# Converting "generic setting" Second Edition monsters



## Shade (Mar 9, 2010)

Part Two. 

Original thread closed due to exceeding 1,000 post count.


----------



## Shade (Mar 9, 2010)

*Dwarf Crusher*

CLIMATE/TERRAIN: Any Land
FREQUENCY: Unique
ORGANIZATION: Solitary
ACTIVITY CYCLE: Any
DIET: None
INTELLIGENCE: Non- (0)
TREASURE: Nil
ALIGNMENT: Neutral
No. APPEARING: 1
ARMOR CLASS: 5
MOVEMENT: 6
HIT DICE: 14 (60 hit points)
THAC0: 7
No. OF ATTACKS: 1
DAMAGE/ATTACK: 3d8:
SPECIAL ATTACKS: +1 attack bonus vs. dwarves, heat metal
SPECIAL DEFENSES: Immune to most spells and weapons, traps edged weapons, +2 bonus to surprise rolls
MAGIC RESISTANCE: Nil
SIZE: L (7' tall)
MORALE: Fearless (19-20)
XP VALUE: 8,000

The dwarf crusher is a specialized version of the stone golem specifically created to defeat dwarves, though any group of warriors would find it formidable.
At first glance, the dwarf crusher looks like a statue of a squat, ugly dwarf, crudely done. The head seems small for the massive body, and features two faces (one on each side) with ropy beards, slack jaws, beady eyes, jug ears, cob noses, and sloping brows. The chunky torso is made up of several flat, rotatable discs. The construct has sausage-shaped arms that hang down past its knees, and the legs are thick and stumpy. All the joints look bulbous, as though inflamed or arthritic. In fact, the joints allow the limbs to swivel in any direction.
The dwarf crusher seems to move with a ponderous waddle, but its swiveling joints make it surprisingly agile. The creature's outer skin seems stony, but actually consists of very dense clay laid over a stone core.

*Combat:* The dwarf crusher is mindless and unrelenting in combat. It strikes at opponents with its massive fists. The construct's two faces and swivel joints allow it to attack in any direction; it has no rear. The dwarf crusher's all-around vision gives it a +2 bonus to its own surprise rolls. Once a turn, the dwarf crusher can send forth a wave of volcanic heat. The effect is equivalent to a heat metal spell from a 12th level caster. The construct can generate heat and make a physical attack. It always favors creatures engaged in melee against it to any other target. The dwarf crusher gains a +1 bonus to attack rolls when fighting dwarves of any type.
The construct is immune to all weapons except those of +2 or better enchantment. There is a 25% chance that any edged weapon (type P or S) used to attack the dwarf crusher will become lodged in the construct. Roll ld4 along with the attack die; if the d4 shows a 1, the edged weapon is stuck in the dwarf crusher even if the attack missed (the weapon struck the construct,but inflicted no damage). When a weapon sticks in the dwarf crusher, the body part where the weapon is trapped immediately swivels, automatically wrenching the weapon from the wielder's hand. (A weapon such as a cestus or natural weapon cannot be dropped; the attacker suffers 3d8 points of damage instead of being disarmed and cannot attack with the affected member for 1d6 rounds.) To recover a stuck weapon, a character must make an attack roll vs. Armor Class 0 to seize the weapon, followed by a successful Bend Bars roll. If the Bend Bars roll is a 91 or higher, the weapon breaks (unless it is an artifact). If the dwarf crusher is destroyed, stuck weapons can be loosened in one turn with no risk of breaking them.
Most spells have no effect on the dwarf crusher. A transmute rock to mud spell slows the dwarf crusher for 2d6 rounds. Its reverse, transmute mud to rock, heals the construct, restoring all lost hit points. A stone to flesh spell does not actually change the dwarf crusher's structure, but the effect renders the construct vulnerable to normal weapons during the following round. This does not include spells, except for those that cause direct damage. When the dwarf crusher is thus vulnerable, weapons cannot become stuck in it, and trapped weapons fall out.

*Habitat/Society:* The dwarf crusher is the brainchild of the evil wizard Tairdo, whose hatred of dwarves borders on the pathological. To date, Tairdo has created only a few dwarf crushers, and they guard his subterranean lair.

*Ecology:* Like all golems, the dwarf crusher does not eat, sleep, breathe, or reproduce. Barring destruction in combat, it is undying. Creating a dwarf crusher would require access to Tairdo's notes on its construction, 85,000 gold pieces for materials, and three months of work. The creator must be a wizard of at least 16th level, and must cast the following spells: wish, polymorph any object, geas, and wall of fire.

Originally appeared in Axe of the Dwarvish Lords (1999).


----------



## freyar (Mar 9, 2010)

Start with a stone golem, increase Dex a little to account for the joints, change slow to heat metal/fire effect, add racial bonus vs dwarves, add something about disarming (maybe a Ref save mechanic).  Seems like immunity to magic is the same as the stone golem.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 10, 2010)

freyar said:


> Start with a stone golem, increase Dex a little to account for the joints, change slow to heat metal/fire effect, add racial bonus vs dwarves, add something about disarming (maybe a Ref save mechanic).  Seems like immunity to magic is the same as the stone golem.




That looks the way to go. Its stats are very similar to a standard AD&D stone golem.

I've got to love the way Tairdo made it in the shape of a fat, two-faced dwarf specifically for crushing dwarves - that's really rubbing it in!

Do you think a +1 attack vs dwarves is enough? I'm thinking that's a fairly negligible boost against its intended target, how about giving its attacks the equivalent of the bane quality (+2 attack, +2d6+2 damage) against "Humanoid, Dwarf"?


----------



## freyar (Mar 11, 2010)

Going dwarf bane makes a lot of sense to me.  I think +1 was supposed to be a lot more special back in 1999.


----------



## Shade (Mar 11, 2010)

Added to Homebrews.

