior can hold 2 Medium, 8 Small, 32 Tiny or 128 Diminutive or smaller opponents.​


----------



## Shade (Oct 21, 2008)

Cleon said:


> Well, I still don't see why a thick gel should be vulnerable to bludgeoning weapons, wouldn't DR 5/slashing make more sense? I know Aballin's have DR vs bludgeoning, but they're watery creatures who would be splashed about by a blunt weapon...




That's reasonable.  I thought Freyar's post above was a typo, but I suppose slashing does make more sense in this case.



Cleon said:


> Hmm, that gives me an idea, maybe a Living Pool has DR 5/bludgeoning when its a thin liquid, and its DR type changes to 5/slashing when it thickens? Or, maybe it gains an slashing damage-type resistance and becomes DR 5/bludgeoning and slashing, although I can't think of a precedent for a 3.0+ beastie having resistance to two types of weapon simultaneously.




I don't think bludgeoning and slashing would work, since so few weapons deal two types of damage.  I could see the bludgeoning to slashing transformation, though, and it might give the creature an interesting niche.



Cleon said:


> As for the drowning, did you ever say why we're using the Aballin version as opposed to the Carnivorous Wall's?




The aballin just seemed closer in flavor to the pool.  However, I agree that the emphasized bit is simpler and more elegant, so I'll make the change to the ability.  A name change to Engulf is probably appropriate as well, since we used the gelatinous cube as the original template, and it uses "engulf".


----------



## Cleon (Oct 22, 2008)

Shade said:


> I don't think bludgeoning and slashing would work, since so few weapons deal two types of damage.  I could see the bludgeoning to slashing transformation, though, and it might give the creature an interesting niche.




It was just an idea I threw out to see if it would stick, I prefer the bludgeoning to slashing transformation.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 22, 2008)

Shade said:


> The aballin just seemed closer in flavor to the pool.  However, I agree that the emphasized bit is simpler and more elegant, so I'll make the change to the ability.  A name change to Engulf is probably appropriate as well, since we used the gelatinous cube as the original template, and it uses "engulf".




I've just checked the updated Living Pool on Homebrews and you have "The victim is at risk of drowning (see Water Dangers in the DMG for the risks and effects of drowning)" in the drown write-up. I think the phrasing used in Carnivorous Wall "Engulfed creatures must succeed at Constitution checks each round or begin to drown (see drowning rules in the DMG)" is better, because it explicates the necessity of starting Con checks vs drowning. The version as written implies that the engulfed victim can hold their breath according to the DMG suffocation rules.

Also, its base attack should be +9 (13 HD at 3/4 BAB per HD), Grapple +24. Shade and I both got our sums wrong in posts #489 and #493.


----------



## Shade (Oct 22, 2008)

Updated.


----------



## freyar (Oct 22, 2008)

Ok, I think this is starting to shape up.  Are we giving it DR 5/bludgeoning when unthickened or only giving it DR when thickened?


----------



## Cleon (Oct 23, 2008)

freyar said:


> Ok, I think this is starting to shape up.  Are we giving it DR 5/bludgeoning when unthickened or only giving it DR when thickened?




I like the idea of it having DR 5/bludgeoning when its liquid and switching to DR 5/slashing when it's thickened to a gel.

By the way, should the Engulf write-up say how much acid damage engulfed victims take? Since it adds 1d8 acid to a slam attack, the Living Pool likely does 1d8 per round to engulfed victims.


----------



## Shade (Oct 23, 2008)

Agreed.  Updated.

Anything left besides deciding between CR 6 or CR 7?


----------



## Cleon (Oct 23, 2008)

Shade said:


> Agreed.  Updated.
> 
> Anything left besides deciding between CR 6 or CR 7?




Could we say it has vermin-type intelligence rather than being completely mindless (i.e. Int 0 rather than Int —) and give it skills & feats?

At the moment it just has the default skill of Swim +15 from zero skill ranks  +8 for having a swim speed and +7 for its strength.

If we go for the "Int 0" option, it would have 13 skill ranks from its 13 HD. How about 0 in Swim (+7 Str & +8 Swim speed), 3 in Climb (+7 Str), 5 in Disguise (-2 Cha, with say a +10 racial bonus to imitate a Pool) and 5 in Listen (-1 Wis), or possible Spot, which would give it the following:

Skills: Climb +10, Disguise +13, Listen +4, Swim +15.

As for Challenge Rating, I'd back CR 6. That's what a 13 HD gelatinous cube would get through advancement, and a Living Pool may be slightly stronger and have a bit of DR, but it also lacks the Cube's Paralysis attack, which makes a big difference.


----------



## Shade (Oct 23, 2008)

I'd rather leave it at non-intelligent, like the gelatinous cube, as it seems to be modeled after that creature.

However, I'm fine with giving it some racial bonuses on the skills you mentioned and a bonus feat or two if necessary.

CR 6 does sound about right.


----------



## freyar (Oct 23, 2008)

Wait, aren't vermin also Int -?

I'm fine with racial skill bonuses and bonus feats, though.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 24, 2008)

freyar said:


> Wait, aren't vermin also Int -?
> 
> I'm fine with racial skill bonuses and bonus feats, though.




That's OK by me, I wouldn't bother about bonus feats.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 24, 2008)

freyar said:


> Wait, aren't vermin also Int -?
> 
> I'm fine with racial skill bonuses and bonus feats, though.




Sorry, I should have said Int 1 and animal-level intelligence (albeit not Animal Type) rather than Int 0, which is the same mindless level as Int -.

All the SRD vermin are mindless, having Int -, but the Type allows for the possibility of them having none-zero Int, Although arthropods with non-zero Int are usually magical beasts like Hellwasps and Spider-Eaters.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 24, 2008)

Let's boil the Skill question down to basics - I think we only need to give it scores in Swim (for mobility) and Disguise (for pretending to be a Pool). The default Swim +15 for Str and having a swim speed is ample, so that leaves Disguise. We could just set a DC to spot the subterfuge (say DC 20 to tell that a pool of water is actually a Living Pool), and add that to the "transparent" write-up, or reverse-engineer an appropriate racial bonus to give it Disguise (Pool) +10 [DC 20, -2 Cha adj & zero skill ranks -> +12 racial bonus needed from "take 10" as a pool].

I don't think we've got anything else to work out for the monster.


----------



## freyar (Oct 24, 2008)

Let's just used a fixed DC (or else make it Con-based or something) for Spotting that it's not really water.  Different living pools probably all look about the same.


----------



## Shade (Oct 24, 2008)

Yeah, let's go with something like the assassin vine possesses...

Camouflage (Ex): Since an assassin vine looks like a normal plant when at rest, it takes a DC 20 Spot check to notice it before it attacks.

Anyone with ranks in Survival or Knowledge (nature) can use one of those skills instead of Spot to notice the plant. Dwarves can use stonecunning to notice the subterranean version.


----------



## freyar (Oct 24, 2008)

Should we put this under transparent?  There we have a DC 15 Spot just to see it; maybe it's then DC 20 to tell the difference from water.  The second check could be replaced with Knowledge (dungeoneering) (for oozes) or Knowledge (nature) (for water).


----------



## Shade (Oct 24, 2008)

freyar said:


> Should we put this under transparent?  There we have a DC 15 Spot just to see it; maybe it's then DC 20 to tell the difference from water.  The second check could be replaced with Knowledge (dungeoneering) (for oozes) or Knowledge (nature) (for water).




That seems like a good way to handle it.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 24, 2008)

Shade said:


> That seems like a good way to handle it.




Putting a fixed DC under Transparent was my first, and preferred option, so it looks like we're all agreed. There is a case for ditching transparent and having Camouflage instead, to represent it mimicking a pool but I fancy combining the two something like this:

Transparent Camouflage (Ex): Living pools are almost indistinguishable from water, it takes a DC 20 Spot check to notice a stationary living pool is not an ordinary body of water before it attacks. A moving Living Pool is hard to see, even under ideal conditions, and it takes a DC 15 Spot check to notice one. Creatures who fail to notice a moving living pool, or choose to take a "refreshing dip" into a stationary one, are automatically engulfed.

Anyone with ranks in Survival or Knowledge (nature) can substitute one of those skills instead of Spot to notice that a stationary living pool is not a mundane pond.


----------



## Shade (Oct 24, 2008)

I like it!

Updated.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 24, 2008)

Shade said:


> I like it!
> 
> Updated.




In that case, I think we're almost done aren't we? I'll just run my eye over the updated stats for one last check...

... Hmm, shouldn't the Slam attack be +14 melee (9 BAB +7 Str -2 Siz) rather than +13?

Plus, it doesn't have an Advancement entry, how about the Advancement: 14-26 HD (Huge); 27–52 HD (Gargantuan) that I suggested back on page 17?

Apart from that it looks solid, except that the Treasure entry doesn't match the description of it "carrying around the inorganic treasures of its past meals as lures for its next meal". Just giving it the same treasure as a Gelatinous Cube would fix that:

Treasure: 1/10th coins, 50% goods (no nonmetal or nonstone), 50% items (no nonmetal or nonstone)


----------



## Shade (Oct 24, 2008)

You're correct on the attack lines, and I like the rest of your suggestions.

Updated.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 24, 2008)

Shade said:


> You're correct on the attack lines, and I like the rest of your suggestions.
> 
> Updated.




Thank you kindly. That looks like its finished then.

Unless you fancy stating up awakened immortal Living Pools of legends that hunt each other down over the centuries, knowing that there can be only one... or didn't you see Highlander: The thickening?


----------



## Shade (Oct 24, 2008)

Cleon said:


> Thank you kindly. That looks like its finished then.
> 
> Unless you fancy stating up awakened immortal Living Pools of legends that hunt each other down over the centuries, knowing that there can be only one... or didn't you see Highlander: The thickening?




Oh, groan!  

Actually, the premise isn't that far-fetched...


I'll get the next one started real soon.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 24, 2008)

Shade said:


> Oh, groan!
> 
> Actually, the premise isn't that far-fetched...




Of course, being oozes, they can't decapitate their foe to release and absorb their immortal essence, instead they duel to the death with Huge adamantium straws.


----------



## freyar (Oct 24, 2008)

Cleon said:


> Of course, being oozes, they can't decapitate their foe to release and absorb their immortal essence, instead they duel to the death with Huge adamantium straws.



Sluuuuuurrrrrrrrppppppppppp!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Shade (Oct 24, 2008)

Here's the penultimate one...

*Pudding, Deadly*
"This voracious monster resembles a giant pudding. When it sense a living creature, it attacks. A pudding can ooze through cracks and travel along ceilings and walls. When it attacks, its touch dissolves organic matter. Lightning and blows from weapons divide the pudding into two, forming two smaller but equally powerful creatures. Fire and magic missiles inflict normal damage."

And its stats: AC 6, Level 6, THAC0 15, Actions 1, Damage 2d8, Alt. Attack: None, Sp. Defense: Immune to cold, divides, Saving Throw: 14, Move: 6, Intelligence: Non-, Attitude: Neutral, Size: 6' long, Experience: 975.

Originally appeared in Dungeons and Dragons Adventure Game (1999).


----------



## Shade (Oct 24, 2008)

Note that it appears to have traits of both the black pudding and gray ooze, so we shouldn't need to think too far outside the box on this one.


----------



## demiurge1138 (Oct 24, 2008)

The climbing along ceilings and walls is new to me--do we want to give them spider climb as an Su?


----------



## Cleon (Oct 25, 2008)

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]







Shade said:


> Here's the penultimate one...
> 
> *Pudding, Deadly*
> "This voracious monster resembles a giant pudding. When it sense a living creature, it attacks. A pudding can ooze through cracks and travel along ceilings and walls. When it attacks, its touch dissolves organic matter. Lightning and blows from weapons divide the pudding into two, forming two smaller but equally powerful creatures. Fire and magic missiles inflict normal damage."
> ...




Isn't this just an *Ochre Jelly* with slight modification, namely the addition of immunity to Cold damage? It shouldn't take long to convert.

Just increase the movement speed to 20 ft., add Cold Immunity and Spider Climb and that's about it. Maybe change the environment so it isn't just temperate swamps. I'd prefer it if the immunity to slashing, piercing and electricity damage was listed in Special Qualities rather than lurking in the text for Split.

From the SRD:

*Ochre Jelly*
*Size/Type:*  Large Ooze
*Hit Dice:* 6d10+36 (69 hp)
*Initiative:* -5
*Speed:* 10 ft. (2 squares), climb 10 ft.
*Armor Class:* 4 (-1 size, -5 Dex), touch 4, flat-footed 4
*Base Attack/Grapple:* +4/+10
*Attack:* Slam +5 melee (2d4+3 plus 1d4 acid)
*Full Attack:* Slam +5 melee (2d4+3 plus 1d4 acid)
*Space/Reach:* 10 ft./5 ft.
*Special Attacks:* Acid, constrict 2d4+3 plus 1d4 acid, improved grab
*Special Qualities: *Blindsight 60 ft., split, ooze traits
*Saves:* Fort +8, Ref -3, Will -3
*Abilities:* Str 15, Dex 1, Con 22, Int   [FONT=&quot]–[/FONT], Wis 1, Cha 1
*Skills:* Climb +10
*Feats:* —
*Environment:* Temperate marshes
*Organization:* Solitary
*Challenge Rating:* 5
*Treasure:* None
*Alignment:* Always neutral
*Advancement:* 7-9 HD (Large); 10-18 HD (Huge)
*Level Adjustment:* —

An ochre jelly can grow to a diameter of about 15 feet and a thickness of about 6 inches, but can compress its body to fit into cracks as small as 1 inch wide. A typical specimen weighs about 5,600 pounds.

*Combat*
An ochre jelly attempts to envelop and squeeze its prey.

*Acid (Ex)*
An ochre jelly secretes a digestive acid that dissolves only flesh. Any melee hit or constrict attack deals acid damage.

*Constrict (Ex)*
An ochre jelly deals automatic slam and acid damage with a successful grapple check.

*Improved Grab (Ex)*
To use this ability, an ochre jelly must hit with its slam attack. It can then attempt to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. If it wins the grapple check, it establishes a hold and can constrict.

*Split (Ex)*
Slashing and piercing weapons and electricity attacks deal no damage to an ochre jelly. Instead the creature splits into two identical jellies, each with half of the original’s current hit points (round down). A jelly with 10 hit points or less cannot be further split and dies if reduced to 0 it points.

*Skills*
An ochre jelly has a +8 racial bonus on Climb checks and can always choose to take 10 on a Climb check, even if rushed or threatened.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 25, 2008)

demiurge1138 said:


> The climbing along ceilings and walls is new to me--do we want to give them spider climb as an Su?




A few oozes in earlier editions of D&D could do this - see the 2nd edition AD&D version of the Ochre Jelly and Green Slime here. (Incidentally, 2E considered these monsters "Ooze/Slime/Jellies" which were a different monster than "Deadly Puddings", the latter were communal creatures made up of lots of tiny creatures, while oozes & jellies were usually single creatures of the "giant amoeba" type, although green slime was originally a kind of flesh-eating algae-colony.)


----------



## freyar (Oct 26, 2008)

Boy, it would be nice to make this a little more different from the ochre jelly.  


> Lightning and blows from weapons divide the pudding into two, forming two smaller but equally powerful creatures. Fire and magic missiles inflict normal damage.



Could it split due to bludgeoning as well based on the original text?
Can I make a really twisted argument that it should have regeneration with lethal damage from fire and force?


----------



## Cleon (Oct 26, 2008)

freyar said:


> Boy, it would be nice to make this a little more different from the ochre jelly.
> 
> Could it split due to bludgeoning as well based on the original text?




Yes, bludgeoning should provoke a Split as well, since it's any weapon strike.

Hmm, there's no mention in the Deadly Pudding's original description that Slashing, Piercing or Lightning attacks don't harm it. So how about rewriting the Split description so that these attacks do damage, and the Ooze then divides the remaining HP amongst its two halves, and drop the 10HP minimum?



freyar said:


> Can I make a really twisted argument that it should have regeneration with lethal damage from fire and force?




It's twisted enough to tempt me, but there's no support for Regeneration in the description.

Now, I think I'll copy over the Ochre Jelly writeup and start modifying it into the Deadly Pudding.

Edit: Another change I can make is reducing its Size to Medium, since the Deadly Pudding is only 6' long (matching the AD&D2E Ochre Jelly), while the 3E Ochre Jelly is a Large 15' diameter. I'll drop its Str & Con to those of a Gray Ooze for the size reduction.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 26, 2008)

*Deadly Pudding*
*Size/Type:* Medium Ooze
*Hit Dice:* 6d10+30 (63 hp)
*Initiative:* -5
*Speed:* 20 ft. (4 squares), climb 20 ft.
*Armor Class:* 5 (-5 Dex), touch 5, flat-footed 5
*Base Attack/Grapple:* +4/+5
*Attack:* Slam +5 melee (2d4+1 plus 1d4 acid)
*Full Attack:* Slam +5 melee (2d4+1 plus 1d4 acid)
*Space/Reach:* 5 ft./5 ft.
*Special Attacks:* Acid, constrict 2d4+1 plus 1d4 acid, improved grab
*Special Qualities: *Blindsight 60 ft., camouflage, immunity to cold, ooze traits, split, wallcrawling
*Saves:* Fort +7, Ref -3, Will -3
*Abilities:* Str 12, Dex 1, Con 21, Int   [FONT=&quot]–[/FONT], Wis 1, Cha 1
*Skills:* Climb +9
*Feats:* —
*Environment:* Any temperate or arctic land and underground
*Organization:* Solitary
*Challenge Rating:* 4
*Treasure:* None
*Alignment:* Always neutral
*Advancement:* 7-9 HD (Medium); 10-18 HD (Large)
*Level Adjustment:* —

A deadly pudding is typically about 6 feet long and 4 feet wide, with a thickness of about 3 inches, but can compress its body to flow through cracks as small as half an inch across. A typical specimen weighs about 250 pounds.

*Combat*
A deadly pudding attempts to envelop and squeeze its prey, they often use their wallclimbing ability to drop upon their victims from above.

*Acid (Ex)*
A deadly pudding secretes a digestive acid that dissolves only flesh. Any melee hit or constrict attack deals acid damage.

*Camouflage (Ex)
*Deadly puddings are of a colour and texture matching the ground of their native environment, so an arctic-dwelling pudding looks like a snowdrift, a swamp-dwelling one resembles a mudslick, a desert-dwellin pudding appears as a khaki pile of dried earth, and so on. It takes a DC 15 Spot check to notice a deadly pudding which matches the terrain. If a deadly pudding moves from one terrain type to the other it can change its appearance to match its new habitat, this process takes about a week.
A character can use their bonus in Knowledge (nature) or Survival instead of Spot for the skill check to notice a camouflaged deadly pudding.
 
*Constrict (Ex)*
A deadly pudding deals automatic slam and acid damage with a successful grapple check.

*Improved Grab (Ex)*
To use this ability, a deadly pudding must hit with its slam attack. It can then attempt to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. If it wins the grapple check, it establishes a hold and can constrict.

*Split (Ex)*
Blows from weapons and electricity attacks cause a deadly pudding to divide into two identical oozes, each with half of the original’s current hit points, rounded down, after subtracting the damage of the attack which caused the split. The deadly pudding will re-integrates after the combat is over, it takes a move-equivalent action by each fragment to rejoin into a whole.

  *Wallcrawling (Ex)
*A deadly pudding need not make Climb checks to traverse a vertical or horizontal surface (even upside down). It retains its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class while climbing and opponents get no special bonus to their attacks against it.

*Skills*
A deadly pudding has a +8 racial bonus on Climb checks and can always choose to take 10 on a Climb check, even if rushed or threatened.

_* Changes from Ochre Jelly:
*Reduce Size to Medium; Increase Spd to 20 ft.; Change to Gray Ooze's Str 12 & Con 21; Add Immunity to Cold; Add Spider Climb; Modify Split to remove immunity to damage & HP minimum and add bludgeon-splitting; Reduce CR to 4 to compensate for smaller Size & loss of slashing/piercing electricity immunity; Change Spider Climb to Wallcrawling; Add Camouflage; Change Environment._


----------



## Shade (Oct 27, 2008)

You're off to a great start.

Rather than spider climb, let's give it this ability we've given to a few creatures...

Wallcrawling (Ex): A deadly pudding need not make Climb checks to traverse a vertical or horizontal surface (even upside down). It retains its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class while climbing and opponents get no special bonus to their attacks against it.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 27, 2008)

Shade said:


> You're off to a great start.
> 
> Rather than spider climb, let's give it this ability we've given to a few creatures...
> 
> Wallcrawling (Ex): A deadly pudding need not make Climb checks to traverse a vertical or horizontal surface (even upside down). It retains its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class while climbing and opponents get no special bonus to their attacks against it.




Works for me, I've changed the previous post accordingly.

Now I also fancy expanding the range of habitats deadly puddings live in. I'm tempted to make it "_Environment: Any temperate or arctic land and underground"_, since this seems to be a "generic pudding" and AD&D has puddings, slimes and jellies that live in everything from frozen forests to sweltering deserts. The arctic land makes sense, considering its immunity to cold.

What do you think?

EDIT: I'm also wondering about giving it camouflage colouration that provides a racial bonus to Hide in its current environment. I know the original write-up did not mention this, but some AD&D Deadly Puddings had this feature (e.g. the arctic White Pudding resembled a snowdrift, the desert-dwelling Dun Pudding was khaki-coloured and I imagine the swamp-loving Brown Pudding looked like a mudslick. Maybe something like:

*Camouflage (Ex)
*Deadly puddings are of a colour and texture matching the ground of their native environment, so an arctic-dwelling pudding looks like a snowdrift, a swamp-dwelling one resembles a mudslick, a desert-dwellin pudding appears as a khaki pile of dried earth, and so on. It takes a DC 15 Spot check to notice a deadly pudding which matches the terrain. If a deadly pudding moves from one terrain type to the other it can change its appearance to match its new habitat, this process takes about a week.
A character can use their bonus in Knowledge (nature) or Survival instead of Spot for the skill check to notice a camouflaged deadly pudding.


----------



## demiurge1138 (Oct 27, 2008)

Wallcrawling appeals to me. I like what you've done with camouflage.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 28, 2008)

demiurge1138 said:


> Wallcrawling appeals to me. I like what you've done with camouflage.




Ta demiurge, I'll wait to see what Shade & freyar have to say before sticking Camouflage into the write-up.


----------



## Shade (Oct 28, 2008)

Cleon said:


> Ta demiurge, I'll wait to see what Shade & freyar have to say before sticking Camouflage into the write-up.




I like it!  It helps differentiate them from their similar brethren.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 28, 2008)

Shade said:


> I like it!  It helps differentiate them from their similar brethren.




Okay, I'll stick it in the write-up. What do you think of changing the habitat to Environment: Any temperate or arctic land and underground?


----------



## Shade (Oct 28, 2008)

Cleon said:


> Okay, I'll stick it in the write-up. What do you think of changing the habitat to Environment: Any temperate or arctic land and underground?




I think it is a good idea.


----------



## demiurge1138 (Oct 28, 2008)

Agreed.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 29, 2008)

Shade said:


> I think it is a good idea.




Right, I've updated the Environment in the full write-up, and corrected an error in the Space/Reach - I'd forgotten to reduce the pudding's Space to 5 ft when I shrunk it from Large to Medium.

Can't see anything else that needs doing to it, and the stats look alright. Any suggestions?