Here's something we might modify for the "trap weapon" ability:

Reflexive Sunder (Ex): The armor plates that cover a rukanyr shift and rub against each other in combat, creating a jarring sound like that of trees rubbing together in a high wind. Anyone who strikes a rukanyr with a slashing or piercing melee attack must make a Reflex save (DC 11) or the armor plates shift and crush the weapon, dealing 4d6+5 points of damage to the weapon and tearing it from the victim's grasp. The weapon lands at the attacker's feet if it is not broken by the damage. The save DC is Dexterity-based.


----------



## freyar (Mar 12, 2010)

That's pretty much perfect; the sunder is a little different than the original dwarf crusher, but I think this is a little more logical given how the construct works (as well as being a little more standard).  We should also add that Reflexive Sunder doesn't work when the dwarf crusher is affected by stone to flesh (under immunity to magic).


----------



## Shade (Mar 12, 2010)

That seems logical.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 13, 2010)

Shade said:


> Added to Homebrews.




Why did you make the Dwarf Bane an (Ex) power? I'd think (Su) would be a lot more fitting.



Shade said:


> Here's something we might modify for the "trap weapon" ability:
> 
> Reflexive Sunder (Ex): The armor plates that cover a rukanyr shift and rub against each other in combat, creating a jarring sound like that of trees rubbing together in a high wind. Anyone who strikes a rukanyr with a slashing or piercing melee attack must make a Reflex save (DC 11) or the armor plates shift and crush the weapon, dealing 4d6+5 points of damage to the weapon and tearing it from the victim's grasp. The weapon lands at the attacker's feet if it is not broken by the damage. The save DC is Dexterity-based.




That looks pretty close, except I'd make it ALL weapons that strike the golem, not just slashing & piercing, since the original can disarm you of a mace as easily as an axe, and the original quite clearly says it keeps hold of the weapon. It also needs some tweaking of flavour text.

We could also rewrite it a bit to be more like the description, something like:

*Reflexive Disarm (Ex):* The armor plates and body-joints that make up a dwarf crusher golem constantly shift and rotate around each other in combat, creating a grinding sound like scores of millstones crushing gravel. Anyone who strikes a rock crusher with  a melee attack must make a Reflex save (DC *A*) or  the armor plates shift and trap the weapon, then rotate and tear the weapon from the victim's grasp. If the weapon is one that can't be disarmed (such as a natural weapon or a cestus) the armour plates crush the victim's weapon for *B* points of  damage and then release the weapon. To recover a trapped weapon, an opponent must make a successful Disarm attack against the golem (the golem gets a *+**C* modifier on its opposed attack roll, including a *+**D* bonus). The save  DC is Dexterity-based.


----------



## freyar (Mar 14, 2010)

It should be piercing and slashing only because it says that only "edged weapons (types P and S)" can get caught.  Your other changes are ok, though the double disarming thing gets a bit complex.

PS.  This is in the original, too, but I don't understand why captured weapons aren't damaged but natural weapons, etc, are.  Seems awfully gamist to me.


----------



## Shade (Mar 15, 2010)

freyar said:


> PS.  This is in the original, too, but I don't understand why captured weapons aren't damaged but natural weapons, etc, are.  Seems awfully gamist to me.




Agreed.  That needs to be remedied.


----------



## freyar (Mar 15, 2010)

How about this rewrite of what Cleon has?

Reflexive Disarm (Ex): The armor plates and body-joints that make up a dwarf crusher golem constantly shift and rotate around each other in combat, creating a grinding sound like scores of millstones crushing gravel. Anyone who strikes a rock crusher with a melee attack must make a Reflex save (DC A) or the armor plates trap the weapon. The armour plates crush the victim's weapon for B points of damage; if it is a natural weapon, the attacker takes the damage instead.  If the weapon can be disarmed, it is also trapped in the armor plates.  To recover a trapped weapon, an opponent must make a successful Disarm attack against the golem (the golem gets a +C modifier on its opposed attack roll, including a +D bonus). The save DC is Dexterity-based.

That parenthetical about the +C modifier, +D bonus might not be necessary.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 16, 2010)

freyar said:


> It should be piercing and slashing only because it says that only "edged weapons (types P and S)" can get caught.  Your other changes are ok, though the double disarming thing gets a bit complex.
> 
> PS.  This is in the original, too, but I don't understand why captured weapons aren't damaged but natural weapons, etc, are.  Seems awfully gamist to me.




Sorry, I didn't notice that "P and S" when I glanced at the stats. I'd have no objection to returning it to slashing / piercing requirement, and agree that having it damaging the weapon regardless makes sense.



freyar said:


> How about this rewrite of what Cleon has?
> 
> Reflexive Disarm (Ex): The armor plates and body-joints that make up a  dwarf crusher golem constantly shift and rotate around each other in  combat, creating a grinding sound like scores of millstones crushing  gravel. Anyone who strikes a rock crusher with a melee attack must make a  Reflex save (DC A) or the armor plates trap the weapon. The armour  plates crush the victim's weapon for B points of damage; if it is a  natural weapon, the attacker takes the damage instead.  If the weapon  can be disarmed, it is also trapped in the armor plates.  To recover a  trapped weapon, an opponent must make a successful Disarm attack against  the golem (the golem gets a +C modifier on its opposed attack roll,  including a +D bonus). The save DC is Dexterity-based.
> 
> That parenthetical about the +C modifier, +D bonus might not be  necessary.




That looks better than my last effort!

I think the +C modifier would be handy, in a similar way to Wolves having their Trip modifier listed in their combat description, it'll just speed up play a trifle.

By the way, the original did 3d8 damage to a trapped natural weapon, the same damage as its slam attacks - do we want to keep it 3d8? Maybe with its Strength bonus thrown in for 3d8+9?

For that matter, do we want to increase its slam attacks to 3d8 from the standard Stone Golem's 2d10?


----------



## Cleon (Mar 16, 2010)

By the way, I'd still like a good reason for its Dwarfbane ability being listed (Ex), since surely (Su) makes more sense.

While we're on that subject, the Dwarf Crusher needs "dwarfbane" in its Special Attacks line.


----------



## Shade (Mar 16, 2010)

Agreed to increasing slams to 3d8, making reflexive disarm 3d8+Str, and switching dwarfbane to Su.

Updated.


----------



## freyar (Mar 17, 2010)

Looking good!

Here's the heat wave:


> Once a turn, the dwarf crusher can send forth a wave of volcanic heat. The effect is equivalent to a heat metal spell from a 12th level caster. The construct can generate heat and make a physical attack.



We'd usually convert this to a few/day rather than 1/turn.  Do you really want to make it just heat metal or perhaps some sort of fire damage burst?  Also, it sounds like this should be a move or even swift action.  Thoughts?


----------



## Cleon (Mar 17, 2010)

freyar said:


> Looking good!
> 
> Here's the heat wave:
> 
> We'd usually convert this to a few/day rather than 1/turn.  Do you really want to make it just heat metal or perhaps some sort of fire damage burst?  Also, it sounds like this should be a move or even swift action.  Thoughts?




My first thought was making it a continuous power the golem can switch on or off as a swift action, which acts like a heat metal to everything within a certain spread, but on reflection the damage it does is negligible for a creature of its CR.

Substituting a higher level spell might make more sense.

_wall of fire_ (caster level = 12 or = HD?) 1/minute or x/day?

2d6+12 or 2d6+14 fire damage per round is fairly respectable.


----------



## Shade (Mar 17, 2010)

Rather than simply giving it wall of fire, how about borrowing the damage from the "hot side" and combine that with heat metal to make the ability a tad more interesting?


----------



## Cleon (Mar 17, 2010)

Shade said:


> Rather than simply giving it wall of fire, how about borrowing the damage from the "hot side" and combine that with heat metal to make the ability a tad more interesting?




Some kind of "superheat metal" you mean, that progresses like _heat metal _but does higher damage to affected targets?

Say it's a X radius burst, everyone within the area wearing metal must save vs Will or take the following fire damage from their superheated armour and weapons (unless they drop the hardware):

1st round - 1d6 damage
2nd round - 1d6+6 damage
3rd to 5th round - 2d6+12 damage
6th round - 1d6+6 damage
7th round - 1d6 damage

can be dispelled as an X level spell, CL 12th.


----------



## Shade (Mar 18, 2010)

I was actually thinking of an actual heat wave akin to this aspect of wall of fire:

"One side of the wall, selected by you, sends forth waves of heat, dealing 2d4 points of fire damage to creatures within 10 feet and 1d4 points of fire damage to those past 10 feet but within 20 feet."

Atop that, add in the heat metal aspect for something like...

Heat Wave (Su):  Once every x rounds, a dwarf crusher can emit a wave of volcanic heat.  All creatures within x feet suffer xdx points of fire damage to creatures, while those x to x feet from the construct take xdx points of fire damage.  All metal equipment carried by creatures within the area is also subject to a heat metal effect (caster level 12th, Will DC X negates).  The save DC is Constitution-based.


----------



## freyar (Mar 19, 2010)

Shade's suggestion works for me.  Why not 2d8 within 10 ft, 1d8 within 20 ft, plus heat metal?  Every 1d4 or 1d6 rounds?


----------



## Cleon (Mar 19, 2010)

Shade said:


> I was actually thinking of an actual heat wave akin to this aspect of wall of fire:
> 
> "One side of the wall, selected by you, sends forth waves of heat, dealing 2d4 points of fire damage to creatures within 10 feet and 1d4 points of fire damage to those past 10 feet but within 20 feet."
> 
> ...




That would work.

Once every 1d4+1 rounds like an Iron Golem's breath weapon?

Lava does either 20d6 or 2d6 fire damage, followed by 1d3 rounds of half damage (10d6/1d6). We could change the secondary damage to a "_heat metal"_ type effect. That's still rather a lot, so maybe tone it down to the same damage as a _fireball._ 

0-10 foot radius for 12d6 damage, then 11-20 foot radius for 6d6 damage, with 1d3 rounds of secondary damage doing 6d6 or 3d6 to opponents with metal items?

Oh, and it obviously can't be Constitution based since it's a Construct - switch to Strength or Charisma?

I fancy strength, since these things should be nasty!


----------



## freyar (Mar 22, 2010)

That would be way more damage than it does by melee, and it's sort of better than a breath weapon since the wave of damage doesn't get a save.  Maybe slightly less than 12d6/6d6?  Str-based for the heat metal DC makes some perverse sense.


----------



## Shade (Mar 22, 2010)

Cleon said:


> Oh, and it obviously can't be Constitution based since it's a Construct - switch to Strength or Charisma?





Not true!  Check out the iron and stone golem's special abilities.  

A lack of a Con score is treated as 10 for purposes of determing save DCs.

That said, I could see Cha-based, but I'm not really feeling Str-based for something that doesn't involve it's actual physical prowess.


----------



## freyar (Mar 22, 2010)

An interesting point.  Well, mark me down as ambivalent about this.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 23, 2010)

Shade said:


> Not true!  Check out the iron and stone golem's  special abilities.
> 
> A lack of a Con score is treated as 10 for purposes of determing save  DCs.




It was a perfectly good story until you ruined it with your meddling facts!



freyar said:


> That would be way more damage than it does by  melee, and it's sort of better than a breath weapon since the wave of  damage doesn't get a save.  Maybe slightly less than 12d6/6d6?   Str-based for the heat metal DC makes some perverse sense.






Shade said:


> That said, I could see Cha-based, but I'm not really feeling Str-based for something that doesn't involve it's actual physical prowess.




We could give it a save for half damage - maybe Fort to "endure the heatstroke" instead of the usual Reflex?