----------



## freyar (Oct 29, 2008)

Looks pretty good to me.  You have a mention of "spider climb" in tactics that needs to change to "wallcrawling."


----------



## Cleon (Oct 29, 2008)

freyar said:


> Looks pretty good to me.  You have a mention of "spider climb" in tactics that needs to change to "wallcrawling."




 *EDIT* Not any more it hasn't. Well spotted Freyar.


----------



## Shade (Oct 29, 2008)

Transferred to Homebrews with flavor text and description.

One question:  Why does the creature reform after splitting?  I got the impression they functioned similarly to the black pudding, with splitting being a method of reproduction.


----------



## Echohawk (Oct 29, 2008)

The size and type seem to be missing from the Homebrews version.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 29, 2008)

Shade said:


> Transferred to Homebrews with flavor text and description.
> 
> One question:  Why does the creature reform after splitting?  I got the impression they functioned similarly to the black pudding, with splitting being a method of reproduction.




I just did it so they'd be different from the SRD Black Puddings. It may be truer to the generic pudding concept if they stayed split, so you can cut out that bit of the text if you like. They're colony creatures, so it sort of makes sense that if the two split halves bump into each other they merge back together. How about rewriting it to:

*Split (Ex)*
Blows from weapons and electricity attacks cause a deadly pudding to divide into two identical oozes, each with half of the original’s current hit points, rounded down, after subtracting the damage of the attack which caused the split.
If the split portions of the deadly pudding contact each other after the combat is over they will reintegrate into one creature with combined hit points, taking a move-equivalent action by each fragment to rejoin into a whole. A split portion of the deadly pudding with fewer than 36 hit points is not large enough to be viable, dying within an hour, and will wander the area seeking to merge with another fragment of itself.  Larger portions become fully independent oozes after an hour and wander off. Such new puddings have Hit Dice proportional to their size, to a minimum of 6 Hit Dice. Thus, a 15 Hit Dice 188 hit points pudding struck with a blow doing 12 hit points of damage would fight as two 15 Hit Dice, 88 hit point (188 - 12 divided by two) monsters for up to an hour, before become two 7 Hit Dice (15 divided by two, rounded down) 88 hit point deadly puddings.

What do you think?


----------



## Shade (Oct 29, 2008)

Echohawk said:


> The size and type seem to be missing from the Homebrews version.




Oops!  

Fixed.


----------



## freyar (Oct 29, 2008)

Hmm, I hadn't noticed that.  I usually prefer to go with standardized abilities when there's no pressing reason in the original text, but I'm ok with split puddings reforming, I guess.


----------



## Shade (Oct 29, 2008)

Let's just keep 'em the same as the black pudding in this instance, for "evolutionary consistency".


----------



## Cleon (Oct 29, 2008)

Shade said:


> Let's just keep 'em the same as the black pudding in this instance, for "evolutionary consistency".




As you like.  In that case shall we cut out the last sentence of Split and leave:

*Split (Ex):
*Blows from weapons and electricity attacks cause a deadly pudding to divide into two identical oozes, each with half of the original’s current hit points, rounded down, after subtracting the damage of the attack which caused the split.


----------



## Shade (Oct 29, 2008)

Updated.

What's left?


----------



## Cleon (Oct 29, 2008)

Shade said:


> Updated.
> 
> What's left?




Nothing I think, looks done to me.

EDIT: Oh, except the Special Attacks entry should have   constrict 2d4+1 plus 1d4 acid, not 2d4+3.


----------



## Shade (Oct 29, 2008)

Fixed.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 29, 2008)

Shade said:


> Fixed.




I think that about wraps it up for ol' puddin'.

What do we have for the last ooze of them all, the Marble Pudding?


----------



## Shade (Oct 29, 2008)

Cleon said:


> What do we have for the last ooze of them all, the Marble Pudding?




Yep, I'll post it in the morning.  Gotta run!


----------



## Shade (Oct 30, 2008)

Last one!

*Marble Pudding*
CLIMATE/TERRAIN: Subterranean
FREQUENCY: Rare
ORGANIZATION: Solitary
ACTIVITY CYCLE Any
DIET: Carnivore
INTELLIGENCE Animal (1)
TREASURE: Incidental
ALIGNMENT: Neutral 
NO. APPEARING 1
ARMOR CLASS: 6
MOVEMENT: 6
HIT DICE: 8
THACO: 13
NO. OF ATTACKS 1
DAMAGE/ATTACK 2-16
SPECIAL ATTACKS: Glue, acid
SPECIAL DEFENSES: See below
MAGIC RESISTANCE: Nil
SIZE: S-L (3’-8' tall)
MORALE: Special
XP VALUE: 2,000

Marble puddings can harden the surface of their normally pliant bodies to appear like chunks of stone.  They are usually gray, with streaks of white or black over their surfaces, giving them their distinct “marble” look.

The discovery of the marble pudding has caused quite a stir in academic circles.  Many sages believe that this creature proves a genetic relationship between the deadly pudding and the mimic.  Certainly, the similarities between the mimic and the marble pudding would seem to support this theory.

Combat:  Like a mimic, the marble pudding relies on imitation to catch its prey.  Unlike other puddings, which aggressively hunt down their victims, the marble pudding adopts the shape of a harmless piece of stone and lets its victims come to it.  Marble puddings can alter their color to blend in with the stones of their environment.  Once prey comes within range, the pudding strikes out with a pseudopod (with a -4 penalty to its victim’s surprise roll).  If this hits, the pudding secretes an adhesive that bonds to the victim, preventing its escape.  The pudding then softens its rock-like outer texture and flows over its victim, engulfing and dissolving it with its acid.  The acid produced by a marble pudding is weaker than that of other puddings of its sizes, causing only 2-16 hp damage per round.  Similarly, the “glue” it produces is weaker than mimic glue, giving victims a -1 bonus on their Open Doors roll to pull free.

Marble puddings share the deadly pudding immunities against poison, cold, and acid.  Lightning and blows from weapons cause them to divide into two smaller creatures.

Since they have no eyes, marble puddings are immune to vision-based attacks (such as light and continual light spells) and illusions that are primarily visual.  Instead of a sense of sight, marble puddings share the deadly puddings’ ability to sense heat and analyze material structures at a range of 90 feet.

Habitat/Society:  Marble puddings are usually found underground, in natural caverns and tunnels where they use their marble-imitating abilities to best advantage.  They are more patient than normal puddings, often waiting motionless for days before attacking a creature who wanders too close.  Somewhat territorial, a marble pudding usually remains within a half-mile or so of its “home.”

Marble puddings are able to climb walls, ceilings, and sheer surfaces, but they are unlikely to do so unless there is a good chance of encountering prey there.  (For instance, a marble pudding might station itself along the ceiling in a cave where bats roost.)  Additionally, they are usually encountered singly, for they have no interaction with others of their species.  Encounters with more than one marble pudding occur only in areas where the “hunting” is particularly good, and there is enough prey to go around.  Even in these case, though, each marble pudding is on its own—they do not cooperate with, assist, or even acknowledge the presence of others of their kind.
Ecology:  Marble puddings can go weeks between meals.  They do not have a preference for any particular type of prey; instead, they lash out at anything that moves past them whenever they are hungry.  Similarly, they do not seem to fear any type of creature, as anything that moves is considered fair prey.  None knows for certain whether the marble pudding is related to the mimic.  If the two creatures are related, it would explain the mimic’s natural immunity to the acid of deadly puddings.

As if there weren’t enough controversy over the marble pudding’s genetic ties, one sage has put forth yet another supposition: observing the creature’s stone-imitating camouflage and ability to project pseudopods from its body, he has postulated a link between the marble pudding and the roper.  While the roper is arguably a much more complex creature, it too can alter the shape of its body, changing its coloration better to match the surrounding rock, and shoot sticky strands from its body.

Originally appeared in Dragon Magazine #251 (1998).


----------



## freyar (Oct 30, 2008)

Start with Small at reduced HD, or just go with 8HD and Large so it can engulf things?


----------



## Cleon (Oct 31, 2008)

freyar said:


> Start with Small at reduced HD, or just go with 8HD and Large so it can engulf things?




I'd start it as Small, maybe with lower HD, and give it Improved Grab & Constrict like a Deadly Pudding rather than an Engulf attack. That allows a Small pudding to attack a bigger opponent, and then Medium/Large puddings can be listed under Advancement.

I'll make an attempt at a more detailed write up later.


----------



## Shade (Oct 31, 2008)

I think we should stick with the black pudding's split, and use a lesser version of the mimic's adhesive.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 31, 2008)

Okay, I've made a first attempt at a write-up based on the earlier Deadly Pudding with a few portions of the Mimic. I ended up going for a Medium Sized 8 HD ooze rather than having a Small Ooze which needs to be scaled up.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 31, 2008)

*Marble Pudding*[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]*Size/Type:* Medium Ooze[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]*Hit Dice:* 8d10+40 (84 hp)[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]*Initiative:* -5[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]*Speed:* 20 ft. (4 squares), climb 20 ft.[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]*Armor Class:* 5 (-5 Dex), touch 5, flat-footed 5
*Base Attack/Grapple:* +6/+9[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]*Attack:* Slam +10 melee (1d6+4 plus 1d6 acid)[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]*Full Attack:* Slam +10 melee (1d6+4 plus 1d6 acid)[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]*Space/Reach:* 5 ft./5 ft.[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]*Special Attacks:* Acid, adhesive, constrict 1d6+4 plus 1d6 acid[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]*Special Qualities: *Blindsight 90 ft., immunity to acid, immunity to cold, mimic stone, ooze traits, split, wallcrawling[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]*Saves:* Fort +7, Ref -1, Will -1[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]    *Abilities:* Str 16, Dex 1, Con 20, Int 1, Wis 1, Cha 1
*Skills:* Climb +11, Disguise +6* (+14 mimicking stone)[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]*Feats:* Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Weapon Focus (Slam)[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]*Environment:* Underground[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]*Organization:* Solitary[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]*Challenge Rating:* 6[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]*Treasure:* None[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]*Alignment:* Always neutral[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]*Advancement:* 9-15 HD (Medium); 16-24 HD (Large)[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]*Level Adjustment:* —[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
_[FONT=&quot]The slab of rock exudes slimy tentacles and attempts to seize hold of you.[/FONT]_[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]A typical marble pudding is roughly 5 feet across and a foot thick, weighing some 1200 pounds. Their flesh is denser than most other oozes. They are naturally gray, with streaks of white or black over their surfaces, giving them their distinct “marble” look, but can change their colour and texture to match any kind of background stone.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]*Combat*[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]Marble puddings are not active hunters, preferring to lie in ambush mimicking slabs of rock until prey wanders by, whereupon they attempt to grapple them with an adhesive pseudopod and crush and dissolve their prospective meal. They seldom use their wallclimbing ability to set up an ambush, unless their territory has a lot of flying animals inhabiting it, such as a bats' roost.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]*Acid (Ex)*[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]A marble pudding secretes a powerful acid that can dissolve flesh. Any melee hit or constrict attack deals acid damage.[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]*Adhesive (Ex)
*A marble pudding's pseudopods can exude a thick slime that acts as a powerful adhesive, holding fast any creatures or items that it touches. An adhesive-covered marble pudding automatically grapples any creature it hits with its slam attack. An opponent can break this adhesive's hold with a DC 18 Strength check, although they must still succeed at a grapple or Escape Artist check to escape the grapple, and if they fail at this the pudding can re-adhere itself as a free action.
Strong alcohol dissolves the adhesive, but the marble pudding still can grapple normally. A marble pudding can dissolve its adhesive at will, and the substance breaks down 5 rounds after the creature dies.
The Strength DC check to escape the adhesive is Con dependent.[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
*Constrict (Ex)*[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]A marble pudding deals automatic slam and acid damage with a successful grapple check.[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]*Mimic Stone (Ex)
* A marble pudding can harden the surface of their normally pliant bodies to a rock-like hardness, while changing its color and texture to appear like any stone it is in contact with. In this condition a marble pudding is very hard to distinguish from a chunk of rock, characters who examines the marble pudding can detect the ruse with a successful Spot check opposed by the pudding’s Disguise check. Of course, by this time it is generally far too late.
While mimicking stone a marble pudding cannot move, but gains hardness 8 and is fully aware of its surroundings. A marble pudding can revert to its pliant state as a free action in order to move or attack.
A character with stonecunning can apply that bonus to their Spot checks to notice a camouflaged marble pudding. If they possess skill ranks in Knowledge (geology) or Knowledge (mining) they can substitute that bonus for Spot in the check to notice the monster.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]*Split (Ex)*[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]Blows from weapons and electricity attacks cause a marble pudding to divide into two identical oozes, each with half of the original’s current hit points, rounded down, after subtracting the damage of the attack which caused the split. A pudding with 10 hit points or less cannot be further split and dies if reduced to 0 hit points.

*Wallcrawling (Ex)
*A marble pudding need not make Climb checks to traverse a vertical or horizontal surface (even upside down). It retains its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class while climbing and opponents get no special bonus to their attacks against it.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]*Skills*[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]A marble pudding has a +8 racial bonus on Climb checks and can always choose to take 10 on a Climb check, even if rushed or threatened. A marble pudding has a +8 racial bonus on Disguise checks when masquerading as a stone.


----------



## freyar (Oct 31, 2008)

Agreed with split and adhesive.

Shade, what do you think about the size?

Edit: Ooops, I'm slow again!  Agreed on starting at Medium.  Looking pretty good!


----------



## Shade (Nov 12, 2008)

Ported over to Homebrews.


----------



## freyar (Nov 12, 2008)

I guess the 8 skill points have already been distributed (looks like all 8 into Disguise).  Shouldn't it get 3 more ranks?  Maybe put them into Disguise as well?

Iron Will and Lightning Reflexes for 2 of the feats?


----------



## Cleon (Nov 14, 2008)

freyar said:


> I guess the 8 skill points have already been distributed (looks like all 8 into Disguise).  Shouldn't it get 3 more ranks?  Maybe put them into Disguise as well?
> 
> Iron Will and Lightning Reflexes for 2 of the feats?




You're right, it should have 11 skill points, which would have been stuck in Disguise with all its other ranks. I'll correct the entry.

As for feats, it should have three. How about giving it a Mimic's Lightning Reflexes and Weapon Focus (slam) but substitute the Mimic's Alertness for Iron Will?

Most oozes don't have keen senses (no Alertness or ranks in Spot or Listen), relying on Blindsight instead.


----------



## freyar (Nov 15, 2008)

Since this has blindsight, also, and such bad saves, I think I'd prefer Iron Will to Alertness. Weapon Focus sounds good, though.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 15, 2008)

freyar said:


> Since this has blindsight, also, and such bad saves, I think I'd prefer Iron Will to Alertness. Weapon Focus sounds good, though.




Sorry, that last sentence was badly phrased - I was suggesting giving it Iron Will instead of the Mimic's Alertness, but my intent ended up garbled.

Looks like we're agreed then, so I'll make the changes to the proposal.


----------



## freyar (Nov 15, 2008)

Sounds good.  I think this is done, if Shade approves.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 15, 2008)

freyar said:


> Sounds good.  I think this is done, if Shade approves.




Yup, I can't see anything else that needs doing to it.


----------



## Shade (Nov 20, 2008)

That all sounds good.  I'll update Homebrews when I get a chance, and add in flavor text.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 21, 2008)

Shade said:


> That all sounds good.  I'll update Homebrews when I get a chance, and add in flavor text.




Good to hear from you Shade. So, apart from the Marble Pud's flavour-text, are we done with the Oozes?


----------



## Shade (Nov 24, 2008)

Updated with flavor text.

And yes, I believe that wraps up this special conversion thread.  Thanks for everyone's input and inspiration!


----------



## freyar (Nov 25, 2008)

Huzzah!


----------



## Echohawk (Dec 2, 2008)

_Almost_ done. I think the marble pudding is still missing a size in the write-up


----------



## Shade (Dec 2, 2008)

Echohawk said:


> _Almost_ done. I think the marble pudding is still missing a size in the write-up




Oh, oops!

Fixed.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 12, 2011)

Since I noticed we are missing conversions of a few Oozes, so we've decided to cast resurrection on this thread.

I'll begin by posting the AD&D stats for the Slithering Hoard from _The *Wyrmskull Throne*_. We also seem to be missing the Flareater and Subterranean Puddings (Stone Pudding, Dense Pudding & Gray Pudding) from _*Ruins of Undermountain II*_ & _*Monstrous Compendium Annual 2*_.

So, by the slimy power of Juiblex I call upon this thread to rise from the dead!

Arise I command you!


----------



## Cleon (Nov 12, 2011)

*Slithering Hoard*

*Slithering Hoard
*Climate/Terrain: Any
Frequency: Very rare
Organization: Solitary
Activity Cycle: Any
Diet: Omnivorous scavenger
Intelligence: Low (5-7)
Treasure: B, S, Z
Alignment: Neutral evil
No. Appearing: 1
Armor Class: 4
Movement: 9, Sw 6 (flaps like ixitxachitl, ray)
Hit Dice: 5
THAC0: 17
No. of Attacks: 2
Damage/Attack: 2d8/2d8
Special Attacks: Suffocation
Special Defenses: Immune to electrical, paralyzation, and fear, hold, polymorph, and sleep-based attacks 
Magic Resistance: Nil
Size: L (20’ diameter sphere)
Morale: Steady (11)
XP Value: 1,400

Slithering hoards are modified cousins of the gelatinous cube that appear as amorphous blobs about twenty feet in diameter with bits of metal (often treasure) coating them. They exude a gluey substance that they use to adhere coins, gems, small weapons, and pieces of armor as an outer layer. This outer coating of detritus functions both as a set of teeth and also as a protective coating of armor. The slithering hoard flows toward its victims and wraps itself around them, grinding them with their metallic “teeth”, while at the same time suffocating them.

*Combat:* The slithering hoard has the general consistency of a squishy gel, and it attacks by warping its generally spherical shape into one or two pseudopods that lash out and envelop its prey. Each of these attacks inflict 2d8 points of damage, and a victim so attacked must roll a successful saving throw vs. paralyzation or become enveloped within the slithering hoard’s mass. The creature can either make two attacks against a single victim (forcing two separate saving throws) or one each against two different opponents. Victims trapped inside the slithering hoard automatically suffer 1d6 points of digestive damage and are in danger of suffocating.

Electricity, fear, hold, paralyzation, polymorph, and sleep-based attacks have no effect on slithering hoards, but fire and blows from weapons have normal effects. If a slithering hoard fails its saving throw against a cold-based attack, it is slowed to 50% its normal movement and only inflicts 1d4 points of damage per attack.

*Habitat/Society:* What little intelligence the slithering hoard possesses guides it to find loose treasure that it can use as its teeth and armor. Beyond that, it has a voracious appetite for organic material. It displays a crude bit of cunning, almost instinctual, in its hunting habits. It has learned to adapt to its surroundings and take advantage of its natural camouflage to lure prey to it. In dungeons, it can compress itself into a pile shape, using its protective treasure coating to appear as a large pile of coins, gems, potions, etc. Underwater, it is even harder to spot, and it can bury itself among silt or other debris and appear as loose treasure undulating in the current. If a slithering hoard spends sufficient time underwater, it learns to move with a crude swimming motion, extruding fins of a sort from its mass to propel itself.

*Ecology:* The slithering hoard was created by the Red Wizards of Thay, who adapted gelatinous cubes for the unique and insidious task of paying retribution to their enemies. The hoard was hidden in weak ceramic jars and then secreted among tributes and ransoms sent to various states and rich persons, where, once it was deposited among a true treasure hoard, would dissolve its container and adapt the treasure around it, becoming a nasty surprise for the recipients.

_Originally appeared in Wyrmskull Throne (1999)._


----------



## freyar (Nov 15, 2011)

Just start with a cube and modify a bit?

Are you sure we didn't do those puddings?  The stone one sounds vaguely familiar.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 16, 2011)

freyar said:


> Just start with a cube and modify a bit?




Yes, it'll definitely start out as a Gelatinous Cube.

I'm thinking we should just slap on a couple of special abilities borrowed from a *Slime Worm*.



freyar said:


> Are you sure we didn't do those puddings?  The stone one sounds vaguely familiar.




Yes, I thought that way too but I couldn't find an existing conversion.

Might have been getting it mixed up with the Marble Pudding.


----------



## Shade (Nov 16, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Yes, it'll definitely start out as a Gelatinous Cube.
> 
> I'm thinking we should just slap on a couple of special abilities borrowed from a *Slime Worm*.




That sounds about right.




Cleon said:


> Yes, I thought that way too but I couldn't find an existing conversion.
> 
> Might have been getting it mixed up with the Marble Pudding.




I think we deliberately skipped 'em at the time due to the Bestiary of the Realms 2 containing them.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 16, 2011)

Shade said:


> That sounds about right.




Might as well start a Working Draft then and see what it looks like.



Shade said:


> I think we deliberately skipped 'em at the time due to the Bestiary of the Realms 2 containing them.




I wasn't round these parts at the time, so I'll take your word for it.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 16, 2011)

*Slithering Hoard*
Huge Ooze
*Hit Dice:* 5d10+45 (73 hp)
*Initiative:* *-*5
*Speed:* 20 ft. (4 squares), swim 15 ft.
*Armor Class:* 16 (-2 size, -5 Dex, +13 armor), touch 3, flat-footed 16
*Base Attack/Grapple:* +3/+13
*Attack:* Slam +4 melee (1d6+3 plus 1d6 acid and paralysis)
*Full Attack:* 2 slams +4 melee (1d6+3 plus 1d6 acid and paralysis)
*Space/Reach:* 15 ft./10 ft.
*Special Attacks:* Acid, engulf, paralysis
*Special Qualities:* Blindsight 60 ft., camouflage, immunity to electricity, ooze traits
*Saves:* Fort +10, Ref -4, Will +0
*Abilities:* Str 14, Dex 1, Con 28, Int 5, Wis 8, Cha 1
*Skills:* Listen +3, Spot +3, Swim +10
*Feats:* Ability Focus (engulf), Weapon Focus (slam)
*Environment:* Underground
*Organization:* Solitary
*Challenge Rating:* 4
*Treasure:* Triple coins, double goods, 50% items
*Alignment:* Always neutral
*Advancement:* 6-12 HD (Huge); 13-25 HD (Gargantuan)
*Level Adjustment:* —

_A huge mound of coins, weapons and bits of broken metal slithers  across the ground. Gaps open between pieces of metal here and there,  revealing the mound's interior is a translucent mass of living gel._

  Slithering hoards are omnivorous oozes related to gelatinous cubes. A  slithering hoard's gelatinous body exudes a sticky slime which it  uses  to cover itself in coins, small weapons, armor pieces, and other  bits  of metal. The hoard's outer coating serves as protective armor and as  "teeth" to grind food. It will use other detritus if no metal is  available (stones, bones et cetera), but  this may affect its armor  bonus.

The first slithering hoards were shaped from gelatinous  cubes by  devious wizards. Most of their descendants live as wandering scavengers,  devouring anything edible that comes within their reach. Slithering  hoards are as at home underwater as they are on land. They can swim by  assuming a manta ray like shape and flapping through the water.

Unlike most oozes, slithering hoards possess a dim cunning and can learn  (or be taught) very simple behaviors based on their instinct to avoid  harm and acquire food. For example, hoards learn to hide in the places  with the most prey, and will adapt their camouflage to the surroundings.  Slithering hoards are occasionally used as guardians by wealthy  creatures, from those same wizards to businessmen to dragons.

An average slithering hoard weighs around 20,000 pounds, although much larger specimens are not uncommon. These amorphous creatures have no fixed shape. An immobile slithering hoard looks like a mound of treasure or scrap metal about 20 feet across and a yard thick. Such a hoard can expand itself into  a 20 foot diameter sphere, which lets it move by rolling about, or  spread into a manta-ray like shape with a wingspan of 30 feet or more.

 *COMBAT*

A slithering hoard attacks by lashing out with one or two pseudopods or engulfing foes in its body. It usually disguises itself as a mound of treasure and strikes at any opponent that comes within its reach. They are cunning enough to learn other ways to attack - such as swimming up beneath small boats and engulfing them.

*Acid (Ex):* A slithering hoard’s acid does not harm metal or stone.

*Camouflage (Ex):* Since a slithering hoard looks like a pile of treasure when at rest, it takes a DC 25 Spot check to notice it before it attacks. Anyone with ranks in Appraise or Knowledge (dungeoneering) can use one of those skills instead of Spot to notice the ooze.
 
*Engulf (Ex):* Although it moves slowly, a slithering hoard can simply mow down Large or smaller creatures as a standard action. It cannot make a slam attack during a round in which it engulfs. The slithering hoard merely has to move over the opponents, affecting as many as it can cover. Opponents can make opportunity attacks against the hoard, but if they do so they are not entitled to a saving throw. Those who do not attempt attacks of opportunity must succeed on a DC 17 Reflex save or be engulfed; on a success, they are pushed back or aside (opponent’s choice) as the hoard moves forward. Engulfed creatures are subject to the hoard’s paralysis and acid, and are considered to be grappled and trapped within its body. The save DC is Strength-based and includes a +1 racial bonus.

*Paralysis (Ex):* A slithering hoard secretes an anesthetizing slime. A target hit by a hoard’s melee or engulf attack must succeed on a DC 21 Fortitude save or be paralyzed for 3d6 rounds. The hoard can automatically engulf a paralyzed opponent. The save DC is Constitution-based.

*Skills:* A slithering hoard has a +8 racial bonus on any Swim check to perform some special action or avoid a hazard. It can always choose to take 10 on a Swim check, even if distracted or endangered. It can use the run action while swimming, provided it swims in a straight line.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 16, 2011)

I'm undecided on the Dex 7. I thought that since it had 2 slam attacks and a good AC it might be more agile than most Oozes, but I am not decided on it.

I'd be just as happy giving it the standard Ooze Dex of 1 and +12 armour.

Which do you prefer?


----------



## Shade (Nov 16, 2011)

Cleon said:


> I'm undecided on the Dex 7. I thought that since it had 2 slam attacks and a good AC it might be more agile than most Oozes, but I am not decided on it.
> 
> I'd be just as happy giving it the standard Ooze Dex of 1 and +12 armour.
> 
> Which do you prefer?




I'll bet you can guess my preference.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 17, 2011)

Shade said:


> I'll bet you can guess my preference.




Using my incredible precognitive powers I already knew you were going to prefer Dex 1.

So, shall we make the +12 all armour, or part armour and part natural armour?


----------



## Shade (Nov 17, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Using my incredible precognitive powers I already knew you were going to prefer Dex 1.
> 
> So, shall we make the +12 all armour, or part armour and part natural armour?




All armor. All of the oozes I've checked lack natural armor.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 17, 2011)

Shade said:


> All armor. All of the oozes I've checked lack natural armor.




I knew you were going to write that, too. My precognition has been good recently.

*Updating*.


----------



## Shade (Nov 17, 2011)

Cleon said:


> I knew you were going to write that, too. My precognition has been good recently.




Or perhaps I'm growing more predictable.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 18, 2011)

Shade said:


> Or perhaps I'm growing more predictable.




Maybe your mind has become so powerful it's begun broadcasting monster design thoughts.


----------



## Shade (Nov 18, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Maybe your mind has become so powerful it's begun broadcasting monster design thoughts.




I like that idea!   I've always coveted the Psionic subtype...


----------



## Cleon (Nov 18, 2011)

Shade said:


> I like that idea!   I've always coveted the Psionic subtype...




All you need is the right template... Why not become a Phrenic Shade?


----------



## freyar (Nov 23, 2011)

Shade influencing Cleon?  Promising....

Anyway, it looks pretty good and almost done.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 23, 2011)

freyar said:


> Shade influencing Cleon?  Promising....




Good luck getting through my permanent _mind blank_. 



freyar said:


> Anyway, it looks pretty good and almost done.




So, what shall we do for skills and feats?


----------



## freyar (Nov 25, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Good luck getting through my permanent _mind blank_.



Your mind is blank?  That clearly explains some of the odder design choices you've made over the years.... 



> So, what shall we do for skills and feats?




Doesn't need Hide or Move Silently much since it's got the camo (plus the Dex would really pull those down).  Just split the ranks between Spot and Listen, I guess, so it can find prey.

Let's slap an Ability Focus on Engulf, since the DC is a tad low for that.  Maybe Weapon Focus (slam) would be a little better than any of the save boosters, too.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 25, 2011)

freyar said:


> Your mind is blank?  That clearly explains some of the odder design choices you've made over the years....




Nah, _mind blank_ only makes my mind *seem* blank while concealing the unbelievable richness beneath the spell.

You just haven't been rolling high enough on Craft (D&D monsters) to appreciate the finer points of my genius. 



freyar said:


> Doesn't need Hide or Move Silently much since it's got the camo (plus the Dex would really pull those down).  Just split the ranks between Spot and Listen, I guess, so it can find prey.
> 
> Let's slap an Ability Focus on Engulf, since the DC is a tad low for that.  Maybe Weapon Focus (slam) would be a little better than any of the save boosters, too.




That'd be alright by me. I did wonder about Improved Initiative, since they seem to attack pretty quickly ("lashing out" with two pseudopods).

Although, come to think of it, Gray Oozes attack with snake-like strikes, but WotC gave them the same pathetic -5 initiative as most Oozes.


----------



## Shade (Nov 28, 2011)

The suggested skills and feats sound great.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 29, 2011)

Shade said:


> The suggested skills and feats sound great.




*Updated*.


----------



## Shade (Nov 30, 2011)

So we just need descriptive and flavor text?


----------



## freyar (Nov 30, 2011)

Looks that way.

For weight, I guess these are about the same volume as a cube, but the metal might raise the density a bit.  100,000 lb?  Or not quite so much?


----------



## Cleon (Dec 1, 2011)

freyar said:


> Looks that way.
> 
> For weight, I guess these are about the same volume as a cube, but the metal might raise the density a bit.  100,000 lb?  Or not quite so much?




 Isn't that awfully heavy? That's 85,000 pounds more than the weight of an ordinary Gelatinous Cube, or 6 and 2/3rds times more.

Let's see, the sides and top of the Cube are each 10 foot square, or 500 square feet in total. 500 square feet of 1-inch thick solid steel would weigh just under 20,000 pounds.

Contrariwise, a Large-sized suit of full plate is only 100 pounds.

So, I'm thinking the metal casing armoring a Slithering Hoard should weigh somewhere in between. Maybe 5,000 to 10,000 pounds, for a total weight of 20,000 to 25,000 pounds?

I'm liking the 20,000 more than the 25,000.


----------



## freyar (Dec 1, 2011)

The SRD says a typical gelatinous cube is 50,000 lb (and is 15 ft on a side).  Where'd you get the 15,000 lb from?  The slithering hoard is 20 ft across but presumably not as tall (same volume but more spread out).  

Based on your scaling, it seems like you'd want something like 70,000 lb.  Sound ok?


----------



## Cleon (Dec 2, 2011)

freyar said:


> The SRD says a typical gelatinous cube is 50,000 lb (and is 15 ft on a side).  Where'd you get the 15,000 lb from?  The slithering hoard is 20 ft across but presumably not as tall (same volume but more spread out).




I tend to use d20SRD.org as my handy SRD website. That iteration of the *Gelatinous Cube* is Large and 10 foot square. (If I remember correctly, the Cubes were 10-foot in some early versions of 3E and switched to 15-foot in revised 3.5).

Besides, I prefer 10-foot cubes. The classic AD&D Gelatinous Cube was a 10 footer so it fitted neatly down standard dungeon corridors...



freyar said:


> Based on your scaling, it seems like you'd want something like 70,000 lb.  Sound ok?




If you want to make it a Huge monster based on the 25 ton Cube, its average weight would be 75,000 pounds.

(Range is +1/3 to +2/3; giving an average of +1/2, or an extra 25,000 pounds).


----------



## Cleon (Dec 2, 2011)

So, am I making it Huge?


----------



## freyar (Dec 4, 2011)

Interesting.  I generally use the Sovelior & Sage SRD for faster navigation, their cube is listed as Large but 15 ft per side and 50,000 lb.  Meanwhile, the 3.5 MM has the 15 ft cube as Huge (which makes more sense), but still only 4HD.  What's happened here?  Huh.

Ummm, anyway, let's just base it on the 10 ft cube.  4HD for Huge is almost ridiculously low, and 5HD isn't much better.  So 20 ft across and 20,000 lb?  That's ok by me.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 4, 2011)

freyar said:


> Interesting.  I generally use the Sovelior & Sage SRD for faster navigation, their cube is listed as Large but 15 ft per side and 50,000 lb.  Meanwhile, the 3.5 MM has the 15 ft cube as Huge (which makes more sense), but still only 4HD.  What's happened here?  Huh.
> 
> Ummm, anyway, let's just base it on the 10 ft cube.  4HD for Huge is almost ridiculously low, and 5HD isn't much better.  So 20 ft across and 20,000 lb?  That's ok by me.




Well, 10 short tons is fine by me.

Let's see, a 10' cube is a thousand cubic feet. A 20 foot diameter ooze of the same volume would (assuming it approximates a flat disc) be ... a little over a yard tall.

That seems reasonable.

However, I'm thinking we should consider making it Huge, since it'll spill over from a Large creature's 10 ft. Space on all sides.

EDIT: Oh, and the 3E Black Pudding is 15 ft. across and Huge - it would seem odd to have a bigger, metal-plated ooze with a smaller size category.


----------



## freyar (Dec 6, 2011)

Huge is fine by me.  It's a little wimpy for the size, but I agree with your logic.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 6, 2011)

freyar said:


> Huge is fine by me.  It's a little wimpy for the size, but I agree with your logic.




*Updated*.

I gave it a "half size boost" of +4 Str, +2 Dex since I didn't want it to become _too_ feeble.


----------



## Shade (Dec 6, 2011)

freyar said:


> Huge is fine by me.  It's a little wimpy for the size, but I agree with your logic.




Same here.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 6, 2011)

Shade said:


> Same here.




Good!

So we just need a description and background and they're done.


----------



## freyar (Dec 7, 2011)

For background, "The original slithering hoards were shaped from captured gelatinous cubes by devious wizards. They are now used as treasure guardians by all manner of wealthy creatures, from those same wizards to businessmen to dragons."


----------



## Cleon (Dec 10, 2011)

freyar said:


> For background, "The original slithering hoards were shaped from captured gelatinous cubes by devious wizards. They are now used as treasure guardians by all manner of wealthy creatures, from those same wizards to businessmen to dragons."




Hmm, do we need to say only wealthy creatures use them as treasure guardians? Non-wealthy creatures would be unlikely to have treasure worth guarding!

I'd also like to mention their occasional use as "booby trap" tribute:



			
				Wyrmskull Throne said:
			
		

> The slithering hoard was created by the Red Wizards of Thay, who adapted gelatinous cubes for the unique and insidious task of paying retribution to their enemies. The hoard was hidden in weak ceramic jars and then secreted among tributes and ransoms sent to various states and rich persons, where, once it was deposited among a true treasure hoard, would dissolve its container and adapt the treasure around it, becoming a nasty surprise for the recipients.




While looking at _*The Wyrmskull Throne*_  I also rechecked the size and it clearly says a Slithering Hoard is a "20’ diameter sphere". Should we  change the size and weight? I think I'd rather modify the  description a bit so it switches between spherical and treasure-mound  forms.

How's this:

_A huge mound of coins, weapons and bits of broken metal slithers across the ground. Gaps open between pieces of metal here and there, revealing the mound's interior is a translucent mass of living gel._

  Slithering hoards are omnivorous oozes related to gelatinous cubes. A slithering hoard's gelatinous body exudes a sticky slime which it  uses to cover itself in coins, small weapons, armour pieces, and other  bits of metal. The hoard's outer coating serves as protective armor and as "teeth" to grind food. It will use other detritus if no metal is available (stones, bones et cetera), but  this may affect its armor bonus.

The first slithering hoards were shaped from gelatinous  cubes by devious wizards. Most of their descendants live as wandering scavengers, devouring anything edible that comes within their reach. Slithering hoards are as at home underwater as they are on land. They can swim by assuming a manta ray like shape and flapping through the water.

Unlike most oozes, slithering hoards possess a dim cunning and can learn (or be taught) very simple behaviors based on their instinct to avoid harm and acquire food. For example, hoards learn to hide in the places with the most prey, and will adapt their camouflage to the surroundings. Slithering hoards are occasionally used as guardians by wealthy creatures, from those same wizards to businessmen to dragons.

An average slithering hoard weighs around 20,000 pounds, although much larger specimens are not uncommon. These amorphous creatures have no fixed shape. An immobile slithering hoard looks like a mound of treasure or scrap metal about 20 feet across and a yard thick. Such a hoard can expand itself into a 20 foot diameter sphere, which lets it move by rolling about, or spread into a manta-ray like shape with a wingspan of 30 feet or more.

 *COMBAT*
A slithering hoard attacks by lashing out with one or two pseudopods or engulfing foes in its body. It usually disguises itself as a mound of treasure and strikes at any opponent that comes within its reach. They are cunning enough to learn other ways to attack - such as swimming up beneath small boats and engulfing them.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 10, 2011)

Oh, I added the Amphibious trait, since they appear to be capable of living underwater.


----------



## freyar (Dec 11, 2011)

The text is fine.

But here we go again on amphibious.   The only places it's described implies that it's for aquatic critters to get about on land (see chuul and skum in the SRD).  So do you want to make this aquatic?  In addition, the aballin, which is much more likely to be in/around water than one of these isn't aquatic or amphibious.  Can we just leave that off?


----------



## Cleon (Dec 11, 2011)

freyar said:


> The text is fine.
> 
> But here we go again on amphibious.   The only places it's described implies that it's for aquatic critters to get about on land (see chuul and skum in the SRD).  So do you want to make this aquatic?  In addition, the aballin, which is much more likely to be in/around water than one of these isn't aquatic or amphibious.  Can we just leave that off?




We had this argument and established that the Amphibious trait does not require the Aquatic subtype, as shown by the SRD stats for the *Toad*.


----------



## freyar (Dec 12, 2011)

Right, and we also noted the the toad does not have a description for the ability, so it might mean something different than the usual "amphibious" SQ.  So, IIRC, we grudgingly agreed to put it on the SQ line and leave it completely vague for whatever critter that was, only because we couldn't establish completely that the SRD has a mistake in the toad.

However, in this case, I think the aballin, aka "living water," which is neither aquatic nor amphibious, is sufficient precedent to leave off the amphibious SQ, no matter how you want to interpret what the amphibious SQ means.  Besides, isn't it kind of pointless for oozes.  Do they even breathe air?


----------



## Cleon (Dec 12, 2011)

freyar said:


> However, in this case, I think the aballin, aka "living water," which is neither aquatic nor amphibious, is sufficient precedent to leave off the amphibious SQ, no matter how you want to interpret what the amphibious SQ means.  Besides, isn't it kind of pointless for oozes.  Do they even breathe air?




The Ooze type says they breathe. It doesn't say what they breathe, but then again the type descriptors don't say what humanoids or animals breath either.

As for the Aballin, by the 3E Rules As Written they have to breathe air. Presumably they float on the surface most of the time, to avoid drowning.


----------



## freyar (Dec 13, 2011)

Right, but there's nothing in the slithering hoard to suggest it doesn't do that either, since the treasure apparently "undulates" underwater.  What's to say part of the ooze isn't sticking above water?  It just doesn't feel right given other oozes.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 13, 2011)

freyar said:


> Right, but there's nothing in the slithering hoard to suggest it doesn't do that either, since the treasure apparently "undulates" underwater.  What's to say part of the ooze isn't sticking above water?  It just doesn't feel right given other oozes.




Oh heck, shall we leave it to Shade to break this impasse?


----------



## freyar (Dec 14, 2011)

Think we might need to...


----------



## Cleon (Dec 14, 2011)

freyar said:


> Think we might need to...




Where's a bit of Shade when you need some...


----------



## Shade (Dec 16, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Where's a bit of Shade when you need some...




Just turn on a little light...

My preference in the other thread was to stick with the Aquatic subtype, since the toad seemed the exception rather than the rule.

Still, since the toad exists, I'm not terribly bothered without it.

If lives hang in the balance and I have to choose, I'd pick Aquatic.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 16, 2011)

Shade said:


> Just turn on a little light...
> 
> My preference in the other thread was to stick with the Aquatic subtype, since the toad seemed the exception rather than the rule.
> 
> ...




Gelatinous Cubes aren't aquatic, so I'd rather not give the Hoard that subtype.


----------



## Shade (Dec 16, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Gelatinous Cubes aren't aquatic, so I'd rather not give the Hoard that subtype.




They also aren't amphibious, so jettison that as well?


----------



## Cleon (Dec 17, 2011)

Shade said:


> They also aren't amphibious, so jettison that as well?




That's because the niche of a hypothetical Aquatic Cube* is already occupied by the Crystal Ooze*. 

*The Crystal Ooze even has a transparent body and paralyzing attack like a Gelatinous Cube. Presumably this is parallel evolution, since they're related to Gray Oozes, not Cubes.

**Incidentally, said Crystal Ooze isn't amphibious, since they can't survive more than a few hours out of water, hence the Tome of Horrors giving them the Water Dependent special quality.


----------



## Shade (Dec 19, 2011)

Let's just leave off Aquatic and assume a "gemstone hoard" fills that niche.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 19, 2011)

Shade said:


> Let's just leave off Aquatic and assume a "gemstone hoard" fills that niche.




It doesn't have Aquatic (yet), do you mean leave off Amphibious?

Anyhow, since it can live in water I want it to be able to breathe both water and air. I'd rather add Aquatic than sacrifice Amphibious if a non-Aquatic Amphibian bothers you that much.


----------



## freyar (Dec 20, 2011)

I still don't see any evidence that it can breathe water in the original text.  And it's no more aquatic than an aballin.  I still say not aquatic, not amphibious.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 20, 2011)

freyar said:


> I still don't see any evidence that it can breathe water in the original text.  And it's no more aquatic than an aballin.  I still say not aquatic, not amphibious.




Well if you're all so dead set on it not being Amphibious I guess it'll have to lose the special quality if we're going to move on.

Even though it don't seem right to me...


----------



## freyar (Dec 21, 2011)

Just trying to make sure you have enough critters to supply your Cleon Specials.


----------



## Shade (Dec 21, 2011)

freyar said:


> Just trying to make sure you have enough critters to supply your Cleon Specials.




Yeah.  It's simple economics.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 21, 2011)

Shade said:


> Yeah.  It's simple economics.




How does the supple and demand chain for Cleon Specials™ work then?


----------



## Cleon (Dec 21, 2011)

Degraded *Working Draft* by removing the beautifully apt Amphibious.

While I was at it I updated the Space/Reach and increased the NA to match its AC 16, since we tweaked the size.

Also added the Swim skill from its swim speed.

That looks like it for the stats, so would you care to produce some flavour?


----------



## freyar (Dec 22, 2011)

You had this already:

A huge mound of coins, weapons and bits of broken metal slithers across the ground. Gaps open between pieces of metal here and there, revealing the mound's interior is a translucent mass of living gel.

Slithering hoards are omnivorous oozes related to gelatinous cubes. A slithering hoard's gelatinous body exudes a sticky slime which it uses to cover itself in coins, small weapons, armour pieces, and other bits of metal. The hoard's outer coating serves as protective armor and as "teeth" to grind food. It will use other detritus if no metal is available (stones, bones et cetera), but this may affect its armor bonus.

The first slithering hoards were shaped from gelatinous cubes by devious wizards. Most of their descendants live as wandering scavengers, devouring anything edible that comes within their reach. Slithering hoards are as at home underwater as they are on land. They can swim by assuming a manta ray like shape and flapping through the water.

Unlike most oozes, slithering hoards possess a dim cunning and can learn (or be taught) very simple behaviors based on their instinct to avoid harm and acquire food. For example, hoards learn to hide in the places with the most prey, and will adapt their camouflage to the surroundings. Slithering hoards are occasionally used as guardians by wealthy creatures, from those same wizards to businessmen to dragons.

An average slithering hoard weighs around 20,000 pounds, although much larger specimens are not uncommon. These amorphous creatures have no fixed shape. An immobile slithering hoard looks like a mound of treasure or scrap metal about 20 feet across and a yard thick. Such a hoard can expand itself into a 20 foot diameter sphere, which lets it move by rolling about, or spread into a manta-ray like shape with a wingspan of 30 feet or more.

COMBAT
A slithering hoard attacks by lashing out with one or two pseudopods or engulfing foes in its body. It usually disguises itself as a mound of treasure and strikes at any opponent that comes within its reach. They are cunning enough to learn other ways to attack - such as swimming up beneath small boats and engulfing them.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 22, 2011)

freyar said:


> You had this already:




Yes I know what I produced, is there anything you'd like to add or subtract to it?


----------



## freyar (Dec 24, 2011)

I think it's fine.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 24, 2011)

freyar said:


> I think it's fine.




Updating *Working Draft*.


----------



## freyar (Dec 25, 2011)

All done?


----------



## Cleon (Dec 27, 2011)

freyar said:


> All done?




I guess so, unless you want to have the Amphibious argument again? 

I'd fancy adding paralysis to the attack line - e.g. "+4 melee (1d6+3 plus 1d6 acid and paralysis)" - although the SRD Gelatinous Cube's attack line does not list its paralysis.


----------



## freyar (Dec 31, 2011)

+ paralysis would probably make sense, but I guess we're stuck with the SRD g-cube precedent.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 31, 2011)

freyar said:


> + paralysis would probably make sense, but I guess we're stuck with the SRD g-cube precedent.




Why should we be stuck with it? It's an entirely different monster, after all.

All the SRD creature with a weapon that cause paralysis have it listed on their attack line _except_ for the Gelatinous Cube, namely the Ghoul, Mohrg, Spider Eater (as "plus poison").

The other paralyzing monsters have paralysis special attacks that do not use attack rolls, like a Tendriculos's paralyzing Swallow Whole, of the Xill's paralysing bite after using Improved Grab.

I think we'd better add it.

Heck, I'll just do it...

 Updating *Working Draft*.

I also changed the "armour" in the background text to match your quaint American spelling.


----------



## freyar (Jan 2, 2012)

Looks done, then.  But the American spelling is the updated, modern one.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 2, 2012)

freyar said:


> Looks done, then.  But the American spelling is the updated, modern one.




Pshaw. The British spelling is the correct one, enriched by centuries of tradition. 

So, which of the other missing Oozes would you like to do next?


----------



## Cleon (Jan 2, 2012)

Cleon said:


> Updating *Working Draft*.
> 
> I also changed the "armour" in the background text to match your quaint American spelling.




Just noticed some minor problems with the Camouflage:

 *Camouflage (Ex):* Since a slithering hoard  looks like a pile of treasure when at rest, it takes a DC 25 Spot check  to notice it before it attacks. Anyone with ranks in Knowledge  (dungeoneering) can use one of those skills instead of Spot to notice  the worm.