Overall I prefer Cha-based, but we'll likely want to up the Cha to 10+.


----------



## freyar (Mar 24, 2010)

Make it Cha 12 to get that +1.   Definitely include a Fort save, and I still think 12d6/6d6 is too much since it's a big burst in melee range.  CR 11 dragons don't typically get quite that much.  How about 10d6/5d6, more in line with a CR 11 young adult green dragon?


----------



## Shade (Mar 24, 2010)

Sounds good.  Updated.


----------



## freyar (Mar 24, 2010)

Tactics?  It obviously likes melee and should probably use the heat wave as often as possible, I guess.

Ideas for construction?  Wall of fire seems appropriate, as does heat metal.  Probably limited wish, too.


----------



## Shade (Mar 25, 2010)

Good ideas.   Maybe add bane to account for the dwarfbane property?  Shatter for the reflexive sunder?

Summarizing...

*Construction*
A dwarf crusher's body is chiseled from a single block of hard stone, such as granite, weighing at least 3,000 pounds. The stone must be of exceptional quality, and costs 5,000 gp. Assembling the body requires a DC 17 Craft (sculpting) check or a DC 17 Craft (stonemasonry) check.

CL 14th; Craft Construct, bane, heat metal, limited wish, shatter, wall of fire, caster must be at least 14th level; Price 90,000 gp; Cost 50,000 gp + 3,400 XP.


----------



## freyar (Mar 25, 2010)

That looks fine to me!


----------



## Shade (Mar 25, 2010)

Updated.

Finished?


----------



## freyar (Mar 25, 2010)

I'm happy with it.


----------



## Shade (Mar 26, 2010)

*Tomb Warden*
CLIMATE/TERRAIN: Dwarven delvings
FREQUENCY: Very Rare
ORGANIZATION: Solitary
ACTIVITY CYCLE: Any
DIET: None
INTELLIGENCE: Non- (0)
TREASURE: Nil
ALIGNMENT: Neutral
NO. APPEARING: 1
ARMOR CLASS: 5
MOVEMENT: 6 (but see below)
HIT DICE: 11 (50 hit points) per section
THAC0: 0
NO. OF ATTACKS: 1 per 5-foot section and see below
DAMAGE/ATTACK: 2d8
SPECIAL ATTACKS: Ignores magical defenses
SPECIAL DEFENSES: Immune to most spells and weapons
MAGIC RESISTANCE: Nil
SIZE: M (each section is 5' square)
MORALE: Fearless (19-20)
XP VALUE: 6,000 + 1,000 per section

Tomb wardens are related to stone golems. Dwarf priests construct them to serve as tireless guardians for areas they cannot otherwise protect.
At rest, a tomb warden looks like a group of finely rendered figures of armed and armored dwarves carved in high relief on a seamless stone surface. When trespassers invade the area guarded by a tomb warden, the figures animate and attack.

Combat: Each figure in a tomb warden occupies a section of wall about 5 feet square. Most tomb wardens have at least four sections, but could have many more. The sections form a single, continuous carving. Each figure has its own hit point total and fights separately If the creature's heart is intact, any section destroyed regenerates in one month.

An animated figure becomes three dimensional, but at least half of its mass remains embedded in the wall. As the figure turns to attack various opponents, different portions emerge from the wall and others meld back in. A figure can reach about 5 feet to attack.

A tomb warden has a crystalline heart buried within some portion of the construct. The heart has 25 hit points for each section in the original creature; for example, a tomb warden with four sections has a heart with 100 hit points. Attacking the heart requires digging through solid stone or some magical effect that can expose it. If disturbed, the heart produces four stony tentacles, each 5 feet long and capable of striking once a round, for 2d8 points of damage per blow. If the heart is destroyed, all the construct's sections stop functioning within 3d6 turns.

A tomb warden ignores all magical defenses, including protective magical items, invisibility, displacement, and stone skin spells. Magical armor and shields provide nonmagical protection. For example, a character wearing plate mail +3 and carrying a shield +4 would still enjoy a base Armor Class of 2 (plus Dexterity adjustments). Bracers of defense or a ring of protection provide no protection at all (AC 10).

Tomb wardens are immune to all weapons except picks, mattocks, and blunt (type B) weapons of +1 or better enchantment. Only the following spells have any effect:

Stone to flesh renders the heart or a single section vulnerable to normal weapons for ld4 rounds.

Transmute mud to rock heals all damage to any section (including the heart) in the area of effect.

Disintegrate renders one section inert for 1d6 rounds and causes 1d12 points of damage. If directed at the heart, a disintegrate spell inflicts 2d12 points of damage but has no other effect.

Passwall makes an opening in the wall containing a tomb warden. Nearby figures can attack creatures entering the passage. A passwall spell cast in the right area exposes a tomb warden's heart to attack.

Meld into stone allows the caster to enter a wall containing a tomb warden.

Habitat/Society: Tomb wardens are found only within dwarf-built subterranean complexes, usually guarding constricted areas where intruders cannot easily evade their attacks. A tomb warden cannot speak, but can obey simple instructions that include conditional phrases, such as: "Attack all orcs, and attack any other creature who does not speak the password."

Ecology: Tomb wardens do not eat, sleep, breathe, or reproduce. Lawful good dwarf priests of at least 12th level create them. Construction requires two months and 65,000 gold pieces worth of materials, plus an extra month and 10,000 gold pieces per section. For each section in the tomb warden, the priest must have one assistant priest of at least 7th level. All the priests involved must participate in shaping the tomb warden's heart and in sculpting the figures. When the stonework is complete, the priests petition their deity for direct aid. The deity grants the favor only in cases where the dwarves involved have no reliable or practical way to protect whatever the warden is to guard. If the optional rules for quest spells in the Tome of Magic are in play, the divine favor can he considered a quest spell.

Originally appeared in Axe of the Dwarvish Lords (1999).


----------



## demiurge1138 (Mar 26, 2010)

Oof. This is going to be complicated. My suggestion? Two sets of stats. Tomb warden, and tomb warden heart. Each warden is considered to be a seperate entity, but all in a location are tied to a heart, which gives them rejuvenation so long as it remains intact and can do the tentacled thing. Drop the "immune to weapons" stuff and replace with DR bludgeoning (and piercing? piercing gets us picks but arrows and rapiers don't make much sense) and magic. Ignores all magical defenses is bollocks. True seeing gets past displacement/invisibility. Perhaps if they had a dispelling blow ability, they could suppress magic armor and break protective spells?


----------



## Shade (Mar 26, 2010)

That sounds like a reasonable plan of attack.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 27, 2010)

demiurge1138 said:


> Oof. This is going to be complicated. My suggestion? Two sets of stats. Tomb warden, and tomb warden heart. Each warden is considered to be a seperate entity, but all in a location are tied to a heart, which gives them rejuvenation so long as it remains intact and can do the tentacled thing. Drop the "immune to weapons" stuff and replace with DR bludgeoning (and piercing? piercing gets us picks but arrows and rapiers don't make much sense) and magic. Ignores all magical defenses is bollocks. True seeing gets past displacement/invisibility. Perhaps if they had a dispelling blow ability, they could suppress magic armor and break protective spells?




I like the "ignores all magical defenses" bit. It's basically just an extension of the common golem immunity to spells. Perhaps its attacks have got their own personal antimagic field?

As for its immunity to weapons, I think I'd convert that to a Stone Golem's DR 10/adamantine.

For that matter, I'd turn to the SRD Stone Golem for the basics of the "Tomb Warden" stats - e.g. take a Stone Golem, reduce it one size step to Medium (for Str 21, Dex 11, NA +16), cut its HD to 11, give it a single 2d8 slam attack.

EDIT: Oh, and I agree we're best off statting the Wardens and the Heart as separate creatures.


----------



## demiurge1138 (Mar 27, 2010)

I agree with your assessment on using the stats for a stone golem as a start. As you already know, I strongly dislike the immune to natural defenses. We'll see what freyar's opinion is.


----------



## freyar (Mar 29, 2010)

Leave it all up to me, huh?    Well, I'm a bit torn on this.  I think I like the dispelling blow idea, but I could also see giving it a unique antimagic field Su ability useful for a short period each day or something.  Need to think about it.


----------



## Shade (Mar 29, 2010)

Dispelling blow appeals to me.


----------



## freyar (Mar 29, 2010)

Let's go with dispelling blow.  Normal dispel mechanics with a reasonable caster level?

But we're getting ahead of ourselves.  11HD for each tomb warden and something more for the heart?


----------



## Shade (Mar 30, 2010)

That sounds reasonable.  Start the heart at 16 HD?

We might look to the Caryatid Column for inspiration for its "passive form".


----------



## freyar (Mar 30, 2010)

Yes, I was thinking along those lines myself.

Do the warden first?


----------



## Shade (Mar 30, 2010)

Yeah, that'll probably be easier.


----------



## freyar (Mar 30, 2010)

Ok, we've got this for the stats:


			
				Cleon said:
			
		

> As for its immunity to weapons, I think I'd convert that to a Stone Golem's DR 10/adamantine.
> 
> For that matter, I'd turn to the SRD Stone Golem for the basics of the "Tomb Warden" stats - e.g. take a Stone Golem, reduce it one size step to Medium (for Str 21, Dex 11, NA +16), cut its HD to 11, give it a single 2d8 slam attack.




Start with that and keep normal golem mental stats?


----------



## Shade (Mar 30, 2010)

Added to Homebrews.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 30, 2010)

demiurge1138 said:


> I agree with your assessment on using the stats for a stone golem as a start. As you already know, I strongly dislike the immune to natural defenses. We'll see what freyar's opinion is.




Pardon? I see no ability to ignore natural defences, it's magical protections that don't work, which is little different from an anti-magic effect.

What exactly are you disliking?


----------



## demiurge1138 (Mar 31, 2010)

Strike "natural", replace with "magical".


----------



## freyar (Apr 1, 2010)

I think the homebrews looks pretty good so far, though I wonder if the dispelling blow should specifically target only effects that add a magical AC bonus.

Here's the Pathfinder version of the caryatid column "statue" ability:


> Statue (Ex)
> 
> A caryatid column can stand perfectly still, emulating a statue (usually one that is holding up the ceiling, like a carved column). An observer must succeed on a DC 20 Perception check to notice the caryatid column is alive.



The CC version doesn't seem to have an equivalent, and I don't have my ToH handy.


----------



## Shade (Apr 1, 2010)

Here's the Fiend Folio version:

Column Form (Ex): When at rest (not commanded, or waiting to fulfill a command), a caryatid column takes the form of a simple column of stone. This column is about 2 feet in diameter, and it extends up to the ceiling of the chamber to a height of 25 feet, whichever is less. Unless commanded otherwise, a caryatid column remains in this form until attacked, and it even allows creatures to climb it (Climb check DC 15).

A caryatid column in column form looks like a pillar in most respects. It does not radiate magic, and true seeing does not reveal its humanoid form. Careful examination of the column (Search check DC 25) reveals very faint and distorted lines that make the pillar resemble a woman with a sword. Anyone who successfully makes a Knowledge (architecture and engineering) check (DC 12) notes that the column serves no structural purpose since it bears none of the ceiling's weight. A close examination of the top of the column (Search check DC 15) or a keen eye (Spot check DC 20) shows that the column is not cemented or joined to the celing. Dwarves and other creatures with stonecunning receive a free Search check as though actively looking when they pass within 10 feet of a caryatid column.

Changing forms is a free action, and a caryatid column has darkvision (60-foot range).