Apart from the "worm" at the end, the "one of those skills" doesn't make any sense since there's only one skill listed. I'll swap "worm" for "ooze" and add Appraise to the skill possibilities, since it seems to make sense to use the skill for evaluating treasure to detect a monster pretending to be a pile of wealth.

Updating *Working Draft*.


----------



## freyar (Jan 2, 2012)

Agreed.  All done then?


----------



## Cleon (Jan 2, 2012)

freyar said:


> Agreed.  All done then?




Yup.

Oh, and...



Cleon said:


> So, which of the other missing Oozes would you like to do next?


----------



## freyar (Jan 3, 2012)

What were the other ones you dug up?


----------



## Cleon (Jan 3, 2012)

freyar said:


> What were the other ones you dug up?




And I quote...



Cleon said:


> ..., it also makes me realize our Creature Catalog  doesn't have the Flareater or Subterranean Puddings (Stone Pudding,  Dense Pudding & Gray Pudding) from _*Ruins of Undermountain II*_ & _*Monstrous Compendium Annual 2*_.


----------



## freyar (Jan 4, 2012)

Ahhh.  Why don't you take your pick?


----------



## Cleon (Jan 4, 2012)

freyar said:


> Ahhh.  Why don't you take your pick?




Frankly, I don't much care about it, so let's do the first I mentioned - the Flareater.


----------



## Shade (Jan 4, 2012)

Cleon said:


> Frankly, I don't much care about it, so let's do the first I mentioned - the Flareater.




Let's eat some flar.


----------



## freyar (Jan 5, 2012)

Bring on the stats!


----------



## Cleon (Jan 6, 2012)

freyar said:


> Bring on the stats!




Very well...

The following is the _Monstrous Compendium Annual Volume Two (1995)_ version. The Flareater originally appeared in _Ruins of Undermountain II: The Deep Levels (1994) _with essentially the same text.

*Flareater
*Climate/Terrain: Subterranean 
Frequency: Very rare 
Organization: Solitary 
Activity Cycle: Any 
Diet: Omnivorous 
Intelligence: Average (8–10) 
Treasure: Nil 
Alignment: Neutral 
No. Appearing: 1–4 
Armor Class: 0 
Movement: 15 
Hit Dice: 6 to 12 (see below) 
THAC0: 6 HD: 15
(7 HD: 13; 9 HD: 11; 11 HD: 9) 
No. of Attacks: 1 
Damage/Attack: 3d4 
Special Attacks: Surprise, dissolve, HD growth 
Special Defenses: Immune to heat and flame 
Magic Resistance: Special 
Size: M (6’ wide) 
Morale: Elite (13–14) 
XP Value: 1,400–2,400 

Flareaters, some of the most deadly underground denizens, appear to be related to green slime—they may be green slime altered into new forms and given intelligence by magical experiments. Though actually deep emerald green, flareaters’ glossy hides seem almost black in the dark dungeons. A single flareater rarely exceeds 6 feet across, and they are no more than three inches thick. They are unnaturally warm to the touch. Flareaters thrive in damp, subterranean places, where they ooze freely over all surfaces. Intelligent, organized, methodical, and eternally hungry, they ever search for their favorite food source—light.

Its fluid nature allows the creature to move at a surprisingly quick rate compared to other slimes and jellies. Like running water, it can overtake its quarry. Those who witness flareaters say their movement is unnerving, like watching dark, evil water flowing over stone walls.

Flareaters have no verbal language. It is believed they communicate with each other by sending pulsating ripples through their forms.

*Combat: *Like green slime, flareaters can drop onto their victims; such victims receive a –3 to surprise rolls. However, flareaters might also follow their intended targets, running like water along a cavern floor or ceiling while gauging their foes’ strength and determining the best initial targets.

Flareaters adhere to flesh, and dissolve that flesh into their own systems in 2d8 melee rounds (no saving throw). Flareaters can eat through one inch of metal in 4 melee rounds; magical bonuses delay this process, adding 1 round per magical plus of the metal. They also dissolve one inch of wood in 6 melee rounds, and one inch of leather or leather-like substances in 8 melee rounds, again adding 1 round per magical plus of the material. Unlike green slime, flareaters cannot easily be removed by scraping with metal, wood, or leather scrapers; the creature will attempt to dissolve any such item. Flareaters will flow over a victim, probing weak spots in armor or clothing; they are smart enough to attack bare flesh first, ensuring that other items remain for later consumption.

If a flareater’s target is carrying a light source, the creature takes a different combat tactic. The creature moves over a light and drops down on it, smothering the torch or lantern; it is not harmed by flames. For each nonmagical light source a flareater engulfs, it gains 1 Hit Die. Flareaters also devour magical light by moving into the area of effect, absorbing the magical light, and cancelling its effects. Flareaters are immune to damage from all light-, fire-, and heat-related spells, including _fireballs_, _Melf’s minute meteors_, _flame strike_, and others. Cold-based spells paralyze them for 2d4 rounds. The following spells aid the creature’s growth by 1 Hit Die per spell absorbed or cast at it: _dancing lights_, _glitterdust_, _faerie fire_, and _moonbeam_. _Light_, _continual light_, and _sunray_ cause it to grow by 2 Hit Dice. THAC0 adjusts to the creature’s current Hit Dice totals.

When the monster reaches 12 Hit Dice, it splits in two, creating two 6 HD creatures. The division process takes 4 full rounds; once the process begins, it cannot be halted. If the original flareater is damaged during this time, simply divide its total hit points between its two offspring.

*Habitat/Society: *Flareaters exist solely to eat and increase their numbers. They live in damp, underground caverns, though drawn to light for food. Some sages suspect flareaters could evaporate with long exposure to full sunlight, their fluid bodies being better suited for the damp atmosphere and darkness of the caverns.

A maximum of four flareaters might be encountered living together. Flareaters tend to limit their numbers in one area to ensure proper amounts of food for each individual creature.

All flareaters are asexual. They produce by division, like an amoeba, when special conditions are met. This is explained in the Combat section.

*Ecology:* Wizards have been known to hunt flareaters in the hopes that the creatures’ remains (or a live specimen) can be used as components in spells like _create darkness_ and _shapechange_, and potions that grant immunity to fire. It is rumored that large colonies of flareaters exist deep underground.


----------



## freyar (Jan 7, 2012)

Yikes.  Acid and Con damage I guess.  Start with 6HD and base abilities around the ochre jelly?


----------



## Cleon (Jan 7, 2012)

freyar said:


> Yikes.  Acid and Con damage I guess.  Start with 6HD and base abilities around the ochre jelly?




They've got a much better AC than most Oozes, the 3E equivalent is AC 20. Flareaters are also *fast* (speed equivalent to 40 ft. to 50 ft.) and have average human intelligence.

Perhaps we should make this an "Oozelike" Aberration rather than an actual Ooze?


----------



## freyar (Jan 8, 2012)

Nah, none of that is really inconsistent with being an ooze.  It'll just be pretty tough comparatively.

Tell me, did other 2e oozes split like the flareater, or did they split from weapon attacks?  I guess I'm asking if we should convert to the usual 3.X ooze splitting or go with a growth type ability.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 8, 2012)

freyar said:


> Nah, none of that is really inconsistent with being an ooze.  It'll just be pretty tough comparatively.




So you prefer Ooze over Aberration?

Well there are precedents for intelligent oozes, but I'm not liking that AC much. Can you think of any 3E Oozes that are so hard to hit?



freyar said:


> Tell me, did other 2e oozes split like the flareater, or did they split from weapon attacks?  I guess I'm asking if we should convert to the usual 3.X ooze splitting or go with a growth type ability.




You mean ones that split into two smaller creatures once they've grown to a certain size. Don't most Oozes reproduce like that? Admittedly it's rare for them to have an Ecology section that specifies they breed by fission, although the Tylian Slime and Vermilion Pudding are examples of Ooze type AD&D creatures that do.

Anyhow, the unusual thing about the Flareater is it growing so fast, not the splitting. We should start worrying about that.


----------



## freyar (Jan 9, 2012)

I prefer ooze.  Maybe we can adjust the AC some if necessary.  But it's not like the AC is too far off for the HD.  It could just be a big Dex bonus associated with its speed.

A couple of the oozes in the SRD reproduce by splitting when hit by slashing or piercing weapons.  The question is if the black pudding and ochre jelly split that way in AD&D too, or if they reproduced more like the flareater, since that will affect how we should convert the flareater.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 10, 2012)

freyar said:


> I prefer ooze.  Maybe we can adjust the AC some if necessary.  But it's not like the AC is too far off for the HD.  It could just be a big Dex bonus associated with its speed.
> 
> A couple of the oozes in the SRD reproduce by splitting when hit by slashing or piercing weapons.  The question is if the black pudding and ochre jelly split that way in AD&D too, or if they reproduced more like the flareater, since that will affect how we should convert the flareater.




The AD&D Ochre Jelly only split when it was struck with lightning bolts, it did not split when struck by slashing weapons.

AD&D Black Puddings split when struck by weapons or lightning.


----------



## freyar (Jan 13, 2012)

So the flareater should really gain HD or probably positive levels in a fight, then start to split "on-screen."

If we're keeping HD at 6, I still think we should base abilities on the ochre jelly to start and then change as necessary.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 14, 2012)

freyar said:


> So the flareater should really gain HD or probably positive levels in a fight, then start to split "on-screen."
> 
> If we're keeping HD at 6, I still think we should base abilities on the ochre jelly to start and then change as necessary.




It reads like it should gain Hit Dice, and be able to split while fighting.

Might as well start a Working Draft using the Ochre Jelly as the basic beastie, although we don't have that much to go on.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 14, 2012)

*Flareater Working Draft*

*Flareater
*Medium Ooze
*Hit Dice:* 6d10+36 (69 hp)
*Initiative:* +0
*Speed:* 40 ft. (8 squares), climb 30 ft.
*Armor Class:* 20 (+10 natural), touch 10, flat-footed 20
*Base Attack/Grapple:* +4/+6
*Attack:* Slam +7 melee (2d4+3 plus 1d4 acid and 1d4 Con)
*Full Attack:* Slam +7 melee (2d4+3 plus 1d4 acid and 1d4 Con)
*Space/Reach:* 5 ft./5 ft.
*Special Attacks:* Acid, constrict 2d4+3 plus 1d4 acid and 1d4 Con, engulf, improved grab
*Special Qualities:* Blindsight 60 ft., growth, immune to fire damage, ooze traits
*Saves:* Fort +8, Ref +2, Will -3
*Abilities:* Str 15, Dex 10, Con 22, Int 10, Wis 11, Cha 1
*Skills:* Climb +10, Listen +6, Spot +6, Survival +6
*Feats:* Ability Focus (engulf), Track, Weapon Focus (slam)
*Environment:* Underground
*Organization:* Solitary or colony (2-4)
*Challenge Rating:* 4
*Treasure:* None
*Alignment:* Always neutral
*Advancement:* 7-12 HD (Medium)
*Level Adjustment:* —

_A __human-sized __mass of slime, colored an emerald green so deep it is almost black. The gelatinous thing looks like __living dark water, flowing with surprising speed. There's something malevolently __purposeful __in the way it moves and ripples._

Flareaters are deadly subterranean oozes that appear to be related to  green slime - probably a natural mutation or the result of magical  experimentation. They are unnaturally warm to the touch. Flareaters live  solely to eat and reproduce, but pursue these objectives with  extraordinary intelligence. Eternally hungry, they methodically search  for their favorite food – sources of light.

A flareater can grow to a diameter of up to 6 feet and a thickness of   about 6 inches. A typical specimen weighs about 250 pounds.

*COMBAT*

Flareaters are continuously in search of prey. They may track creatures  for some time before striking, and prefer to attack by dropping upon  prey from a wall or low ceiling. A flareater will usually eat any  light-sources it senses before it tries to devour its opponents. 	

*Acid (Ex):* A flareater can secrete a digestive acid that dissolves organic material and metal quickly, but does not affect stone. Any melee hit or constrict attack by the flareater deals acid damage and Constitution damage, and the opponent's armor and clothing dissolve and become useless immediately unless they succeed on DC 19 Reflex saves.

*Blindsight (Ex):* A flareater's entire body is a primitive sensory organ that can ascertain prey by scent and vibration within 60 feet.

*Constrict (Ex):* A flareater  deals automatic slam, acid and Constriction damage with a successful grapple check.

*Engulf (Ex):* A flareater can simply mow down Medium or smaller creatures as a standard action. It cannot make a slam attack during a round in which it engulfs. The flareater merely has to move over the opponents, affecting as many as it can cover. Opponents can make opportunity attacks against the ooze, but if they do so they are not entitled to a saving throw. Those who do not attempt attacks of opportunity must succeed on a DC 18 Reflex save or be engulfed; on a success, they are pushed back or aside (opponent's choice) as the flareater moves forward. Engulfed creatures are subject to the flareater's constrict attack, and are considered to be grappled and trapped within its body. The save DC is Strength-based and includes a +1 racial bonus. 

*Growth (Su):* A flareater can eat a non-magical light source, such  as a  lamp or torch, by smothering it, automatically putting it out  (the  flareater cannot eat a carried light source unless it first makes a   disarm check to cause the creature carrying the light to drop it). For   each light source that the flareater eats, it gains one positive  level.  Alternately, a flareater may absorb any spell with the Light  descriptor,  unless it is a spell that harms Oozes (such as _sunbeam_ or _sunburst_),   which affect the flareater normally.  The flareater gains one positive   level for each level of the spell.  A flareater cannot absorb natural   daylight, starlight, or moonlight.

If a flareater's hit dice plus its positive levels adds up to 12 or  more, it automatically splits into two identical 6 HD flareaters, each  with half of the original's current hit points (round down).

*Improved Grab (Ex):* To use this ability, a flareater  must hit with its slam attack. It can then attempt to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. If it wins the grapple check, it establishes a hold and can constrict.

*Skills:* A flareater has a +8 racial bonus on Climb checks and can always choose to take 10 on a Climb check, even if rushed or threatened.


----------



## freyar (Jan 16, 2012)

That's fine, though the Acid might switch to Con damage if it's like green slime.

I still think growth in terms of positive levels rather than HD will be easier for a DM during the heat of battle.  Maybe let them convert to HD if the flareater gets away.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 17, 2012)

freyar said:


> That's fine, though the Acid might switch to Con damage if it's like green slime.




The text says they can eat through leather and metal as well as absorbing flesh. Con damage alone does diddly squat against metal. 



freyar said:


> I still think growth in terms of positive levels rather than HD will be easier for a DM during the heat of battle.  Maybe let them convert to HD if the flareater gets away.




That'd be acceptable. Care to present a draft SQ...


----------



## freyar (Jan 17, 2012)

You know, you have acid and Con damage anyway. 

Have to head out, so I'll need to do that draft SQ later.  Will try to remember tonight...


----------



## Cleon (Jan 18, 2012)

freyar said:


> You know, you have acid and Con damage anyway.
> 
> Have to head out, so I'll need to do that draft SQ later.  Will try to remember tonight...




I can wait...


----------



## freyar (Jan 19, 2012)

Will do that now...

Growth (Su): A flareater can eat a non-magical light source, such as a lamp or torch, by smothering it, automatically putting it out (the flareater cannot eat a carried light source unless it first makes a disarm check to cause the creature carrying the light to drop it).  For each light source that the flareater eats, it gains one positive level.  Alternately, a flareater may absorb light produced magically by merely moving into magical light.  This automatically cancels the magical light effect as long as the flareater remains in the area of effect, and the flareater gains one positive level per 2 caster levels of the light effect.

When the flareater has gained 6 positive levels, it automatically splits into two 6HD flareaters, a process which takes 4 full rounds.  During this time, the flareater is staggered.  Any hit point damage the flareater takes during this process is split between the two children.



Not sure about this.  I'm particularly unsure about what to do about sources like everburning torches.  It doesn't seem right that the flareater could move into the light, move out, move back in, and get double benefit.  Etc.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 20, 2012)

freyar said:


> Will do that now...
> 
> Growth (Su): A flareater can eat a non-magical light source, such as a lamp or torch, by smothering it, automatically putting it out (the flareater cannot eat a carried light source unless it first makes a disarm check to cause the creature carrying the light to drop it).  For each light source that the flareater eats, it gains one positive level.  Alternately, a flareater may absorb light produced magically by merely moving into magical light.  This automatically cancels the magical light effect as long as the flareater remains in the area of effect, and the flareater gains one positive level per 2 caster levels of the light effect.
> 
> ...




A flareater cancels out magical light sources it devours, the relevant text describes it "absorbing the magical light, and cancelling its effects."

I'd also suggest it only absorbs spells with the Light descriptor. The SRD has _flare_, _light_, _dancing lights_, _faerie fire_, _continual flame_, _daylight_, _sunbeam_ and _sunburst_.

That reminds me, we should rule something about what natural sunlight does to them. They oughtn't to grow, or they'd cover the entire world in a few months! I suggest saying that they do not grow in sunlight, and that Light spells that harm fungi (i.e. _sunbeam_ and _sunburst_) damage Flareeaters instead of causing them to grow.


----------



## freyar (Jan 22, 2012)

I take it you're talking about listing only specific magical light effects that it can eat, since you're ruling out some of the Light descriptor spells.  

I did have it cancelling the effects of the light spell, but with a "duration" in a sense; I guess you'd prefer an instantaneous cancellation.

If that's how you wanted it, I'll try to work that in.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 22, 2012)

freyar said:


> I take it you're talking about listing only specific magical light effects that it can eat, since you're ruling out some of the Light descriptor spells.




I was thinking something like "a flareeater can absorb any spell with the Light descriptor unless it is a spell that harms Oozes (such as _sunbeam_ or _sunburst_), such Light spells are not absorbed and affect the flareater normally."



freyar said:


> I did have it cancelling the effects of the light spell, but with a "duration" in a sense; I guess you'd prefer an instantaneous cancellation.
> 
> If that's how you wanted it, I'll try to work that in.




Could you clarify more about what you mean by "a "duration" in a sense"? I don't want the flareater to suppress the light for a while, I would like it to completely dispel/remove the light effect.


----------



## freyar (Jan 23, 2012)

That's fine, we can make it an instantaneous dispel.  Hmmm, should the flareater need to make a dispel check?

Proposal:

Growth (Su): A flareater can eat a non-magical light source, such as a lamp or torch, by smothering it, automatically putting it out (the flareater cannot eat a carried light source unless it first makes a disarm check to cause the creature carrying the light to drop it). For each light source that the flareater eats, it gains one positive level. Alternately, a flareater may absorb any spell with the Light descriptor unless it is a spell that harms Oozes (such as sunbeam or sunburst, which affect the flareater normally).  The flareater gains one positive level for each level of the spell.  A flareater cannot absorb natural daylight, starlight, or moonlight.

When the flareater has gained 6 positive levels, it automatically splits into two 6HD flareaters, a process which takes 4 full rounds. During this time, the flareater is staggered. Any hit point damage the flareater takes during this process is split between the two children.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 24, 2012)

freyar said:


> That's fine, we can make it an instantaneous dispel.  Hmmm, should the flareater need to make a dispel check?
> 
> Proposal:
> 
> ...




That looks a lot better. I'd suggest a few changes:

First, I'd consider trimming the Light spell absorption down from 1/level, e.g.:
The flareater gains positive levels equal to half the spell level of the Light spell (minimum 1).​I'm not quite decided on that. The advantage of positive levels = spell level is that it makes it more conceivable that a flareater will actually use its split. In the time it would need to absorb a _continual light_ and four torches it'd likely be killed by the PCs. Unless it already had some positive levels.

Secondly, the question of positive levels makes me realize advanced flareaters should be closer to splitting. Shouldn't we have something  "If a flareater's hit dice plus its positive levels adds up to 12 or more, it automatically splits into two 6HD flareaters, a process which takes 4 full rounds."

Thirdly, cut the "During this time, the flareater is staggered." There's nothing to indicate the flareater is impaired in any way while splitting. The SRD Black Pudding and Ochre Jelly aren't staggered while splitting.


----------



## freyar (Jan 24, 2012)

Those oozes split instantly, though.  I guess, if you want to drop the staggered condition, I'd prefer to make this instantaneous, too.  Strange, though, I must have interpolated that it couldn't do anything other than reproduce during those 4 rounds. 

I prefer 1 positive level per spell level to make splitting more likely.  I do agree on the advanced flareaters.

Anyway, can I get you to agree on instantaneous splitting?  That will also make it more likely to occur during a fight.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 25, 2012)

freyar said:


> Those oozes split instantly, though.  I guess, if you want to drop the staggered condition, I'd prefer to make this instantaneous, too.  Strange, though, I must have interpolated that it couldn't do anything other than reproduce during those 4 rounds.
> 
> I prefer 1 positive level per spell level to make splitting more likely.  I do agree on the advanced flareaters.




I can live with that. It matches the original getting two HD from absorbing a _continual light_ (= _continual flame_).



freyar said:


> Anyway, can I get you to agree on instantaneous splitting?  That will also make it more likely to occur during a fight.




No objection to instantaneous splitting if Shade's OK with it.

Putting that together we'd get something like...

* Growth (Su):* A flareater can eat a non-magical light source, such as a  lamp or torch, by smothering it, automatically putting it out (the  flareater cannot eat a carried light source unless it first makes a  disarm check to cause the creature carrying the light to drop it). For  each light source that the flareater eats, it gains one positive level.  Alternately, a flareater may absorb any spell with the Light descriptor,  unless it is a spell that harms Oozes (such as _sunbeam_ or _sunburst_),  which affect the flareater normally.  The flareater gains one positive  level for each level of the spell.  A flareater cannot absorb natural  daylight, starlight, or moonlight.

If a flareater's hit dice plus its positive levels adds up to 12 or more, it automatically splits into two identical 6 HD flareaters, each with half of the original's current hit points (round down).


----------



## freyar (Jan 25, 2012)

Looks good.

Do you think we should do a special attack for the "dropping on people" bit?  Or just write it in the tactics?


----------



## Cleon (Jan 26, 2012)

freyar said:


> Looks good.




Updating *Working Draft*.



freyar said:


> Do you think we should do a special attack for the "dropping on people" bit?  Or just write it in the tactics?




How about just giving it the Engulf special attack, and note that it often engulfs opponents by dropping on them from low ceilings?

Speaking of it getting on low ceilings. Are you OK with a 40 ft. Climb Speed for it? I was wondering about reducing it to Climb 30 ft.


----------



## Shade (Jan 26, 2012)

Cleon said:


> How about just giving it the Engulf special attack, and note that it often engulfs opponents by dropping on them from low ceilings?




I'm in.



Cleon said:


> Speaking of it getting on low ceilings. Are you OK with a 40 ft. Climb Speed for it? I was wondering about reducing it to Climb 30 ft.




Seems reasonable.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 27, 2012)

Shade said:


> I'm in.




Well if you'd looked up when walking under that moss-encrusted cave ceiling you wouldn't be in the Flareater now, would you. 

Updating *Working Draft* with Engulf.



Shade said:


> Seems reasonable.




Are you saying the 40 ft. is reasonable or reducing it to 30 ft. is reasonable?


----------



## freyar (Jan 29, 2012)

I guess that's it for special abilities.  

I think he was saying the reduction to 30 ft is reasonable.  Given that the base speed is 40 ft, I think a slightly lower climb speed of 30 ft makes sense.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 29, 2012)

freyar said:


> I guess that's it for special abilities.
> 
> I think he was saying the reduction to 30 ft is reasonable.  Given that the base speed is 40 ft, I think a slightly lower climb speed of 30 ft makes sense.




I don't care much either way.

Might as well wait for Shade to elucidate which he meant.


----------



## Shade (Feb 7, 2012)

Cleon said:


> Are you saying the 40 ft. is reasonable or reducing it to 30 ft. is reasonable?




Failed your Sense Motive check, eh?

Here, have a circumstance bonus and reroll.

20!   Nice.   It was the latter.


----------



## Cleon (Feb 8, 2012)

Shade said:


> Failed your Sense Motive check, eh?
> 
> Here, have a circumstance bonus and reroll.
> 
> 20!   Nice.   It was the latter.




My Sense Motive check was fine, it was your Innuendo check that failed. Presumably you lost that skill when you updated to 3.5. 

Updating *Working Draft*.

That just leaves Skills, feats, and CR for the mechanical goodies.

Ability Focus (engulf), Weapon Focus (slam) and 1 other?

Also, I'm having second thoughts about the Wisdom 1 - shouldn't it be 11, since these slimes have human intelligence levels?


----------



## Shade (Feb 9, 2012)

Cleon said:


> My Sense Motive check was fine, it was your Innuendo check that failed. Presumably you lost that skill when you updated to 3.5.




Much like my Wilderness Lore.



Cleon said:


> That just leaves Skills, feats, and CR for the mechanical goodies.
> 
> Ability Focus (engulf), Weapon Focus (slam) and 1 other?




Although not very glamorous, Alertness always helps monsters.



Cleon said:


> Also, I'm having second thoughts about the Wisdom 1 - shouldn't it be 11, since these slimes have human intelligence levels?




Agreed!


----------



## Cleon (Feb 10, 2012)

Shade said:


> Much like my Wilderness Lore.




I'll update the *Working Draft* with the AF and WF feats and Wisdom 11.

Oh, and I corrected the DC on the Acid - it was still 21 from the Black Pudding I copied it from, but should be 19.



Shade said:


> Although not very glamorous, Alertness always helps monsters.




Not that fond of Alertness for it. A lump of slime doesn't seem likely to have exceptionally eyesight and hearing.

Hmm, how about Track? That's go along with some of the flavour :

_"always in search of prey"

"methodical, and eternally hungry, ever searching for their favorite food source—light"

"can also follow their intended targets, running like water along a cavern floor or ceiling while gauging their foes’ strength and determining the best initial targets" _

Then we can split the SPs equally to give them Listen +6, Spot +6, Survival +6.


----------



## Shade (Feb 10, 2012)

I'm OK with Track and Survival ranks.


----------



## Cleon (Feb 10, 2012)

Shade said:


> I'm OK with Track and Survival ranks.




Updating the *Working Draft*.


----------



## Shade (Feb 13, 2012)

My gut check says CR 4, but I could be convinced to 5.


----------



## Cleon (Feb 13, 2012)

Shade said:


> My gut check says CR 4, but I could be convinced to 5.




Challenge Rating 4 is fine. I think we'd need to increase the Con damage to justify CR 5.

 Updating the *Working Draft* (and correcting a few lingering cubes).


----------



## freyar (Feb 14, 2012)

A dark green, nearly black, gelatinous mass.

Flareaters are intelligent and highly dangerous relatives of green slime...


----------



## Cleon (Feb 15, 2012)

freyar said:


> A dark green, nearly black, gelatinous mass.
> 
> Flareaters are intelligent and highly dangerous relatives of green slime...




_A __human-sized __mass of slime, colored an emerald green so deep it is almost black. The gelatinous thing looks like __living dark water, flowing with surprising speed. There's something malevolently __purposeful __in the way it moves and ripples._

Flareaters are deadly subterranean oozes that appear to be related to green slime - probably a natural mutation or the result of magical experimentation. They are unnaturally warm to the touch. Flareaters live solely to eat and reproduce, but pursue these objectives with extraordinary intelligence. Eternally hungry, they methodically search for their favorite food – sources of light.

A flareater can grow to a diameter of up to 6 feet and a thickness of  about 6 inches. A typical specimen weighs about 250 pounds.

*COMBAT*

Flareaters are continuously in search of prey. They may track creatures for some time before striking, and prefer to attack by dropping upon prey from a wall or low ceiling. A flareater will usually eat any light-sources it senses before it tries to devour its opponents.


----------



## Shade (Feb 16, 2012)

Looks good.


----------



## Cleon (Feb 17, 2012)

Shade said:


> Looks good.




Updating the *Working Draft*.


----------



## Shade (Feb 21, 2012)

Transferred to Homebrews.


----------



## Cleon (Feb 22, 2012)

Shade said:


> Transferred to Homebrews.




I think we're done with the Flareater, which of the remaining Oozes would you like to do next?


----------



## Shade (Feb 23, 2012)

Cleon said:


> I think we're done with the Flareater, which of the remaining Oozes would you like to do next?




What's left?


----------



## Cleon (Feb 23, 2012)

Shade said:


> What's left?




The Subterranean Puddings from Undermountain's Deep Levels (reprinted in MCA2).

Namely, the Dense Pudding, the Grey Pudding and the Stone Pudding.


----------



## freyar (Feb 28, 2012)

Of those, the dense pudding sounds tastiest.


----------



## Cleon (Feb 29, 2012)

freyar said:


> Of those, the dense pudding sounds tastiest.




As you like...

*Pudding, Subterranean, Dense*
Climate/Terrain: Subterranean
Frequency: Rare
Organization: Solitary
Activity Cycle: Any
Diet: Any
Intelligence: Average (8–10)
Treasure: Nil
Alignment: Neutral evil
No. Appearing: 1 (1–4)
Armor Class: 6
Movement: 6
Hit Dice: 10
THAC0: 11
No. of Attacks: 1
Damage/Attack: 2d10
Special Attacks: Surprise, disease
Special Defenses: See below
Magic Resistance: 20%
Size: L-H (8’ diam.)
Morale: Champion (15)
XP Value: 4,000

Subterranean puddings are viscous, slimy creatures that resemble massive lumps more than living things. A subterranean pudding is, in fact, a colony of hundreds of living organisms in a single pudding. They have no visible eyes, ears, or mouths; the colony creature’s sensory organs are located on its underside. Subterranean puddings range from gray to deep blue in color and are usually 8 feet in diameter; larger masses indicate multiple puddings, though no more than four puddings are found in any one mass. They always search for food, moving along floors, ceilings, and walls to find prey.

Sages believe all subterranean puddings are magically altered black puddings. Indeed, the two monsters share some standard characteristics. Subterranean puddings take no damage from edged weapons; blunt weapons cause one-quarter normal damage, regardless of any magical bonuses. Such puddings are immune to acid, cold, and poison attacks. Unlike other puddings, they do not divide when attacked. Rather, they divide into two half-sized sections, each with full hit points, when any of the following spells are cast at them: _fireball_, _lightning bolt_, _flamestrike_, _flaming sphere_, _wall of fire_, _chain lightning_, and _incendiary cloud_.

*Dense Pudding*
This variety of subterranean pudding has 10 Hit Dice and is always found at its maximum hit point total (80 hp). Slower than gray pudding, the dense variety has learned from its “relatives” to cling to the shadows and use surprise to its advantage by dropping on potential meals. Targets suffer a –2 to their surprise rolls. Dense pudding is easy to spot in the open because of its dark blue coloration and large size.

The secretions of a dense pudding are corrosive only to living flesh and cause 2d10 hit points of damage. In addition, the secretions are tainted. All those who are damaged by a dense pudding must make a successful saving throw vs. poison or succumb to a debilitating disease. _Cure disease_ will negate these effects if cast within 48 hours of the infection.

_This is the Monstrous Compendium Annual Volume Two (1995) version._


----------



## Shade (Mar 1, 2012)

So, essentially, it's a sentient, slightly tougher black pudding?


----------



## Cleon (Mar 2, 2012)

Shade said:


> So, essentially, it's a sentient, slightly tougher black pudding?




It's got a bit more than that going for it. The "maximum Hit Dice" suggests giving the 3E version an impressive Con, and its attacks carry a disease.


----------



## freyar (Mar 2, 2012)

Oooh, and we get to choose the disease.   Slimy doom seems appropriate. 

We had a monster that always had max hp.  Some sort of outsider that watched over cemeteries, IIRC.  Yes!  The grave watcher.  We could do that, though I think their may have been even more of a reason in that case.  Either way, these should have a good Con, I think.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 3, 2012)

freyar said:


> Oooh, and we get to choose the disease.   Slimy doom seems appropriate.




Slimy Doom does seem a good fit. Let's make it so!



freyar said:


> We had a monster that always had max hp.  Some sort of outsider that watched over cemeteries, IIRC.  Yes!  The grave watcher.  We could do that, though I think their may have been even more of a reason in that case.  Either way, these should have a good Con, I think.




Hmm, that Hearty condition looks pretty good.

How about giving them that and the same Con as a typical Ooze of their size and HD. Upon reflection, if we give them a super-high Con it'll also give their disease a super-high DC as well.

Shall I begin a Working Draft?


----------



## freyar (Mar 5, 2012)

I'll agree to all that.  Base abilities on the black pudding, maybe a few boosts added on?


----------



## Cleon (Mar 6, 2012)

freyar said:


> I'll agree to all that.  Base abilities on the black pudding, maybe a few boosts added on?




Compared to an AD&D Black Pudding it has the same AC and HD, does slightly less damage (2d10 vs 3d8), is smart and evil (Int 8-10 NE vs Int 0 N) and is actually bigger! A 2E Black Pudding is Small-Large (3'-8'), while the Dense Pudding is Large-Huge (8').

I'm thinking we should use the SRD Black Pudding, but lower the acid damage to account for the lower damage. Oh, and its acid only harms organic material, like an Ochre Jelly's. The slimy doom should compensate for the loss of bilious potency.

How about giving it enough natural armor to increase the AC to 14? It is supposed to be "dense" after all.

I'll start a Working Draft.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 6, 2012)

*Dense Pudding Working Draft*

*Dense Pudding
*Huge Ooze
*Hit Dice:* 10d10+60 (160 hp)
*Initiative:* -1
*Speed:* 20 ft. (4 squares), climb 20 ft.
*Armor Class:* 3 (-2 size, -5 Dex), touch 3, flat-footed 3
*Base Attack/Grapple:* +7/+18
*Attack:* Slam +9 melee (2d6+4 plus 1d6 acid and disease)
*Full Attack:* Slam +9 melee (2d6+4 plus 1d6 acid and disease)
*Space/Reach:* 15 ft./10 ft.
*Special Attacks:* Acid, constrict 2d6+4 plus 1d6 acid and disease, disease, improved grab
*Special Qualities:* Blindsight 60 ft., DR 6/—, immunity to slashing and piercing damage, hearty, immunity to acid, cold, electricity and fire damage, ooze traits, spell resistance 14, split
*Saves:* Fort +9, Ref -2, Will +3
*Abilities:* Str 17, Dex 1, Con 22, Int 10, Wis 11, Cha 1
*Skills:* Climb +11, Hide -2*, Move Silently +10, Listen +8
*Feats:* Improved Initiative, Reckless Offense, Stealthy, Weapon Focus (slam)
*Environment:* Underground
*Organization:* Solitary
*Challenge Rating:* 8
*Treasure:* None
*Alignment:* Always neutral evil
*Advancement:* 11-15 HD (Huge); 16-30 HD (Gargantuan)
*Level Adjustment:* —

_A viscous pile of slime resembling a massive lump of dark blue oatmeal_.

Dense puddings are a variety of subterranean pudding, a family of  underground oozes related to the black pudding. All subterranean  puddings are intelligent, unlike most oozes, but they only use their  intelligence to pursue food and reproduction. They have no interest in  more abstract goals.

A typical dense pudding measures 15 feet across and 2 feet thick. It weighs about 22,500 pounds.

*COMBAT*

Dense puddings prefer to hide in shadows in order to attack with     surprise. They often climb across cavern walls and low ceilings to  drop   upon their prey. These oozes are as intelligent as many humanoids,  so   can learn tricks and tactics to gain advantages over their opponents.     

*Acid (Ex):* A dense pudding secretes a digestive acid that dissolves only flesh. Any melee hit or constrict attack deals acid damage.

*Blindsight (Ex):* A dense pudding's entire body is a primitive sensory organ that can ascertain prey by scent and vibration within 60 feet.

*Constrict (Ex):* A dense pudding deals automatic slam, acid and disease damage with a successful grapple check.

*Disease (Ex):* _Slimy Doom_—acid, Fortitude DC 21, incubation period 1 day, damage 1d4 Con. When damaged, character must succeed on another saving throw or 1 point of damage is permanent drain instead. The save DC is Constitution-based.

*Hearty (Ex):* When fully healed, a dense pudding always has the maximum number (10 + Con modifier) of hit points per HD.

*Improved Grab (Ex):*  To use this ability, a dense pudding must hit with its slam attack. It can  then attempt to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an  attack of opportunity. If it wins the grapple check, it establishes a  hold and can constrict.

*Split (Ex):* Fire and electricity attacks deal no damage to  a dense pudding. Instead the creature splits into two identical puddings,  each with half of the original's current hit points (round down). A pudding with 10 hit points or less cannot be further split and dies if  reduced to 0 it points.

*Skills:* A dense pudding has a +4 racial bonus on Move Silently checks. Dense puddings have a +8  racial bonus on Climb checks and can always   choose to take 10 on a Climb  check, even if rushed or threatened.

*A dense pudding has a +12 circumstance bonus to Hide checks in natural underground terrain such as caves.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 6, 2012)

The original Subterranean Puddings (all of them) are immune to edged weapons and took 1/4 damage from blunt weapons.

That suggests something like half damage from weapons plus DR X/bludgeoning in 3E terms.

What do you think?

EDIT: I've red-pencilled it in to the *Working Draft*.

Alternatively, we could go for DR X/bludgeoning, plus "Half damage from slashing and piercing" like a Tiny swarm.


----------



## Shade (Mar 6, 2012)

Cleon said:


> The original Subterranean Puddings (all of them) are immune to edged weapons and took 1/4 damage from blunt weapons.
> 
> That suggests something like half damage from weapons plus DR X/bludgeoning in 3E terms.
> 
> ...




I think I like the latter best.  Black puddings were immune to all weapon damage in 2e, but in 3e bludgeoning is allowed, while the other types initiate its split ability.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 7, 2012)

Shade said:


> I think I like the latter best.  Black puddings were immune to all weapon damage in 2e, but in 3e bludgeoning is allowed, while the other types initiate its split ability.




Curiously enough, in the 2E Monstrous Manual it says "blows from weapons divide them into smaller puddings" but says nothing about the blow not doing any damage. The 1E and 3E entries for Black Puddings are explicit about blows from weapons not doing any damage.

I'll update the *Working Draft*. How much DR/bludgeoning would you like?


----------



## Cleon (Mar 7, 2012)

What about the natural armour proposal?


----------



## Shade (Mar 9, 2012)

Cleon said:


> I'll update the *Working Draft*. How much DR/bludgeoning would you like?




10?



Cleon said:


> What about the natural armour proposal?




It seems a bit of overkill with the immunity to most weapons, and then DR to the remaining.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 9, 2012)

Shade said:


> 10?
> 
> It seems a bit of overkill with the immunity to most weapons, and then DR to the remaining.




I thought we were doing half damage from slashing and piercing. If it has immunity to slashing and piercing the DR 10/bludgeoning would be pointless, since it's a 10 point penalty on nothing.

Should we change it to immune to slashing and piercing, half damage from bludgeoning?

I suppose I can live without the NA.


----------



## freyar (Mar 12, 2012)

Make it half damage from slashing and piercing.  Makes the most sense to me.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 12, 2012)

freyar said:


> Make it half damage from slashing and piercing.  Makes the most sense to me.




Half damage from slashing and piercing plus DR 10/bludgeoning is a lot weaker than the original, which is immune to slashing/piercing like the 3E Black Pudding.

I'd prefer immunity to slashing/piercing and a DR that's effective against bludgeoning - maybe DR X/—? - like Shade describes in his latest post.


----------



## Shade (Mar 13, 2012)

Cleon said:


> Half damage from slashing and piercing plus DR 10/bludgeoning is a lot weaker than the original, which is immune to slashing/piercing like the 3E Black Pudding.
> 
> I'd prefer immunity to slashing/piercing and a DR that's effective against bludgeoning - maybe DR X/—? - like Shade describes in his latest post.




Yeah, I like this, maybe 6/-?


----------



## Cleon (Mar 13, 2012)

Shade said:


> Yeah, I like this, maybe 6/-?




That'd be OK by me. It seems wrong to make its DR tougher than the hardness 8 of stone, but wood-level toughness feels about right.

Freyar?


----------



## freyar (Mar 15, 2012)

Yes, that would be fine, sure.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 16, 2012)

freyar said:


> Yes, that would be fine, sure.




Seems we're agreed!

Updating the *Working Draft*.


----------



## Shade (Mar 16, 2012)

So no natural armor, and keep the Dex poor?


----------



## Cleon (Mar 16, 2012)

Shade said:


> So no natural armor, and keep the Dex poor?




Yes, we might as well stick to the same AC factors as the SRD Black Pudding.

Updating the *Working Draft*.


----------



## freyar (Mar 19, 2012)

This looks good.  Is it ready for skills and feats?


----------



## Cleon (Mar 20, 2012)

freyar said:


> This looks good.  Is it ready for skills and feats?




It's still missing a number for Spell resistance.


----------



## Shade (Mar 20, 2012)

Cleon said:


> It's still missing a number for Spell resistance.




MR 20% translates to CR + 5.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 20, 2012)

Shade said:


> MR 20% translates to CR + 5.




If we had settled on the Challenge Rating that might mean something! 

*Ahem*

We've got CR 8 penciled in, one higher than the SRD Black Pudding.

That feels about right, and would become Spell Resistance 13 using CR +5.

Alternatively, a 20% failure for a CL of 11 works out to Spell Resistance 16.

So, shall we use one, t'other, or something in-between like SR 14 or 15?


----------



## freyar (Mar 23, 2012)

Hmmm, let's just go with SR 14.  Now skills and feats?


----------



## Cleon (Mar 24, 2012)

freyar said:


> Hmmm, let's just go with SR 14.




I'll update the *Working Draft* with SR 14, although I suspect Shade might change it to CR +6 later on...



freyar said:


> Now skills and feats?




Ranks of Hide 13, Move Silently 5, Listen 8?

Its Dex and Huge size gives it a hefty Hide penalty.

We could give it mostly stealthy-related feats to compensate - e.g. Stealthy, Skill Focus (Hide), Skill Focus (Move Silently) - or add a racial bonus to Hide and/or Move Silently. I'd favor something like a racial bonus to Hide checks when it subterranean environments, since it's "easy to spot in the open".

So, how about this:

*Skill Ranks:* Hide 9, Move Silently 9, Listen 8
*Skills:* Climb +11, Hide +2*, Move Silently +10, Listen +8
*Feats:* Improved Initiative, Reckless Offense *[?]*, Stealthy, Weapon Focus (slam)
*Skill bonuses:* A dense pudding has a +4 racial bonus on Hide and Move Silently checks. A dense pudding has a +8  racial bonus on Climb checks and can always  choose to take 10 on a Climb  check, even if rushed or threatened.
*A dense pudding has a +8 circumstance bonus to Hide checks in underground caves.
[A Gray Pudding is even better at ambushing, so methinks we'd better give the Gray a +12 circumstance bonus and SF (Move Silently)]


----------



## freyar (Mar 26, 2012)

We'll just have to make sure it's CR 8, then. 

I'd rather not boost Hide so much, I think.  (Did you remember to include the +4 racial bonus there?  I have -5 Dex, -8 Huge, +13 ranks, +2 Stealthy, +4 racial always = +6.  Did I screw something up there?)  Let's move some of the ranks somewhere else and maybe only give it a racial/circumstance bonus to Hide underground.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 27, 2012)

freyar said:


> We'll just have to make sure it's CR 8, then.
> 
> I'd rather not boost Hide so much, I think.  (Did you remember to include the +4 racial bonus there?  I have -5 Dex, -8 Huge, +13 ranks, +2 Stealthy, +4 racial always = +6.  Did I screw something up there?)  Let's move some of the ranks somewhere else and maybe only give it a racial/circumstance bonus to Hide underground.




The final proposal used 9 ranks in Hide, not 13, and the circumstance bonus already only applies to "Hide underground":



Cleon said:


> So, how about this:
> 
> *Skill Ranks:* Hide *9*, Move Silently 9, Listen 8
> *Skills:* Climb +11, Hide +2*, Move Silently +10, Listen +8
> ...




An AD&D Dense Pudding is pretty good at ambushes (-2 to opponent's surprise), so it needs non-trivial Hide and Move Silently skills for its Challenge Rating. Just not as good as a Gray Pudding's (which was -4).

Incidentally, a 2E AD&D leopard had a -3 surprise modifier, and those cats have +8 Hide and Move Silently in 3E (increases to +12 Hide in undergrowth).

A Dense Pudding with Hide +2 (+10 in caves) and Move Silently +10 is roughly on par with a leopard, which has a LOT lower CR.


----------



## freyar (Mar 30, 2012)

Besides the circumstance bonus underground, you have a racial bonus all the time.  I'm proposing to drop that racial bonus.  Leopards should be good at hiding for their CR, and I wouldn't expect a dense pudding to be good at hiding outside it's natural habitat -- underground.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 31, 2012)

freyar said:


> Besides the circumstance bonus underground, you have a racial bonus all the time.  I'm proposing to drop that racial bonus.  Leopards should be good at hiding for their CR, and I wouldn't expect a dense pudding to be good at hiding outside it's natural habitat -- underground.




But, going by the surprise modifier, a Dense Pudding should be almost as ggod at hiding for their CR as a Leopard.

I would consider dropping the general Hide bonus and giving it a *+12* bonus to Hide checks underground, which results in the same underground hiding numbers, but just dropping the +4 racial bonus would certainly weaken its stealth skills too much.


----------



## Shade (Apr 5, 2012)

Cleon said:


> But, going by the surprise modifier, a Dense Pudding should be almost as ggod at hiding for their CR as a Leopard.
> 
> I would consider dropping the general Hide bonus and giving it a *+12* bonus to Hide checks underground, which results in the same underground hiding numbers, but just dropping the +4 racial bonus would certainly weaken its stealth skills too much.




I favor this approach.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 6, 2012)

Shade said:


> I favor this approach.




Oh, very well.

Updating the *Working Draft*.


----------



## freyar (Apr 7, 2012)

+12 Hide underground is fine; I just don't want them to get a bonus outside their natural environment.  

I think CR 8 works well; they're pretty comparable to the CR 7 black pudding, but the extra hp from Hearty are probably worth an extra CR -- they'd buy it an extra round of combat, I'd expect.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 8, 2012)

freyar said:


> +12 Hide underground is fine; I just don't want them to get a bonus outside their natural environment.
> 
> I think CR 8 works well; they're pretty comparable to the CR 7 black pudding, but the extra hp from Hearty are probably worth an extra CR -- they'd buy it an extra round of combat, I'd expect.




Works for me.

Updating the *Working Draft*.

What about the suggestion of increasing the weight since it's eponymously "Dense"?

A standard Black Pudding (15' dia by 2' thick, 9 short tons) works out to 50.92 lbs per cubic foot.