----------



## freyar (Apr 1, 2010)

Boy, that's wordy!  Let's stick to the Pathfinderish version (which I assume is pretty much the ToH version).


----------



## Cleon (Apr 4, 2010)

freyar said:


> Boy, that's wordy!  Let's stick to the Pathfinderish version (which I assume is pretty much the ToH version).




Something like:

*Wall Relief Form (Ex):* A tomb warden can become a finely rendered figure carved in high  relief on a seamless stone surface. It can change from a carved relief into a three dimensional form, or the other way around, as a swift action. An observer  must succeed on a DC X Spot check to notice a tomb warden in relief form is "alive".

I'd make the DC pretty high - maybe 30?


----------



## Shade (Apr 5, 2010)

That seems reasonable.

Updated.


----------



## freyar (Apr 5, 2010)

Numerous comments:

First, do we want to include any of the following in Immunity to Magic?


> Disintegrate renders one section inert for 1d6 rounds and causes 1d12 points of damage. If directed at the heart, a disintegrate spell inflicts 2d12 points of damage but has no other effect.
> 
> Passwall makes an opening in the wall containing a tomb warden. Nearby figures can attack creatures entering the passage. A passwall spell cast in the right area exposes a tomb warden's heart to attack.
> 
> Meld into stone allows the caster to enter a wall containing a tomb warden.




Second, these are supposed to stay stuck in the wall.  Do we want to cut the speed off?

Last, we need rejuvenation that functions as long as the heart is intact.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 6, 2010)

freyar said:


> First, do we want to include any of the following in Immunity to Magic?




We should add a _disintegrate _special effect, but the other two just look like the normal effect of _passwall_ and _meld into stone_.



freyar said:


> Second, these are supposed to stay stuck in the wall.  Do we want to cut the speed off?




I was thinking something akin to a permanent _meld into stone_. Increase the size of the affected area above the original one 5-foot section per warden would make sense to me.

Something like:

*Wall Bound (Su):* A tomb warden is part of an enchanted stone wall. It can move through this wall as if under a permanent _meld_ into stone spell, but can never leave the wall. The wall must be at least 5 feet thick and big enough to contain all the tomb wardens that are part of it (i.e. a wall with 4 wardens must occupy at least 4 5-foot squares). Some walls are far larger than the wardens bound to them, giving these golems space to maneuver.



freyar said:


> Last, we need rejuvenation that functions as long as the heart is  intact




Definitely!


----------



## Shade (Apr 7, 2010)

I just remembered that a relief golem exists (in Dragon Magazine #334) which might provide some further inspiration/clarity:

Immunity to Magic (Ex): A relief golem is immune to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance. In addition, certain spells and effects function differently against the creature, as noted below.

A stone to flesh spell cast on a relief golem prevents it from using its meld with stone and phase door ability and negates its damage reduction for 1 hour with no saving throw.

A soften earth and stone spell cast upon a relief golem slows it (as per the spell slow) for 2d4 rounds with no saving throw.

Casting transmute mud to rock on a relief golem heals it of all its lost hit points.

Meld with Stone (Sp): A relief golem can enter a stone surface as a standard action as per the spell meld with stone. While inside the wall, any carvings or paintings on the wall shift and alter to accommodate the image of the relief golem that appears where it has merged. A relief golem can see and hear out of the stone surface that it is melded with. This effect lasts until the relief golem decides to exit the stone. The caster level for this effect is equal to the relief golem's Hit Dice. Casting stone shape on a wall containing a relief golem forces it to leave immediately.

Phase Door (Sp): A relief golem can walk through wood, plaster, and stone walls at will as per the spell phase door as a standard action. Such portals can only be used once and the relief golem cannot take other creatures through. The caster level for this effect is equal to the relief golem's Hit Dice.

Surprise (Ex): A relief golem melded with the wall receives a +20 circumstance bonus on Hide and Move Silently checks the round after exiting, often allowing them to surprise intruders.

Skills: *A relief golem receives a +8 racial bonus on Hide checks made in areas of stone, earth, or sand.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 7, 2010)

Shade said:


> I just remembered that a relief golem exists (in Dragon Magazine #334) which might provide some further inspiration/clarity:




This looks good, I wouldn't mind pinching some of this.



Shade said:


> Immunity to Magic (Ex): A relief golem is immune to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance. In addition, certain spells and effects function differently against the creature, as noted below.
> 
> A stone to flesh spell cast on a relief golem prevents it from using its meld with stone and phase door ability and negates its damage reduction for 1 hour with no saving throw.
> 
> ...




The original tomb warden has to stay melded with its wall, so if we keep that trait we'd have to drop the "prevents it from using its meld with stone and phase door ability" effect of a _stone to flesh_ spell. We could leave the _stone to flesh_ effect's "negates its damage reduction for 1 hour with no saving throw".



Shade said:


> Meld with Stone (Sp): A relief golem can enter a stone surface as a standard action as per the spell meld with stone. While inside the wall, any carvings or paintings on the wall shift and alter to accommodate the image of the relief golem that appears where it has merged. A relief golem can see and hear out of the stone surface that it is melded with. This effect lasts until the relief golem decides to exit the stone. The caster level for this effect is equal to the relief golem's Hit Dice. Casting stone shape on a wall containing a relief golem forces it to leave immediately.
> 
> Phase Door (Sp): A relief golem can walk through wood, plaster, and stone walls at will as per the spell phase door as a standard action. Such portals can only be used once and the relief golem cannot take other creatures through. The caster level for this effect is equal to the relief golem's Hit Dice.




Make this simpler and retain the Tomb Warden being bound into a particular wall? It should be possible to condense this into a single "Wall Bound" SQ. Speaking of which, I'm not that happy with that name - can we come up with something better?

There are a few bits that look worth borrowing. The "any carvings or paintings on the wall shift and alter to accommodate the  image of the relief golem that appears where it has merged. A relief  golem can see and hear out of the stone surface that it is melded with."