How about increasing the weight by 25% to 22,500 pounds, which would make it 63.66 lbs per cu', or slightly above the density of water (62.43 lb/cu')?

Or, we could make it 22,000 pounds, which equals 62.25 lb/cu', so it will have more-or-less neutral buoyancy rather than a tendency to slowly sink.


----------



## freyar (Apr 9, 2012)

22000 or 22500 doesn't make much difference to me, I suppose.  Water is surprisingly dense!  I guess I'd pick 22000 if it's all equal to you, but I'll go along with whichever you prefer.


----------



## Shade (Apr 10, 2012)

freyar said:


> 22000 or 22500 doesn't make much difference to me, I suppose.  Water is surprisingly dense!  I guess I'd pick 22000 if it's all equal to you, but I'll go along with whichever you prefer.




I have no strong preference, either.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 11, 2012)

Shade said:


> I have no strong preference, either.




Updating the *Working Draft*.

I flipped a random number generator and went for 22,500 pounds.

Anyone care to lay our a bit of flavour for them?


----------



## freyar (Apr 12, 2012)

> This variety of subterranean pudding has 10 Hit Dice and is always found at its maximum hit point total (80 hp). Slower than gray pudding, the dense variety has learned from its “relatives” to cling to the shadows and use surprise to its advantage by dropping on potential meals. Targets suffer a –2 to their surprise rolls. Dense pudding is easy to spot in the open because of its dark blue coloration and large size.



Hmm, I'm glad I insisted that they don't get a Hide bonus above ground. 

Tactics: Dense puddings prefer to hide in shadows in order to attack with surprise.  Particularly enterprising dense puddings will Climb onto cavern ceilings in order to drop on their prey.


----------



## Shade (Apr 13, 2012)

freyar said:


> Hmm, I'm glad I insisted that they don't get a Hide bonus above ground.




Excellent attention to detail, frey-man.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 13, 2012)

freyar said:


> Hmm, I'm glad I insisted that they don't get a Hide bonus above ground.




Yes, I noticed that too. We'd better remember the "dark blue" bit for the description.



freyar said:


> Tactics: Dense puddings prefer to hide in shadows in order to attack with surprise.  Particularly enterprising dense puddings will Climb onto cavern ceilings in order to drop on their prey.




Not in favour of the "particularly enterprising" bit. Dropping on opponents seems to be a favoured tactic: "the dense variety has learned from its “relatives” to cling to the shadows and use surprise to its advantage _*by dropping on potential meals*_".

Oh, and we've got two lots of "in order to". I'd cut one out.

*COMBAT
*Dense puddings prefer to hide in shadows in order to attack with  surprise. They often climb across cavern walls and low ceilings to drop upon their prey. These oozes are as intelligent as many humanoids, so can learn tricks and tactics to gain advantages over their opponents.


----------



## freyar (Apr 18, 2012)

Sheesh, try to make the tactics sound a little more interesting....   But this looks fine.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 18, 2012)

freyar said:


> Sheesh, try to make the tactics sound a little more interesting....   But this looks fine.




Well the original monster only mentions them using a "death from above" strategy, and I didn't feel like coming up with something from whole cloth.

 Updating the *Working Draft*.

Suggestions for the description and background?


----------



## freyar (Apr 19, 2012)

A dark and glutinous mass.

??


----------



## Cleon (Apr 20, 2012)

freyar said:


> A dark and glutinous mass.
> 
> ??




Shouldn't that be a _*deep blue*_ and glutinous mass?


----------



## Shade (Apr 20, 2012)

Most of the MM oozes have very little flavor text, so we can probably skimp here, too.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 21, 2012)

Shade said:


> Most of the MM oozes have very little flavor text, so we can probably skimp here, too.




Well the original monster isn't exactly fleshed out, either.

How about.

_A viscous pile of slime resembling a massive lump of dark blue oatmeal_.

Dense puddings are a variety of subterranean pudding, a family of underground oozes related to the black pudding. All subterranean puddings are intelligent, unlike most oozes, but they only use their intelligence to pursue food and reproduction. They have no interest in more abstract goals.

A typical dense pudding measures 15 feet across and 2 feet thick. It weighs about 22,500 pounds.

*COMBAT*

Dense puddings prefer to hide in shadows in order to attack with    surprise. They often climb across cavern walls and low ceilings to  drop  upon their prey. These oozes are as intelligent as many humanoids,  so  can learn tricks and tactics to gain advantages over their opponents.


----------



## freyar (Apr 23, 2012)

Works for me.  Is that it, then?


----------



## Cleon (Apr 24, 2012)

freyar said:


> Works for me.  Is that it, then?




 Updating the *Working Draft*.

I fixed one typo ("an" dense pudding), but that's the only problem I could find.

I think it's ready to slime free.


----------



## Shade (Apr 24, 2012)

Transferred to Homebrews.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 25, 2012)

Shade said:


> Transferred to Homebrews.




Gray Pudding next?

Seems pretty straightforward.

Adapt the Dense Pudding by cutting the disease, increasing acid potency, lowering Int a tad, and making it sneakier.


----------



## freyar (May 3, 2012)

Gray Pudding would be fine.  But probably not too tasty.


----------



## Cleon (May 5, 2012)

freyar said:


> Gray Pudding would be fine.  But probably not too tasty.




Have we already got the AD&D stats on this thread, or does someone need to post them?


----------



## Shade (May 8, 2012)

Cleon said:


> Have we already got the AD&D stats on this thread, or does someone need to post them?




We'll need 'em.   And I've got 'em...

*Gray Pudding*
Climate/Terrain: Subterranean 
Frequency: Uncommon 
Organization: Solitary 
Activity Cycle: Any 
Diet: Any 
Intelligence: Low (5)  
Treasure: Nil 
Alignment: Neutral evil  
No. Appearing: 1  
Armor Class:  
Movement: 9 
Hit Dice: 10 
THAC0: 11 
No. of Attacks: 1 
Damage/Attack: 4d8 
Special Attacks: Surprise, acid  
Special Defenses: See below 
Magic Resistance: 20% 
Size: L-H (8’+ diam.) 
Morale: Steady (11) 
XP Value: 3,000 



Often mistaken for a stone pudding at a distance, this is perhaps the deadliest of the subterranean puddings. Gray pudding uses its deep gray coloration to blend in with shadows and the natural gray hue of stone. This gives its opponents a -4 surprise roll penalty. More corrosive than black pudding, the gray variety emits a powerful acid, delivering 4d8 points of damage. This acid eats through wood, leather, and chain mail in 1 round, and plate mail in 2. Each magical plus of an enchanted item adds 1 round to its survival time. In addition, the creature automatically delivers 4d8 points of damage each round it is encasing a victim. A creature reaching -10 hit points is dissolved, with not even a scrap of bone left behind.

Gray puddings are unusually susceptible to certain spells, provided those enchantments get past its magic resistance. These spells include flesh to stone, which acts as a slow spell on the pudding, and airy water, which alters the pudding’s form enough to drown it in its own fluid mass in 2d4 rounds.


----------



## Cleon (May 9, 2012)

Shade said:


> We'll need 'em.   And I've got 'em...




Well I've got them around somewhere, but if I can get someone else to do the work of posting them... 



Shade said:


> *Gray Pudding*
> Climate/Terrain: Subterranean
> Frequency: Uncommon
> Organization: Solitary
> ...




Okay, so the main differences vis-á-vis an AD&D black pudding are:

Faster movement (9 vs 6)
Sapiency (Int 5-7 vs Int 0)
More damage (4d8 vs 3d8) due to potent acid
Sneaky (-4 surprise penalty)
Magic Resistance (20%)
Divide when struck by fire or lightning spells

We've got most of that already with our earlier conversion of the Stone Pudding, as I mentioned previously.

Once we agree on how much we increase the acid damage and what bonus to give it on Hide and Move Silently we're effectively done with the stats.

It's stealthier than a Dense Pudding (-4 surprise vs -2), but its lower Int means it'll have fewer skill points. That suggest we'll need some pretty hefty skill bonuses to keep it sneakier.

The original monster did one-third more damage. If we give the "upgraded" version the same boost to the SRD Black Pudding's 2d6+4 plus 2d6 acid (average damage 18) it'll need to do 24 damage on average. i.e. it needs to do about 6 points more acid damage, suggesting 3d8 or 2d12 acid.

As for the sneakiness, I'm still fancying the +8 racial bonus to Move Silently and +4 racial bonus to Hide I suggested earlier.


----------



## freyar (May 10, 2012)

I guess 3d8 makes the most sense, but I like the d12 solution. 

I agree on the rest.


----------



## Shade (May 11, 2012)

freyar said:


> I guess 3d8 makes the most sense, but I like the d12 solution.
> 
> I agree on the rest.




Agreed on all counts (included 2d12 love).


----------



## Cleon (May 12, 2012)

Shade said:


> Agreed on all counts (included 2d12 love).




You and your dodecahedraphilia. 

I'll start a Working Draft with all that.


----------



## Cleon (May 12, 2012)

*Gray Pudding Working Draft*

*Gray Pudding
*Huge Ooze
*Hit Dice:* 10d10+60 (115 hp)
*Initiative:* -1
*Speed:* 25 ft. (5 squares), climb 20 ft.
*Armor Class:* 3 (-2 size, -5 Dex), touch 3, flat-footed 3
*Base Attack/Grapple:* +7/+18
*Attack:* Slam +9 melee (2d6+4 plus 2d12 acid)
*Full Attack:* Slam +9 melee (2d6+4 plus 2d12 acid)
*Space/Reach:* 15 ft./10 ft.
*Special Attacks:* Acid, constrict 2d6+4 plus 2d12 acid, improved grab
*Special Qualities:*  Blindsight 60 ft., DR 6/—, immunity to slashing and piercing damage, immunity to acid, cold, electricity and fire damage, ooze  traits, spell resistance 14, spell vulnerability, split
*Saves:* Fort +9, Ref -2, Will +3
*Abilities:* Str 17, Dex 1, Con 22, Int 6, Wis 11, Cha 1
*Skills:* Climb +11, Hide -2*, Move Silently +12, Listen +8
*Feats:* Improved Initiative (B), Reckless Offense, Skill Focus (Move Silently), Stealthy, Weapon Focus (slam)
*Environment:* Underground
*Organization:* Solitary
*Challenge Rating:* 8
*Treasure:* None
*Alignment:* Always neutral evil
*Advancement:* 11-15 HD (Huge); 16-30 HD (Gargantuan)
*Level Adjustment:* —

_A lump of gray slime_.

Gray puddings are a variety of subterranean pudding, a family of   underground oozes related to the black pudding. All subterranean   puddings are intelligent, unlike most oozes, but they only use their   intelligence to pursue food and reproduction. They have no interest in   more abstract goals.

A typical gray pudding measures 15 feet across and 2 feet thick. It weighs about 18,000 pounds.

*COMBAT*

Gray puddings use their stealth skills to attack from ambush, grappling and constricting as often as possible. 

*Acid (Ex):* The creature secretes a digestive acid that dissolves organic material and metal quickly, but does not affect stone. Any melee hit or constrict attack deals acid damage, and the opponent's armor and clothing dissolve and become useless immediately unless they succeed on DC 21 Reflex saves. A metal or wooden weapon that strikes a gray pudding also dissolves immediately unless it succeeds on a DC 21 Reflex save. The save DCs are Constitution-based.

*Blindsight (Ex):* A gray pudding's entire body is a primitive sensory organ that can ascertain prey by scent and vibration within 60 feet.

*Constrict (Ex):* A gray pudding deals automatic slam, acid and disease damage with a successful grapple check.

*Improved Grab (Ex):*   To use this ability, a gray pudding must hit with its slam attack. It  can  then attempt to start a grapple as a free action without provoking  an  attack of opportunity. If it wins the grapple check, it establishes  a  hold and can constrict.

*Spell Vulnerability (Su):* Certain spells and effects function differently against a gray pudding, as noted below.

_ Flesh to stone_ acts as a slow spell on the pudding.

_ Transmute rock to mud_  causes the pudding to suffocate in its own mass.   The pudding must  immediately make a DC 10 Constitution check (and one  each following  round with DC of 10+1 per round) or start drowning.  See  the drowning  rules in the SRD.

The pudding receives a Fortitude save to negate the effect of either of  these spells (at the usual spell DC), and its SR applies to both  (regardless of the  spell text).

*Split (Ex):* Fire and  electricity attacks deal no damage to  a gray pudding. Instead the  creature splits into two identical puddings,  each with half of the  original's current hit points (round down). A pudding with 10 hit points  or less cannot be further split and dies if  reduced to 0 it points.

*Skills:* A gray pudding has a +8 racial bonus on Listen and Move Silently   checks. Gray puddings have a +8   racial bonus on Climb checks and can   always   choose  to take 10 on a  Climb  check, even if rushed or   threatened.

*A gray pudding has a +16 circumstance bonus to Hide checks in natural underground terrain such as caves.


----------



## freyar (May 15, 2012)

I like the feats.

Once again, I wouldn't give it a racial Hide bonus except when it's in underground or otherwise stony environments.  It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that they'd be great at hiding in, for example, a flat grassy prairie.


----------



## Shade (May 15, 2012)

Cleon said:


> You and your dodecahedraphilia.




I'm in a support group!  



freyar said:


> Once again, I wouldn't give it a racial Hide bonus except when it's in underground or otherwise stony environments.  It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that they'd be great at hiding in, for example, a flat grassy prairie.




Agreed.


----------



## Cleon (May 16, 2012)

freyar said:


> I like the feats.
> 
> Once again, I wouldn't give it a racial Hide bonus except when it's in underground or otherwise stony environments.  It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that they'd be great at hiding in, for example, a flat grassy prairie.




Of course it makes sense. When was the last time you saw a Stone Pudding in a flat, grassy prairie. Obviously they're _real_ stealthy.


----------



## freyar (May 18, 2012)

I live in a prairie, and there definitely aren't any Stone Puddings here.


----------



## Cleon (May 18, 2012)

freyar said:


> I live in a prairie, and there definitely aren't any Stone Puddings here.




Ah, you're probably just no seeing them 'cause they're _*so*_ stealthy.


----------



## freyar (May 21, 2012)

I think I could spot a Huge gray pudding outside here even if it did have a +4 racial Hide bonus. 

So can we just drop that and leave the +12 Hide bonus in "natural underground terrain such as caves"?


----------



## Shade (May 22, 2012)

freyar said:


> I think I could spot a Huge gray pudding outside here even if it did have a +4 racial Hide bonus.
> 
> So can we just drop that and leave the +12 Hide bonus in "natural underground terrain such as caves"?




Yes, please!

Cleon, you can always make a "prarie ooze" variant to satisfy your <ahem> needs.


----------



## Cleon (May 22, 2012)

freyar said:


> I think I could spot a Huge gray pudding outside here even if it did have a +4 racial Hide bonus.
> 
> So can we just drop that and leave the +12 Hide bonus in "natural underground terrain such as caves"?




A Gray Pudding is stealthier than a Dense Pudding, with the AD&D version has -4 surprise instead of a Dense Pud's -2.

As such, I insist on giving it a better stealth ability than the Dense Pudding.

We could give it a higher racial bonus in underground terrain [+15?] or Skill Focus (Hide), I suppose [bonus feat?], although the latter's little different from giving it a racial bonus to Hide.

It's lower intelligence gives it fewer SPs to play with, so it probably will not end up that much better.

Something like this...

*Skill Ranks (13 SPs):* Climb 0, Hide 11, Move Silently 2, Listen 0

*Skills:* Climb +11, Hide +0*, Move Silently +7, Listen +8
*Feats:* Improved Initiative, Reckless Offense, Stealthy, Weapon Focus (slam) *[?]*

*Skills:*  A gray pudding has a +8 racial bonus on Listen and Move Silently checks. Gray puddings have a +8   racial bonus on Climb checks and can always   choose  to take 10 on a  Climb  check, even if rushed or threatened.

*A gray pudding has a +15 circumstance bonus to Hide checks in natural underground terrain such as caves.     

Note that I had to add a racial bonus to Listen to give it a respectable mod in that skill, and it _still_ moves more noisily than the Dense Pudding, which is supposed to be less sneaky. That's not so bad, since the flavour text suggests it uses a "Hide and ambush" strategy rather than stalking its prey.


----------



## freyar (May 24, 2012)

+15 is a weird number for a racial skill bonus.  If we need to go more than +12, I guess go with +16.  But I think I'd rather just give it SF (Hide) as a normal feat and keep to +12 on the racial bonus.  Or represent the extra surprise bonus by Imp Init*.  To be honest, I think I prefer +12 Hide (underground) and Imp Init.*


----------



## Cleon (May 24, 2012)

freyar said:


> +15 is a weird number for a racial skill bonus.  If we need to go more than +12, I guess go with +16.  But I think I'd rather just give it SF (Hide) as a normal feat and keep to +12 on the racial bonus.  Or represent the extra surprise bonus by Imp Init*.  To be honest, I think I prefer +12 Hide (underground) and Imp Init.*



*

It's currently got Improved Initiative, so making that a (B) instead of Skill Focus (Hide) makes no difference to the stats.

Giving it +12 Hide means it's only 2 points better at Hide than a Dense Pudding. In 2nd edition AD&D Surprise Rolls are made on a d10, so the Gray Pudding's got the equivalent of a 4-point advantage over the Dense Pudding.

Hmm, I'd rather give it the +16 racial bonus you suggested earlier and re-wrangle the numbers to it has Hide -2. That way it's got 4 points more Hide when in a cave.

I'd still like to give it Skill Focus, but in Move Silently, so it's quieter than the Dense Pudding's +10.

Like this...

Skill Ranks (13 SPs): Climb 0, Hide 9, Move Silently 4, Listen 0

Skills: Climb +11, Hide -2*, Move Silently +12, Listen +8
Feats: Improved Initiative, Reckless Offense, Skill Focus (Move Silently), Stealthy, Weapon Focus (slam)
[One of these feats needs to be cut or turned into (B), I'd rather keep all the feats and make one of them a Bonus Feat. It doesn't matter that much which one.]

Skills:   A gray pudding has a +8 racial bonus on Listen and Move Silently  checks. Gray puddings have a +8   racial bonus on Climb checks and can  always   choose  to take 10 on a  Climb  check, even if rushed or  threatened.

*A gray pudding has a +16 circumstance bonus to Hide checks in natural underground terrain such as caves.*


----------



## freyar (May 29, 2012)

Make Imp Init the bonus feat, I think.

The rest of that looks fine.


----------



## Shade (May 30, 2012)

I'd rather go the +12/Skill Focus (Hide) route, but can accept +16.


----------



## Cleon (May 31, 2012)

Shade said:


> I'd rather go the +12/Skill Focus (Hide) route, but can accept +16.




I'll update it with the +16 Hide and Skill Focus (Move Silently) solution then.

Dang it, my previous post's feat list didn't have the (Move Silently) after the Skill Focus. I'd better explicate that.

Updating *Working Draft*.


----------



## freyar (Jun 5, 2012)

I think we figured it out. 

Gray puddings attack from ambush, grappling and constricting as often as possible.


----------



## Cleon (Jun 5, 2012)

freyar said:


> I think we figured it out.
> 
> Gray puddings attack from ambush, grappling and constricting as often as possible.




How about "Gray puddings use their stealth skills to attack from ambush, grappling and constricting as often as possible."

Also, we haven't decided on what we're doing about its peculiar spell vulnerabilities:



> Gray puddings are unusually susceptible to certain spells, provided those enchantments get past its magic resistance. These spells include _flesh to stone_, which acts as a _slow_ spell on the pudding, and _airy water_, which alters the pudding’s form enough to drown it in its own fluid mass in 2d4 rounds.


----------



## freyar (Jun 7, 2012)

Hmm, borrow the language from a golem's immunity to magic?  But what spell should we substitute for airy water?


----------



## Cleon (Jun 7, 2012)

freyar said:


> Hmm, borrow the language from a golem's immunity to magic?  But what spell should we substitute for airy water?




How about _transmute rock to mud_?


----------



## freyar (Jun 11, 2012)

Sure, that'll work.

"Not sure of ability name" (Su): Certain spells and effects function differently against a gray pudding, as noted below.

Flesh to stone acts as a slow spell on the pudding.

Transmute rock to mud causes the pudding to suffocate in its own mass.  The pudding must immediately make a DC 10 Constitution check (and one each following round with DC of 10+1 per round) or start drowning.  See the drowning rules in the SRD.

The pudding receives no save against either of these effects.


Do you think we ought to give it some way to get out of drowning?


----------



## Cleon (Jun 11, 2012)

freyar said:


> Sure, that'll work.
> 
> "Not sure of ability name" (Su): Certain spells and effects function differently against a gray pudding, as noted below.
> 
> ...




The original text says the Gray Pudding's magic resistance can resist both the spells. How about adding some text that its Spell Resistance applies to a _transmute rock to mud_ cast on it, despite the spell normally being "No SR"?


----------



## freyar (Jun 11, 2012)

Like this?

The pudding receives no save against either of these effects, but its SR applies to both (regardless of the spell text).


----------



## Cleon (Jun 11, 2012)

freyar said:


> Like this?
> 
> The pudding receives no save against either of these effects, but its SR applies to both (regardless of the spell text).




I wouldn't be adverse to allowing a Fortitude save and SR for both spells.


----------



## freyar (Jun 11, 2012)

Yeah, that might work pretty well.

The pudding receives a Fortitude save to negate either of these effects (at the usual spell DC), and its SR applies to both (regardless of the spell text).


----------



## Cleon (Jun 12, 2012)

freyar said:


> Yeah, that might work pretty well.
> 
> The pudding receives a Fortitude save to negate either of these effects (at the usual spell DC), and its SR applies to both (regardless of the spell text).




So we've now got...

*Spell Vulnerability (Su):* Certain spells and effects function differently against a gray pudding, as noted below.

_ Flesh to stone_ acts as a slow spell on the pudding.

_ Transmute rock to mud_ causes the pudding to suffocate in its own mass.   The pudding must immediately make a DC 10 Constitution check (and one  each following round with DC of 10+1 per round) or start drowning.  See  the drowning rules in the SRD.

The pudding receives a Fortitude save to negate the effect of either of these spells (at the usual spell DC), and its SR applies to both (regardless of the  spell text).

That looks sufficient to me, I think it's ready to add to the *Working Draft*.


----------



## freyar (Jun 13, 2012)

CR 8 looks good.  Just plug in the tactics, and it should be ok.  "Gray puddings use their stealth skills to attack from ambush, grappling and constricting as often as possible."


----------



## Cleon (Jun 13, 2012)

freyar said:


> CR 8 looks good.  Just plug in the tactics, and it should be ok.  "Gray puddings use their stealth skills to attack from ambush, grappling and constricting as often as possible."




Updating the *Working Draft*.


----------



## Cleon (Jun 13, 2012)

Cleon said:


> Updating the *Working Draft*.




Done?


----------



## freyar (Jun 14, 2012)

Think so.


----------



## Cleon (Jun 15, 2012)

freyar said:


> Think so.




Only one more subterranean pud to go, then!


----------



## freyar (Jun 27, 2012)

When you're ready...


----------



## Cleon (Jun 27, 2012)

freyar said:


> When you're ready...




Here we go...

*Pudding, Subterranean, Stone* 
*Climate/Terrain: *Subterranean
*Frequency: *Rare
*Organization: *Solitary
*Activity Cycle: *Any
*Diet: *Any
*Intelligence: *Low (5)
*Treasure: *Nil
*Alignment: *Neutral evil
*No. Appearing: *1 (1–3)
*Armor Class: *4
*Movement: *3
*Hit Dice: *5
*THAC0: *15
*No. of Attacks: *1
*Damage/Attack: *3d6
*Special Attacks: *Moves on ceilings
*Special Defenses: *See below
*Magic Resistance: *30%
*Size: *L-H (8’ diam.)
*Morale: *Steady (11)
*XP Value: *1,400

Subterranean puddings are viscous, slimy creatures that resemble massive lumps more than living things. A subterranean pudding is, in fact, a colony of hundreds of living organisms in a single pudding. They have no visible eyes, ears, or mouths; the colony creature’s sensory organs are located on its underside. Subterranean puddings range from gray to deep blue in color and are usually 8 feet in diameter; larger masses indicate multiple puddings, though no more than four puddings are found in any one mass. They always search for food, moving along floors, ceilings, and walls to find prey.

Sages believe all subterranean puddings are magically altered black puddings. Indeed, the two monsters share some standard characteristics. Subterranean puddings take no damage from edged weapons; blunt weapons cause one-quarter normal damage, regardless of any magical bonuses. Such puddings are immune to acid, cold, and poison attacks. Unlike other puddings, they do not divide when attacked. Rather, they divide into two half-sized sections, each with full hit points, when any of the following spells are cast at them: _fireball_, _lightning bolt_, _flamestrike_, _flaming sphere_, _wall of fire_, _chain lightning_, and _incendiary cloud_.

*Stone Pudding*
Though malleable, this pudding appears rather solid and very sluggish. It is a thick lump that oozes slowly along any surface, preferring to hide on ceilings (from whence it can drop onto its food). It ranges in color from light gray to dark gray — the darker the color, the more recently it has fed. A stone pudding’s secretions are poisonous, and each attack causes 3d6 points of damage. When a pudding kills a victim, it rests upon the dead creature until its body absorbs the flesh. This takes 1–10 rounds. Stone puddings cannot eat metal, wood, leather, and other such objects, which are left behind after they consume their victims.

These puddings, their remains, and their surface secretions can be prepared as poisons and used as ingredients in _oil of acid resistance_.

_This is the Monstrous Compendium Annual Volume Two (1995) version._


----------



## Cleon (Jun 27, 2012)

Okay, the Stone Pudding has half the Hit Dice of the other two subterranean puddings, so I'm thinking we should make it Large size rather than Huge.

The poisonous "secretions" only seem to cause hit point damage, so I'm thinking that suggests we could just use an ordinary slam + acid rather than giving them an actual Poison special attack.

I'd be willing to consider a low-damage poison though, if you like.


----------



## freyar (Jun 28, 2012)

The rest of the discussion makes it sound like the poison should really be acid.  We could split the 3d6 into slam and acid.  I don't have a strong preference.

Base the stats on an ochre jelly?


----------



## Cleon (Jun 29, 2012)

freyar said:


> The rest of the discussion makes it sound like the poison should really be acid.  We could split the 3d6 into slam and acid.  I don't have a strong preference.




Yes, that's what I was thinking. Some kind of digestive acid that only harms flesh.



freyar said:


> Base the stats on an ochre jelly?




I was thinking more of downsizing the Black Pudding, since all the Subterranean Puds are supposed to be related to that monster.

Anyhow, I'll begin a Working Draft with a modified Gray Pudding.

EDIT: Although, come to think of it, a downsized Black Pudding would have Str 9, Con 18, which seems quite woeful. I'll use the Ochre Jelly's Str 15, Con 22 for the time being.


----------



## Cleon (Jun 29, 2012)

*Stone Pudding Working Draft*

*Stone Pudding
*Large Ooze
*Hit Dice:* 5d10+25 (52 hp)
*Initiative:* -1
*Speed:* 10 ft. (2 squares), climb 10 ft.
*Armor Class:* 16 (-1 size, -5 Dex, +12 natural), touch 4, flat-footed 16
*Base Attack/Grapple:* +3/+8
*Attack:* Slam +4 melee (1d6+1 plus 2d6 acid)
*Full Attack:* Slam +4 melee (1d6+1 plus 2d6 acid)
*Space/Reach:* 10 ft./5 ft.
*Special Attacks:* Acid, constrict 1d6+1 plus 2d6 acid, improved grab
*Special Qualities:*   Blindsight 60 ft., immunity to slashing and piercing damage, immunity to acid, cold, electricity and fire damage, ooze  traits, spell  resistance 14, split
*Saves:* Fort +6, Ref -4, Will +1
*Abilities:* Str 13, Dex 1, Con 20, Int 6, Wis 11, Cha 1
*Skills:* Climb +9, Hide -6*, Move Silently +1, Listen +7
*Feats:* Improved Initiative, Weapon Focus (B)
*Environment:* Underground
*Organization:* Solitary or mass (2-4)
*Challenge Rating:* 4
*Treasure:* None
*Alignment:* Always neutral evil
*Advancement:* 6-9 HD (Large); 10-15 HD (Huge); 16-30 HD (Gargantuan)
*Level Adjustment:* —

_A sluggishly moving lump of flesh, its thick slimy skin is the color of wet, grey stone_.

Stone puddings are a variety of subterranean pudding, a family of    underground oozes related to the black pudding. All subterranean    puddings are intelligent, unlike most oozes, but they only use their    intelligence to pursue food and reproduction. They have no interest in    more abstract goals.

A typical stone pudding measures 8 feet across and 1 feet thick. It weighs about 3,000 pounds.

*COMBAT*

Stone puddings climb the walls and ceilings of cramped underground  passages, hiding until prey passes beneath. Then they fall on their  victims, taking and dealing falling damage, and constrict the most  vulnerable of their opponents. 

*Acid (Ex):* A stone pudding secretes a digestive acid that only dissolves flesh. Any melee hit or constrict  attack deals acid damage.

*Blindsight (Ex):* A stone pudding's entire body is a primitive sensory organ that can ascertain prey by scent and vibration within 60 feet.

*Constrict (Ex):* A stone pudding deals automatic slam and acid damage with a successful grapple check.

*Improved Grab (Ex):*    To use this ability, a stone pudding must hit with its slam attack. It   can  then attempt to start a grapple as a free action without  provoking  an  attack of opportunity. If it wins the grapple check, it  establishes  a  hold and can constrict.

*Split (Ex):* Fire and   electricity attacks deal no damage to  a stone pudding. Instead the   creature splits into two identical puddings,  each with half of the   original's current hit points (round down). A pudding with 10 hit points   or less cannot be further split and dies if  reduced to 0 it points.

*Skills:* A stone pudding has a +4 racial bonus on Listen and Move Silently checks. Stone puddings have a  +8 racial bonus on Climb checks and can always choose to take 10 on a  Climb check, even if rushed or threatened.

 *A stone pudding has a +12 circumstance bonus to Hide checks in natural underground terrain such as caves.


----------



## freyar (Jun 29, 2012)

The original damage was 3d6, so let's do 2d6 bludgeoning plus 1d6 acid.

Let's go in between on the abilities.  Str 13, Con 20.  You know, with the Str bonus, I guess we could drop to 2d4 bludgeoning on the slams.


----------



## Cleon (Jun 30, 2012)

freyar said:


> Let's go in between on the abilities.  Str 13, Con 20.  You know, with the Str bonus, I guess we could drop to 2d4 bludgeoning on the slams.




I'm OK changing the Str and Con to those scores.



freyar said:


> The original damage was 3d6, so let's do 2d6 bludgeoning plus 1d6 acid.




So 2d4+1 plus 1d6 acid? That's too wimpy for me. It average _less_ than the original's 3d6, and we have to allow for 3E's hit point inflation.

Also, the original description says the 3-18 damage is from its poisonous secretions, suggesting it might do 3d6 acid damage.

Let's see, the original Stone Pudding did very slightly less damage than a Dense Pudding - 3d6 vs 2d10.

Our Dense Pudding conversion does 2d6+4 plus 1d6 acid.

So, how about 1d6+1 plus 2d6 acid for the Stone Pudding?


----------



## freyar (Jul 3, 2012)

I'd prefer 2d6+1 bludgeoning plus 1d6 acid.

Let's give it NA as opposed to DR (or maybe a little of each), to distinguish it from the gray pudding a little.  It is a "stone" pudding, so it makes some sense to have NA.  Would you go for +12 NA?


----------



## Cleon (Jul 3, 2012)

freyar said:


> I'd prefer 2d6+1 bludgeoning plus 1d6 acid.
> 
> Let's give it NA as opposed to DR (or maybe a little of each), to distinguish it from the gray pudding a little.  It is a "stone" pudding, so it makes some sense to have NA.  Would you go for +12 NA?




I think the acid damage should be more than that, to honour the "poisonous secretions" of the original.

+12 Natural Armour's fine by me, since it gives it an Armor Class equivalent to the original's AC 4.


----------



## freyar (Jul 6, 2012)

Well, ok, we can go for 1d6+1 bludgeoning plus 2d6 acid since you really like.   Same acid damage for constrict?  

Since the like to hide on ceilings, split the ranks between Hide and Move Silently?

Definitely keep Imp Init as one feat.  Not sure about the other at the moment.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 6, 2012)

freyar said:


> Well, ok, we can go for 1d6+1 bludgeoning plus 2d6 acid since you really like.   Same acid damage for constrict?




Done!



freyar said:


> Since the like to hide on ceilings, split the ranks between Hide and Move Silently?




I was assuming we'd be going for that. Probably with more Hide than Move Silently.

The original monster didn't have a surprise penalty, unlike the other subterranean puddings, so it presumably isn't that great at lurking.

Will we give it some ranks in Listen like we did the other sub puds?



freyar said:


> Definitely keep Imp Init as one feat.  Not sure about the other at the moment.




Oh, let's just go for something simple. Either Reckless Offense or Weapon Focus.

Hmm, we could always give it Improved Initiative as a bonus feat like we did with the Gray Pudding.

Updating *Working Draft*.


----------



## freyar (Jul 7, 2012)

How about Hide 3, Listen 3, Move Silently 2, for a total of Hide -6, Listen +3, Move Silently -3?  Hmm, let's give them a +8 racial bonus in each of Hide and Move Silently when underground just to get out of the negative there.  What do you think?

I'd like Weapon Focus (slam), but I'm not too bothered about Reckless Offense either way.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 7, 2012)

freyar said:


> How about Hide 3, Listen 3, Move Silently 2, for a total of Hide -6, Listen +3, Move Silently -3?  Hmm, let's give them a +8 racial bonus in each of Hide and Move Silently when underground just to get out of the negative there.  What do you think?
> 
> I'd like Weapon Focus (slam), but I'm not too bothered about Reckless Offense either way.




Okay, our previous puddings have:*Skills:* A dense pudding has a +4 racial bonus on Move Silently checks. Dense puddings have a +8 racial bonus on Climb checks and can always choose to take 10 on a Climb check, even if rushed or threatened.

*A dense pudding has a +12 circumstance bonus to Hide checks in natural underground terrain such as caves.

*Skills:* A gray pudding has a +8 racial bonus on Listen and Move Silently checks. Gray puddings have a +8 racial bonus on Climb checks and can always choose to take 10 on a Climb check, even if rushed or threatened.

*A gray pudding has a +16 circumstance bonus to Hide checks in natural underground terrain such as caves.​So, how about going for a cut down version of the dense pudding's bonuses?:

*Skills:* A stone pudding has a +4 *[*or +8*?]* racial bonus on Listen and Move Silently checks. Stone puddings have a +8 racial bonus on Climb checks and can always choose to take 10 on a Climb check, even if rushed or threatened.

 *A stone pudding has a +8 *[*or +12*?]* circumstance bonus to Hide checks in natural underground terrain such as caves.

That would give it...

*Skills:* Climb +9, Hide -6*, Move Silently +1, Listen +7

As for the feats, Improved Initiative and Weapon Focus (slam) are fine by me. Indeed, it's current attack bonus doesn't work out right without WF, since we lowered its Strength.

Are you OK with the Advancement?


----------



## freyar (Jul 11, 2012)

Advancement is fine.  And I prefer the racial skill bonuses (boni?) in white text.  Update away...


----------



## Cleon (Jul 11, 2012)

freyar said:


> Advancement is fine.  And I prefer the racial skill bonuses (boni?) in white text.  Update away...




Updating *Working Draft*.


----------



## freyar (Jul 16, 2012)

CR 3?  It seems fairly comparable to the gelatinous cube.

Tactics: Stone puddings climb the walls and ceilings of cramped underground passages, hiding until prey passes beneath.  Then they fall on their victims, taking and dealing falling damage, and constrict the most vulnerable of their opponents.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 17, 2012)

freyar said:


> CR 3?  It seems fairly comparable to the gelatinous cube.




Gelatinous cubes have a DC20 paralysis attack plus Engulf, which is _*nasty*_. They might be under-CRd.

Compared to an Ogre, the Stone Pud has roughly 70% more hp, the same AC, a significantly worse attack (+8 & 16 average damage vs +4 & 11.5 average damage), but also has lots of immunities plus spell resistance.

It's also got better skills!

Also, the Split SQ potentially increases its offensive ability several fold if it get hit by fire or lightning several times.

Hmm, maybe it ought to be a CR 4?



freyar said:


> Tactics: Stone puddings climb the walls and ceilings of cramped underground passages, hiding until prey passes beneath.  Then they fall on their victims, taking and dealing falling damage, and constrict the most vulnerable of their opponents.




Looks alright.

Although it makes me want to switch to the "red option" of a +12 bonus to Hide in caves, otherwise its tactic will hardly ever succeed.


----------



## freyar (Jul 17, 2012)

I think I could do a +12 bonus on Hide in caves.  Or else an extra circumstance bonus for being overhead.

Hmmm, looking at it in comparison to the dense and gray puddings, which both have more HD, I'd like to decrease SR a bit.  Could I get you to consider decreasing SR to 10 or 11?

I can do CR 3 or 4.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 18, 2012)

freyar said:


> I think I could do a +12 bonus on Hide in caves.  Or else an extra circumstance bonus for being overhead.




An extra "overhead bonus" don't seem write. A stone pudding presumably looks like a stone, so it ought to be able to blend in.



freyar said:


> Hmmm, looking at it in comparison to the dense and gray puddings, which both have more HD, I'd like to decrease SR a bit.  Could I get you to consider decreasing SR to 10 or 11?
> 
> I can do CR 3 or 4.




The Stone Pudding had 30%, which is 10% higher than the other Subterranean Puddings which both have 20%. If anything, that argues for it having a spell resistance _*higher*_ than the others. 

Oh, I noticed one thing while re-reading the AD&D version. The description says:



			
				MCA1 said:
			
		

> When a pudding kills a victim, it rests upon the dead creature until its body absorbs the flesh. This takes 1-10 rounds. Stone puddings cannot eat metal, wood, leather, and other such objects, which are left behind after they consume their victims.




Do we want to mention that? I don't think I'd bother. Surely it's SOP for all Oozes to rest on dead creatures until they've dissolved everything edible?


----------



## freyar (Jul 18, 2012)

So we're agreed on a +12 Hide bonus?

Well, then let's leave the SR at 14.  

No, I wouldn't mention sitting on the prey.  I think that's pretty normal.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 19, 2012)

freyar said:


> So we're agreed on a +12 Hide bonus?
> 
> Well, then let's leave the SR at 14.
> 
> No, I wouldn't mention sitting on the prey.  I think that's pretty normal.




 Agreed! Updating *Stone Pudding Working Draft*.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 19, 2012)

Did we finish arguing about their Challenge Rating? I can't recall.

We were thinking 3 or 4.

They look more like a 4 to me - compare one to a CR4 Dire Boar, Gargoyle or Grey Ooze and they look like they're in the same cricket field.


----------



## freyar (Jul 19, 2012)

I agreed with either CR, so CR 4 is fine.

I previously suggested
Tactics: Stone puddings climb the walls and ceilings of cramped underground passages, hiding until prey passes beneath. Then they fall on their victims, taking and dealing falling damage, and constrict the most vulnerable of their opponents.

If you can provide a description, it's all done.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 20, 2012)

freyar said:


> I agreed with either CR, so CR 4 is fine.
> 
> I previously suggested
> Tactics: Stone puddings climb the walls and ceilings of cramped underground passages, hiding until prey passes beneath. Then they fall on their victims, taking and dealing falling damage, and constrict the most vulnerable of their opponents.




Well I said it "looks alright", but I seem to have forgotten to update it.



freyar said:


> If you can provide a description, it's all done.




Might as well put a description straight into an updated *Stone Pudding Working Draft*.


----------



## freyar (Jul 20, 2012)

Looks done!

Is that it for the subterranean puddings?  And all the oozes?


----------



## Cleon (Jul 21, 2012)

freyar said:


> Looks done!
> 
> Is that it for the subterranean puddings?  And all the oozes?




Yes, there are only three Subterranean Puds, so we've finished all the slimy brutes I mentioned on the* The Slithering Hoard and other missing beasts* thread.

There might be some other Oozes we've missed, but I can't think of any offhand.


----------



## Cleon (Jun 3, 2013)

I was flicking through _SJA1 Wildspace_ the other day and notices an Ooze we've missed, or rather _part_ of an Ooze we missed.

The *Silver Slime* in that adventure has another phase to its life-cycle that is not possessed by standard Silver Slimes, described thusly:

*The Silver Slimes*
By a subtle effect of the Arcane enchantment on the Ravager’s interior, the slimes acquire an additional mission and an extra life-cycle stage when inside it.

The silver slime plasmodia not only seal cracks in the walls and absorb dust; they work as antibodies against invaders. The slimes acquire an acid touch that inflicts 1d6 damage on intruders. This should surprise the PCs, since the slimes were so benign earlier. What’s more, once one slime discovers an intruder, suddenly 1d10 slimes converge on that location each turn!

Nonetheless, these hardly present a major threat to the PCs; the slimes move too slowly. Hence, the new stage in the life-cycle.

*Megalium:* AC 7: MV 12; HD 8+1: hp 40; #AT one per PC; Dmq 4-24; SA as dun pudding; SD pudding immunities; AL N; THACO 13.

The silver slime’s "megalium" stage is not described in the creature’s listing in the appendix. PCs trigger this stage by damaging the Ravager, or Tobart can trigger it to fight the PCs while he’s busy destroying Tyrant Ships.

The megalium is a giant aggregate of all the plasmodia aboard the Ravager. A dark grey blob about 100 feet in diameter vs. ships, it is only elephant-sized versus PCs afoot. The megalium can extend many tendrils over a wide area, so it can attack each PC once per round.

Treat the amount of megalium facing each PC as a single dun pudding _(Monstrous Compendium, _Volume 1, "Puddings, Deadly"). However, stage its corrosive effects as the torches and other devices that the silver slime can produce (see its description in the appendix). If a PC can beat the slime/pudding, the character has cut through the monstrous blob and escaped. If all the PCs defeat their pudding equivalents, the megalium is destroyed or has retreated.


----------



## freyar (Jun 16, 2013)

So do you think we should edit this into the Silver Slime entry or treat it as a separate monster?


----------



## Cleon (Jun 16, 2013)

freyar said:


> So do you think we should edit this into the Silver Slime entry or treat it as a separate monster?




It's in the same adventure that the Silver Slime debuted in, so I think it makes more sense appending it to the current entry in an underbar.


----------



## freyar (Jun 27, 2013)

Looking at this more carefully, isn't it just a slug advanced to Colossal and given extra attacks?  I'd think we could handle that just by changing the advancement.


----------



## Cleon (Jun 29, 2013)

freyar said:


> Looking at this more carefully, isn't it just a slug advanced to Colossal and given extra attacks?  I'd think we could handle that just by changing the advancement.




The wording is rather confusing, but it does call it "an extra life-cycle stage" and its AC and move are better than the normal Slug.

The basic Megalium is "elephant sized", which suggests Huge. They should be able to advance to Colossal size "about 100 feet in diameter" for eating ships.

As well as additional attacks, they appear to have stronger acid - since regular Silver Slimes didn't have an acid touch in the original adventure, that was something we added to represent "cleaning fluids" they created for their maintenance duties.


----------



## Cleon (Jun 29, 2013)

Cleon said:


> The wording is rather confusing, but it does call it "an extra life-cycle stage" and its AC and move are better than the normal Slug.




Speaking of the Megalium's move, I just realized the original Silver Slime only had move 1.

Shouldn't we give the 3E conversion a speed of "5 ft., climb 5 ft." instead of the "20 ft., climb 10 ft." it currently has?

I suspect that was a copy-paste from a previous Ooze we used as template, and nobody noticed the speeds don't match.


----------



## Cleon (Jun 29, 2013)

Cleon said:


> The basic Megalium is "elephant sized", which suggests Huge. They should be able to advance to Colossal size "about 100 feet in diameter" for eating ships.




Anyhow, the writeup says to treat the "anti-personal" Megaliums as single Dun Puddings. Since a Dun Pudding is basically a Black Pudding with a palette swap, I suggest we use the Black Pudding as a basis for this "combat form" Silver Slime.

As this creature appears at the climax of the adventure, I suggest we make it quite nasty.

I'm thinking it should have lots of attacks which it can use simultaneously as a standard action, like a Hydra. If can only target a single attack against an opponent up to man sized, though. The attacks should do the same damage as a 3E Black Pudding's 2d6+4 plus 2d6 acid, but it can also use "devices" like blowtorches, acid-sprays and so forth.

Come to think of it, it'd be simpler if it has a multiple "devices" attacks that do the same damage - e.g. it has:

*Attack:* 8 pseudopod-tools +X touch (4d8 damage, see text)

And the Combat entry explains its pseudopods can do a number of different damage types by becoming different tools - blow torches, acid-jets, smashing hammers, impaling rods and so forth - and the silver slime can produce any combination of tools it requires.

I'm thinking we should have bludgeoning, slashing, piercing, fire and acid damage at a minimum, and I'd consider sonic ("harmonic cutting beam") or electrical ("arc-lance") attacks as well.


----------



## freyar (Jul 7, 2013)

I'll agree to the reduced speed for the normal silver slimes.

Hmm, I'd thought the Huge description was just a part of the megalium dealing with the PCs.  But I guess you're right.

And I'll agree to the many "tool attacks."  You don't mean all those types of damage at once, though, do you?  Am I understanding correctly that you want to give it a special ability that the tool attack can use any of those types of damage for each attack (maybe with a short delay to change each tool damage type)?


----------



## Cleon (Jul 7, 2013)

freyar said:


> I'll agree to the reduced speed for the normal silver slimes.




Shall I edit the *CC entry* then?



freyar said:


> Hmm, I'd thought the Huge description was just a part of the megalium dealing with the PCs.  But I guess you're right.
> 
> And I'll agree to the many "tool attacks."  You don't mean all those types of damage at once, though, do you?  Am I understanding correctly that you want to give it a special ability that the tool attack can use any of those types of damage for each attack (maybe with a short delay to change each tool damage type)?




Well I don't want it to have multiple weapon-types with the the same tool attack, but I can see little reason it couldn't have "blowtorches" tipping some pseudopods and "pneumatic drills" tipping other pseudopods.

It is a number of slugs fused together, after all, and the original description says the damage should be staged as "torches and other devices".


----------



## freyar (Jul 17, 2013)

You could edit the CC entry now or just wait until the megailum is ready to go.