Shade said:


> Surprise (Ex): A relief golem melded with the wall receives a +20 circumstance bonus on Hide and Move Silently checks the round after exiting, often allowing them to surprise intruders.




I'd pinch this Surprise trait.


----------



## freyar (Apr 8, 2010)

I'm with Cleon on this.


----------



## Shade (Apr 8, 2010)

Updated with Surprise and modified immunity to magic.



Shade said:


> Meld with Stone (Sp): A relief golem can enter a stone surface as a standard action as per the spell meld with stone. While inside the wall, any carvings or paintings on the wall shift and alter to accommodate the image of the relief golem that appears where it has merged. A relief golem can see and hear out of the stone surface that it is melded with. This effect lasts until the relief golem decides to exit the stone. The caster level for this effect is equal to the relief golem's Hit Dice. Casting stone shape on a wall containing a relief golem forces it to leave immediately.
> 
> Phase Door (Sp): A relief golem can walk through wood, plaster, and stone walls at will as per the spell phase door as a standard action. Such portals can only be used once and the relief golem cannot take other creatures through. The caster level for this effect is equal to the relief golem's Hit Dice.






Cleon said:


> Make this simpler and retain the Tomb Warden being bound into a particular wall? It should be possible to condense this into a single "Wall Bound" SQ. Speaking of which, I'm not that happy with that name - can we come up with something better?
> 
> There are a few bits that look worth borrowing. The "any carvings or paintings on the wall shift and alter to accommodate the  image of the relief golem that appears where it has merged. A relief  golem can see and hear out of the stone surface that it is melded with."




Yeah, let's work on this.  I'm not coming up with anything very inspiration for a name.  The best I've got so far is "Inert Sentinel" or "Passive Guardian".


----------



## freyar (Apr 9, 2010)

No good idea on the name, but I think Cleon's original "Wall Bound" ability looks like a simpler base.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 10, 2010)

freyar said:


> No good idea on the name, but I think Cleon's original "Wall Bound" ability looks like a simpler base.




Okay, let's try expanding that a bit and seeing were it gets us. I borrowed a bit of the Xorn's Earth Glide SA to replace the previous _meld into stone_ and _phase door_ ability, since I feel that may be a better match.

*Wall Bound (Su):* A tomb warden is part of an enchanted stone  wall. The wall must be at  least 5 feet thick and voluminous enough to contain all the tomb wardens  that  are part of it (i.e. a wall with 4 wardens must occupy at least 4 5-foot  squares). Some walls are far larger than the wardens bound to them,  giving these golems space to maneuver.

A tomb warden can take the form of a shallow carving on the surface of its wall.  In its relief carving form, the golem can see and hear out of the stone  surface  that it is melded with. The golem can also take on a three dimensional form and move through the stone of its wall as easily as a fish swims through water. This burrowing leaves behind no  tunnel or hole, nor does it create any ripple or other signs of its  presence. Tomb wardens may never leave the wall they are part of. It may lean out of its wall to attack intruders, but must keep at least half its body within the wall. Any carvings or paintings on the wall will shift and alter to  accommodate the movement of the tomb warden. The tomb warden can switch between its 2D and 3D forms as a free action.


----------



## freyar (Apr 12, 2010)

I like that pretty well!


----------



## Shade (Apr 12, 2010)

Nice work!

Updated.


----------



## freyar (Apr 12, 2010)

We also want this (using numbers from the original text):

Rejuvenation (Su): A destroyed tomb warden is repaired and restored to a fullly functioning state with maximum hp in one month, assuming the associated tomb warden heart still functions.

Although, thinking about it, it might be more interesting to give them fast healing or a quicker rejuvenation time to make it more relevant to combat (or adventurers passing through more than once).


----------



## Shade (Apr 12, 2010)

I'd be fine with some fast healing and maybe a rejuv of 24 hours or 1d4 days.


----------



## freyar (Apr 12, 2010)

That could work (if we kept to fast healing 1 or something).  The alternative might be no fast healing, but 24 hours rejuvenation.  Let's see if Cleon has an opinion.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 12, 2010)

freyar said:


> That could work (if we kept to fast healing 1 or something).  The alternative might be no fast healing, but 24 hours rejuvenation.  Let's see if Cleon has an opinion.




I'd go for both. A few points of fast healing so if an intruder comes back a few minutes later the Tomb Warden is back to full strength, plus rejuvenation 24 hours.

Fast Healing 1 ?

Rejuvenation (Su): A destroyed tomb warden is repaired and restored to a  fullly functioning state with maximum hp after 24 hours, provided the tomb warden heart  it is linked to still functions.


----------



## Shade (Apr 12, 2010)

Updated.

Do we need any other special abilities?


----------



## freyar (Apr 13, 2010)

No, I think these are good.

CR 7?

Want to hold off on the construction till the heart is done, or just get it over with?


----------



## Shade (Apr 13, 2010)

Hmm...I suppose the question is whether they are created individually or as a set...

Finishing up some other loose ends...

Organization: Solitary or wall (2–x)

Advancement: x

A tomb warden is 5 feet tall and weighs around x pounds.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 13, 2010)

Shade said:


> Hmm...I suppose the question is whether they are created individually or as a set...
> 
> Finishing up some other loose ends...
> 
> ...




I'm wondering whether these fellows aren't CR8. They're about as tough as Flesh Golems, but their rejuvenation, fast healing and ability to hide in a wall and avoid ranged fire would make them harder to kill.

As for their construction it looks like they're created as a set, all linked to the same Heart.

The example given is of a wall with 4 sections, so we could say that's an average value and have the "Wall" range from half that to double that.

* Organization:* Solitary or wall (2–8)

For Advancement I'd go for around 100-150%, 150-300% HD:

* Advancement:* 12-15 HD (Medium), 16-33 HD (Large)

Weightwise, a regular Stone Golem scaled down to 5 foot would weigh 342 pounds but I imagine Tomb Wardens would be a lot stockier - they are modelled on dwarves, after all.

Going by the SRD height and weights of dwarves and humans I reckon a dwarf-shaped golem ought to weigh between 100-150% more than a human-shaped one of the same height, or about 700-850 pounds for a 5-foot Stone Golem.

So, 5 feet tall and 700 pounds weight?

EDIT: Hold on, I just noticed the original description says "_Most tomb wardens have *at least *four sections, but could have many more_.", meaning the 4-section wall is a minimum, not an average. How about expanding the organization a bit to something like:

*Organization:* Solitary, buttress (2-4) or wall (4-24)


----------



## freyar (Apr 14, 2010)

I'd drop solitary from org, since every one should be accompanied by a heart.

Organization: Buttress (2-4 plus 1 tomb warden heart) or wall (4-24 plus 1 tomb warden heart)

or whatever we end up calling the heart precisely.


----------



## Shade (Apr 14, 2010)

Updated.

Since the numbers of tomb wardens in a "set" can vary, they probably need individual construction rules after all.  We'll just have to note that the heart needs to be created first.

How about calling the heart a "Tombheart"?


----------



## freyar (Apr 14, 2010)

Tombheart is fine with me!

I think we're going with CR 8.

I'm thinking we can steal some construction from the stone golem, but decrease the cost and price.  Leaving some things undetermined for now...

Construction

A tomb warden’s body is chiseled from a single block of hard stone, such as granite, weighing at least 1500 pounds. The stone must be of exceptional quality, and costs X gp. Assembling the body requires a DC X Craft (sculpting) check or a DC X Craft (stonemasonry) check.

CL X; Craft Construct, passwall, dispel magic, geas/quest, caster must be at least X level; Price X gp; Cost X gp + X XP.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 14, 2010)

freyar said:


> Tombheart is fine with me!
> 
> I think we're going with CR 8.
> 
> ...




I would prefer _meld into stone_ over _passwall_. It matches their ability to walk through stone better since they don't leave passages behind them and it's a cleric spell, and the flavour text indicates these Golems are made by dwarf priests. How about using _greater dispel magic_ instead of the _dispel magic_, since their dispelling blows are at least a +11 dispel check?

Caster level 10th?

Shall we use the DM's friend DC 15 for the Craft checks?

30,000 gp seems a fair price. They're about as tough as a Flesh Golem (20,000) as far as their AC and damage goes, but they've got more useful powers. We should also allow for the cost of the wall that the Tomb Wardens are part of.

So, putting it all together I get something like:

*Construction*
A tomb warden's body is chiseled from a single block of hard stone, such  as granite, weighing at least 1500 pounds, and then built into a 5 ft. square stone wall. This stonework must be of  exceptional quality, costing at least 1,500 gp. Each additional 5 ft. square of wall increases the cost by another 500 gp. Assembling the body and wall requires a DC 15  Craft (sculpting) check or a DC 15 Craft (stonemasonry) check.

CL 10; Craft Construct, _geas/quest_, _greater dispel magic_, _meld into stone_, caster must  be at least 10th level; Price *30,000* gp; Cost *15,750* gp + 1,140 XP.


----------



## Shade (Apr 14, 2010)

That looks pretty good!


----------



## freyar (Apr 15, 2010)

Agreed, I like that a lot, including spell changes!


----------



## Shade (Apr 15, 2010)

Updated.

Should we add "creator must be a dwarf" to the prereqs?


----------



## freyar (Apr 16, 2010)

Yes, I think I like that requirement.  Nicely flavorful.


----------



## Shade (Apr 16, 2010)

Shall we move onto the tombheart?



> A tomb warden has a crystalline heart buried within some portion of the construct. The heart has 25 hit points for each section in the original creature; for example, a tomb warden with four sections has a heart with 100 hit points. Attacking the heart requires digging through solid stone or some magical effect that can expose it. If disturbed, the heart produces four stony tentacles, each 5 feet long and capable of striking once a round, for 2d8 points of damage per blow. If the heart is destroyed, all the construct's sections stop functioning within 3d6 turns.




Some quick thoughts:

Should this be Medium?

Since it's crystalline, rather than stone, I'd recommend different vulnerabilities.   Sonic and shatter seem no-brainers.   A few others are spelled out:



> Transmute mud to rock heals all damage to any section (*including the heart*) in the area of effect.
> 
> Disintegrate renders one section inert for 1d6 rounds and causes 1d12 points of damage. *If directed at the heart, a disintegrate spell inflicts 2d12 points of damage but has no other effect*.
> 
> Passwall makes an opening in the wall containing a tomb warden. Nearby figures can attack creatures entering the passage. *A passwall spell cast in the right area exposes a tomb warden's heart to attack*.


----------



## freyar (Apr 16, 2010)

Medium makes sense, and so do your spell vulnerabilities.  We also need to decide on HD, which isn't clearly specified in the original text.  If we assume 4 wardens or 100 hp, though, that's about 14HD if the 100 hp includes the construct bonus hp or 18HD if they don't.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 17, 2010)

Shade said:


> Shall we move onto the tombheart?
> 
> Some quick thoughts:
> 
> Should this be Medium?




The Tombheart doesn't need a separate 5-foot square, which suggests it's either Tiny (so can share a space with a Tomb Warden) or the Tomb Warden can walk through it with the meld into stone function of its Wall Bound power.

The latter is my preferred solution, so make it Medium (and scale bigger with more Wardens).

I'm not sure how close we want to stick to the 25 hp Tombheart per warden protocol. Not only could that quickly pile on the HD (e.g. ten Tomb Wardens would have a 250 hp heart, which could be something a Large 40HD Construct). Also, the Tomb Wardens now vary in size and HD.

Maybe make it a function of the total