I'm not sure the pseudopod tools should be a touch attack, either.  But I'd be happy to have a special attack entry like

Tool Attacks (Ex): A megalium can form its pseudopodia into various tool-weapons.  Each pseudopod takes one of the following attack forms: hammer (bludgeoning damage, melee), screwdriver (piercing, melee), saw (slashing, melee), blowtorch (fire, ray), cleaning spray (acid, ray), harmonic drill (sonic, ray), arc welder (electrical, ray).  The ray attacks are ranged touch attacks with a range of X ft (no range increment).

Of course, the Str for the slug is much higher than the Dex, so it's highly incentivized to use the melee attacks at the moment....


----------



## Cleon (Jul 17, 2013)

freyar said:


> You could edit the CC entry now or just wait until the megailum is ready to go.




I know I _could_ do it, the question was _shall_ I do it.

Since you don't appear to mind I might as well...



freyar said:


> I'm not sure the pseudopod tools should be a touch attack, either.  But I'd be happy to have a special attack entry like
> 
> Tool Attacks (Ex): A megalium can form its pseudopodia into various tool-weapons.  Each pseudopod takes one of the following attack forms: hammer (bludgeoning damage, melee), screwdriver (piercing, melee), saw (slashing, melee), blowtorch (fire, ray), cleaning spray (acid, ray), harmonic drill (sonic, ray), arc welder (electrical, ray).  The ray attacks are ranged touch attacks with a range of X ft (no range increment).
> 
> Of course, the Str for the slug is much higher than the Dex, so it's highly incentivized to use the melee attacks at the moment....




It just seemed easier to have all the "tools" use the same attack values. We could easily rationalize it that it's some weaponized tool that does bludgeoning, slashing, or piercing damage as a touch attack by projecting a "cutting beam", blast of superdense air, or whatever.


----------



## freyar (Jul 25, 2013)

So they should all be ranged?  I'd kind of like some difference between the normal and energy attacks.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 26, 2013)

freyar said:


> So they should all be ranged?  I'd kind of like some difference between the normal and energy attacks.




Well I'd be OK if we followed the Silver Slime slug in giving it melee "normal" attacks and line "energy" attacks.

It'd be a bit trickier to write up, though. I'll rough out a working draft with some ideas...


----------



## Cleon (Jul 26, 2013)

*Silver Slime Megalium Working Draft*

*Silver Slime Megalium*
Huge Ooze
*Hit Dice:* 10d10+70 (125 hp) 
*Initiative:* -5 
*Speed:* 20 ft. (4 squares), climb 20 ft. 
*Armor Class:* 13 (-2 size, -5 Dex, +10 natural), touch 3, flat-footed 13 
*Base Attack/Grapple:* +7/+26
*Attack:* Up to 10 pseudopod tools* +12 melee (1d8+7 plus 2d6 energy) or up to 10 pseudopod beamtorches* +6 ranged touch (4d8 energy)
*Full Attack:* Up to 10 pseudopod tools* +12 melee (1d8+7 plus 2d6 energy) or up to 10 pseudopod beamtorches* +6 ranged touch (4d8 energy)
* See pseudopod weaponry for full details
*Space/Reach:* 15 ft./10 ft. 
*Special Attacks:* Acid, improved grab, pseudopod weaponry
*Special Qualities:* Blind, blindsight 60 ft., half damage from slashing or piercing, ooze traits, vulnerability to fire 
*Saves:* Fort +9, Ref -3, Will -3 
*Abilities:* Str 25, Dex 1, Con 24, Int —, Wis 1, Cha 1 
*Skills:* Climb +15 
*Feats:* — 
*Environment:* Any aquatic, forest, swamp, and underground 
*Organization:* Solitary 
*Challenge Rating:* 8
*Treasure:* None 
*Alignment:* Always neutral 
*Advancement:* 11-15 HD (Huge); 15-30 HD (Gargantuan); 31-49 (Colossal)
*Level Adjustment:* — 

_A small lake of steel-grey slime that flows with disturbing purpose. A  host of liquid tentacles ooze out of its surface, their tips solidify  into a strange assortment of tools and nozzles_.

The silver slimes of some military complexes have an additional stage to  their life cycle, the megalium, a combat form that allows them to  attack invaders must like antibodies fighting an infection. If intruders  damage a complex maintained by these militarized silver slimes, the  individual silver slime swarms and slugs flow together and form  megaliums to repel or dissolve the invaders. If silver slimes are  numerous enough, they can form megalium so immense they can envelop the  ships the invaders landed in too. The commander of a slime-equipped  military complex usually possesses the ability to trigger or cancel a  megalium transformation from the facility's control center.

The transformation into a megalium takes only a round once sufficient  silver slimes have congregated together. The megalium will break apart  into many Tiny silver slimes if it takes sufficient damage to destroy  it. These tiny oozes are exhausted from the effort of becoming a  megalium, so need to feed and rest for at least a few days before they  have the energy to gather into silver slime swarms.

A typical silver slime megalium is an aggregate of around ten or a dozen  silver slime swarms or silver slime slugs. It is roughly 15 feet across  and 1 feet thick and weighs from 5,000 to 10,000 pounds. The largest  megalium can measure 100 feet across, about 10 feet thick, and weigh up  to 1000 tons.

*COMBAT*
Unlike normal silver slimes, megalium aggressively pursue intruders and  attack them with its weaponized pseudopods. Its pseudopods can do both  normal and energy damage. A megalium randomly selects what type(s) of  damage each of its pseudopod weapons does (so different pseudopods can  do different damage) and if an opponent proves resistant to that form of  damage it instinctively switches to another randomly generated damage  type.

Megalium keep on attacking until they are destroyed or all their opponents have  left the facility they are guarding.

*Acid (Ex):* A silver slime's acid does not harm metal or stone.

*Pseudopod Weaponry (Ex):* As a free action, a silver slime   megalium can form its pseudopods into weapons. The megalium can produce  any combination of tools and beamtorches it requires, and it can use  pseudopod weaponry with different energy types at the same time.

_Melee Tool:_ This pseudopod tool is a melee weapon that inflicts   1d8+7 damage (piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning) plus 2d6 energy   damage. The energy damage can be acid, cold, electricity, fire, or   sonic.

_Beamtorch:_ This pseudopod has a rod-like tip  that can shoot a  stream of energy as long as the megalium's reach (10 ft.  for a typical  Huge specimen). A beamtorch is a ranged touch attack with a +5 racial bonus to attack that does 4d8   energy damage. The energy damage can be  acid, cold, electricity, fire,  or sonic.                         
​*Improved Grab (Ex):* To use this ability, a silver slime megalium must hit with a pseudopod tool attack. It can then attempt to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. If it wins the grapple check, it establishes a hold and deals damage automatically every round. Silver slime megaliums have a +4 racial bonus on grapple checks (already figured into the Base Attack/Grapple entry above).

*ADVANCED MEGALIUMS*
A Gargantuan silver slime megalium can use up to 15 pseudopod weapons simultaneously and its beamtorches have a 15 ft. range and do 6d8 damage. A Colossal megalium can extrude up to 20 pseudopod weapons and its beamtorches have a 20 ft. range and do 9d8 damage.

_Originally appeared in SJA1 - Megalium (1991)._


----------



## Cleon (Jul 26, 2013)

The above post is in response to the following, which I'll repeat since it might be on a different page of this thread. 



Cleon said:


> freyar said:
> 
> 
> > So they should all be ranged?  I'd kind of like  some difference between the normal and energy attacks.
> ...


----------



## freyar (Aug 3, 2013)

Looks pretty good, but I think I'd change the attack lines. Either to "pseudopod weaponry" or 10 pseudopod tools (melee .... or ranged ...).  Right now it looksl ike they always have 10 melee attacks.


----------



## Cleon (Aug 4, 2013)

freyar said:


> Looks pretty good, but I think I'd change the attack lines. Either to "pseudopod weaponry" or 10 pseudopod tools (melee .... or ranged ...).  Right now it looksl ike they always have 10 melee attacks.




Since we're using the current Silver Slime slug as a model it doesn't have ranged attacks, since the Slug's "blowtorch" is a area-of-effect line attack.

I'd be OK making it a ranged touch attack, but if we do we'll need to rephrase the Silver Slime Slug too.

After checking the original MC entry, the AD&D Silver Slime's "welding torch" did not have a save for reduced damage, so changing the Slug's blowtorch to a ranged  attack would be a better match to its writeup.

So how about:

*Silver Slime Slug*
*Attack/Full Attack:* Slam +4 melee (1d6+2 plus 1d6 acid) or blowtorch -1 ranged touch (3d8 fire)

* Blowtorch (Ex):* A silver slime slug can form a pseudopod into a flaming wand that can shoot a stream of fire up to 10 ft. long. This is a ranged touch attack that inflicts 3d8 fire damage.

*Silver Slime Megalium*
*Attack/Full Attack:* 10 pseudopods [tool +10 melee (1d8+7 plus 2d6 energy*) or beamtorch +0 ranged touch (4d8 energy*)]

*Pseudopod Weaponry (Ex):* As a free action, a silver slime  megalium can form its pseudopods into weapons. The megalium can produce any combination of tools and beamtorches it requires, and it can use pseudopod weaponry with different energy types at the same time.

_Melee Tool:_ This pseudopod tool is a melee weapon that inflicts  1d8+7 damage (piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning) plus 2d6 energy  damage. The energy damage can be acid, cold, electricity, fire, or  sonic.

_Beamtorch:_ This pseudopod has a rod-like tip  that can shoot a stream of energy as long as the megalium's reach (10 ft.  for a typical Huge specimen). A beamtorch is a ranged touch attack that does 4d8  energy damage. The energy damage can be  acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic.


----------



## Cleon (Aug 4, 2013)

Cleon said:


> *Silver Slime Slug*
> blowtorch -1 ranged touch (3d8 fire)
> 
> *Silver Slime Megalium*
> beamtorch +0 ranged touch (4d8 energy*)




Making them ranged touch attacks gives the Silver Slime a really pathetic attack values due to its low Dexterity.

I'd be in favor of increasing its Dex - probably to around 10, which would also give the Silver Slime Slug an AC pretty close to the original's AC 9.

Alternatively, we could give it a bonus to hit with its cutting torch.

Speaking of AC, the Megalium form's AD&D stats have a 2-point better AC than an ordinary Silver Slime. Do we want to do anything about that?


----------



## freyar (Aug 13, 2013)

Well, hmmm.  I guess this raises the question of whether we need to make the slub and the megalium have the same attack types.  But suppose we make them both ranged touch attacks.  Oozes generally have pretty low Dex, so I'd go for a racial bonus to hit with the "blowtorch."


----------



## Cleon (Aug 14, 2013)

freyar said:


> Well, hmmm.  I guess this raises the question of whether we need to make the slub and the megalium have the same attack types.  But suppose we make them both ranged touch attacks.  Oozes generally have pretty low Dex, so I'd go for a racial bonus to hit with the "blowtorch."




Right-ho. How much do you fancy?

+4 to attack, perhaps?

As for the Megalium's higher AC, we can leave that argument until after we have the attacks nailed down.


----------



## freyar (Aug 28, 2013)

At least +4 to attack, even up to +6.  I'd be just as happy converting it to a line.

For the AC, how about a natural armor bonus?


----------



## Cleon (Aug 29, 2013)

freyar said:


> At least +4 to attack, even up to +6.  I'd be just as happy converting it to a line.




Overall I prefer the ranged touch attack approach, since the original monster made to hit rolls with all its attacks.

I'd go for a +5 since that'd make the Slug's ranged and melee attack modifiers match, but I don't mind either +4 or +6.

Alternatively, we could key it to a different stat, like Wisdom, and increase that stat. Give it Wisdom 11 and a Wis-based ranged attack would give the Slug +4 ranged touch with its blowtorch and the Megalium +5 ranged touch.



freyar said:


> For the AC, how about a natural armor bonus?




That's what I was thinking.


----------



## freyar (Sep 3, 2013)

+5 bonus to ranged attack rolls works.  Wait, doesn't the size penalty also apply to the ranged attack roll?  Then I get a total of +5 (-2 size, -5 Dex, +5 racial, +7 BAB) for the ranged attack vs +12 (-2 size, +7 Str, +7 BAB).  Am I missing something?

I don't really like making the ranged attacks Wis based without a good flavor reason that I don't see, though.

+2 NA bonus?


----------



## Cleon (Sep 3, 2013)

freyar said:


> +5 bonus to ranged attack rolls works.  Wait, doesn't the size penalty also apply to the ranged attack roll?  Then I get a total of +5 (-2 size, -5 Dex, +5 racial, +7 BAB) for the ranged attack vs +12 (-2 size, +7 Str, +7 BAB).  Am I missing something?




The ranged attack is +5 in my latest post. It's the melee attack that's wrong (at +10) - it's because we increased the Strength from the Slug's Str 20 and I haven't adjusted all the numbers yet.



freyar said:


> I don't really like making the ranged attacks Wis based without a good flavor reason that I don't see, though.




It doesn't really matter where the bonus comes from provided it's the right size. Incidentally, what type do you fancy? I suppose racial is most appropriate.



freyar said:


> +2 NA bonus?




Certainly natural, although I'd fancy a bit higher than that as +2 only gives it AC 5.

To give it the equivalent of the original Megalium's AC it'll need AC 13, or +10 NA.


----------



## freyar (Sep 17, 2013)

A racial bonus would work.

+10 NA?  Sure, go for it.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 18, 2013)

freyar said:


> A racial bonus would work.
> 
> +10 NA?  Sure, go for it.




Updating *Silver Slime Megalium Working Draft*.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 18, 2013)

Cleon said:


> Updating *Silver Slime Megalium Working Draft*.




I used the higher +6 value for the racial bonus to hit with the beamtorches in the end, since I likes having the torches' attack value be half the tools'.

I've updated the *Silver Slime Slug* in the Creature Catalog too, using the +4 bonus with the "blowtorch".


----------



## freyar (Oct 4, 2013)

Looks good.

What do you think, maybe CR 8?


----------



## Cleon (Oct 6, 2013)

freyar said:


> Looks good.
> 
> What do you think, maybe CR 8?




Well compared to the CR 7 Black Pudding it's got an impressive number of attacks which it's able to use all at once as a standard action. That's worth a good deal.

Its defenses aren't as good since it lacks Split, doesn't have weapon-destroying acid and is vulnerable to fire. The higher AC isn't good for much against level-appropriate opponents, although half-damage from slashing & piercing has some value.

I guess Challenge Rating 8 is about right.


----------



## freyar (Oct 17, 2013)

Looking at unfinished bits: do you really feel the need to spell out the advancement like that?  I thought increasing damage, etc, is something DMs are supposed to figure out themselves?  That said, I'm ok with increasing the number of pseudopods to 15 and 20 for G and C and just stepping up the damage one step per size category.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 18, 2013)

freyar said:


> Looking at unfinished bits: do you really feel the need to spell out the advancement like that?  I thought increasing damage, etc, is something DMs are supposed to figure out themselves?  That said, I'm ok with increasing the number of pseudopods to 15 and 20 for G and C and just stepping up the damage one step per size category.




There's nothing in the Monster Advancement rules about increasing the damage of special attacks, it only allows for increasing the damage of weapon attacks due to increased size or Strength. There's nothing about the DM increasing the damage themselves.

There are plenty of examples of advanced creatures published by WotC and Paizo whose special attacks still have the basic range and damage - e.g. the Maurid Advanced Chimera in _Dungeon #112_ has max Hit Dice for a Chimera (27 HD), making it Huge size, but its breath weapon is still a 20-ft. cone doing 3d8 damage like a standard 9 HD Chimera. It doesn't even do 4d8 damage for being a size larger, since it's not a natural weapon.

To make a monster's special attack damage increase with advancement it really needs to say so in their description, otherwise under RAW it'll do the same damage as a non-advanced creature.

I'd set the beamtorches' damage so they pretty much match the melee tool's damage, since the original monster did the same damage no matter the form of the pseudopod-tip it hit an opponent with.

A Gargantuan Silver Slime Megalium would do 2d6+11 plus 3d6 energy (or 2d8 energy if we have the energy damage size-scale as if it were a Fire Elemental), which suggests we should have its beamtorches do about 6d8 damage.

A Colossal Silver Slime Megalium would do 3d6+15 plus 4d6 energy (or 3d8 energy if we have the energy damage size-scale as if it were a Fire  Elemental), which suggests 8d8 or 9d8 damage for the beamtorches.

The above does not allow for ability score increases from its Hit Dice increases, which it'll likely apply to Strength or Constitution.


----------



## freyar (Oct 21, 2013)

Hmm, that's strange, I would have sworn that the MM had a line or two about DMs using judgment in this sort of case, but, you're right, I don't see it.  Very well, then.  Let's use those values for the beamtorches.  Presumably ability increases will not affect beamtorch damage values.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 24, 2013)

freyar said:


> Hmm, that's strange, I would have sworn that the MM had a line or two about DMs using judgment in this sort of case, but, you're right, I don't see it.




There might be something to that effect somewhere in the _Monster Manual_ or a _Dragon_ article, but it ain't in the SRD! 



freyar said:


> Very well, then.  Let's use those values  for the beamtorches.  Presumably ability increases will not affect  beamtorch damage values.




Good!

So do you prefer 8d8 or 9d8 damage for the Colossal beamtorch? The average slam damage is either 39 or 39.5, which works out to eight and two-thirds d8s, so personally I'd round up to 9d8. It'll have at least 5 points of ability increases at that advancement (12, 16, 20, 24 & 28 HD).

Its Strength is an odd number unlike its Con, so it'll most likely have +3 Str and +2 Con as that gives it a Strength modifier 2 points higher than a straight size-increase would provide.


----------



## freyar (Nov 1, 2013)

9d8 works.  It makes sense that it'll increase Str that extra point, I agree.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 1, 2013)

freyar said:


> 9d8 works.  It makes sense that it'll increase Str that extra point, I agree.




Updating *Silver Slime Megalium Working Draft*.

That looks like it apart from its Challenge Rating, Max Advancement and the fluff.

CR wise, it's a good deal nastier than the CR 5 Silver Slime Slug.

The question is, is it nastier than the CR 7 Black Pudding we based the stats on?

I'd say yes. It does have 10 attacks, after all, each with a damage roughly the same as a Black Pudding. It doesn't have a Black Pudding's special defences of Split or weapon-destroying Acid but its half-damage from slashing & piercing partly compensates.

So maybe CR 8 or 9?


----------



## Cleon (Nov 1, 2013)

Cleon said:


> The question is, is it nastier than the CR 7 Black Pudding we based the stats on?
> 
> I'd say yes. It does have 10 attacks, after all, each with a damage  roughly the same as a Black Pudding. It doesn't have a Black Pudding's  special defences of Split or weapon-destroying Acid but its half-damage  from slashing & piercing partly compensates.
> 
> So maybe CR 8 or 9?




Okay, after mulling it over I'm leaning towards Challenge Rating 8.

I remembered that the CR 7 Black Pudding is IMMUNE to slashing and piercing damage which only trigger a Split, so the Silver Slime Megalium's half-damage from those attacks is not so hot.

That said, I still think its abundance of attacks is worth more than the Black Pudding's stronger defences, just not +2 CR more.

Hence, CR 8 is my current guesstimate.



Cleon said:


> That looks like it apart from its Challenge Rating, Max Advancement and the fluff.




As for the Max Advancement, I'm fancying 31-49 HD (Colossal) since it's the square of seven and the individual "slugs" it is composed of have 7 HD.Although I'm open to alternatives like 31-45 HD or 31-60 HD.


----------



## freyar (Nov 16, 2013)

CR 8 will work, and I'm fine with 49 HD at max.  Are you just adding this to the end of the main silver slime entry?  If so, it'd be good to put a news item up mentioning that we're still here .  You could mention the corrected sentinel eidolon, too.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 17, 2013)

freyar said:


> CR 8 will work, and I'm fine with 49 HD at max.  Are you just adding this to the end of the main silver slime entry?  If so, it'd be good to put a news item up mentioning that we're still here .  You could mention the corrected sentinel eidolon, too.




Yes, I think it makes sense to append it to the existing Silver Slime rather than create a new entry, especially as they both originally appeared in _Wildspace_.

Updating *Silver Slime Megalium Working Draft*.



freyar said:


> If  so, it'd be good to put a news item up mentioning that we're still here .  You could mention the corrected sentinel eidolon, too.




Good idea.

I should also mention the "tidying up" changes we made to the Prehistoric Beasts too.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 17, 2013)

Cleon said:


> Updating *Silver Slime Megalium Working Draft*.




Okay, that just leaves flavour text. What do you think of this.

_A small lake of steel-grey slime that flows with disturbing purpose. A host of liquid tentacles ooze out of its surface, their tips solidify into a strange assortment of tools and nozzles_.

The silver slimes of some military complexes have an additional stage to their life cycle, the megalium, a combat form that allows them to attack invaders must like antibodies fighting an infection. If intruders damage a complex maintained by these militarized silver slimes, the individual silver slime swarms and slugs flow together and form megaliums to repel or dissolve the invaders. If silver slimes are numerous enough, they can form megalium so immense they can envelop the ships the invaders landed in too. The commander of a slime-equipped military complex usually possesses the ability to trigger or cancel a megalium transformation from the facility's control center.

The transformation into a megalium takes only a round once sufficient silver slimes have congregated together. The megalium will break apart into many Tiny silver slimes if it takes sufficient damage to destroy it. These tiny oozes are exhausted from the effort of becoming a megalium, so need to feed and rest for at least a few days before they have the energy to gather into silver slime swarms.

A typical silver slime megalium is an aggregate of around ten or a dozen silver slime swarms or silver slime slugs. It is roughly 15 feet across and 1 feet thick and weighs from 5,000 to 10,000 pounds. The largest megalium can measure 100 feet across, about 10 feet thick, and weigh up to 1000 tons.

*Combat*
Unlike normal silver slimes, megalium aggressively pursue intruders and attack them with its weaponized pseudopods. Its pseudopods can do both normal and energy damage. A megalium randomly selects what type(s) of damage each of its pseudopod weapons does (so different pseudopods can do different damage) and if an opponent proves resistant to that form of damage it instinctively switches to another randomly generated damage type.

Megalium keep on attacking until they are destroyed or all their opponents have  left the facility they are guarding.


----------



## freyar (Nov 29, 2013)

Don't we just have a common description and background section for all the silver slime life stages?  I was going to check the CC for that, but it seems to be down.  Is Morrus working on it?


----------



## Cleon (Nov 30, 2013)

freyar said:


> Don't we just have a common description and background section for all the silver slime life stages?  I was going to check the CC for that, but it seems to be down.  Is Morrus working on it?




Yes, I noticed a couple of days ago that the CC was down but I don't know what's going on with it. Morrus did mention to me they might rebuild the site to fix some links, but didn't say this would actually happen.

If it's still down in a few days we'd better send him a PM and ask what's going on.

As for the Silver Slime, here's the original *Silver Slime Working Draft*. It's pretty much the same as the current CC entry we can't get a look at.

I was just going to tag the Megalium onto the end of it, since it's a separate optional "life stage".


----------



## freyar (Dec 17, 2013)

Ah, yes, in that case, what you have looks consistent with the rest.  All done?


----------



## Cleon (Dec 18, 2013)

freyar said:


> Ah, yes, in that case, what you have looks consistent with the rest.  All done?




Yes, I think that's all it needs.

Updating and finishing *Silver Slime Megalium Working Draft*.


----------



## freyar (Jan 8, 2014)

Hooray, another thread laid to rest!  For the time being, at least.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 8, 2014)

freyar said:


> Hooray, another thread laid to rest!  For the time being, at least.




Sleep well, noble thread.


----------

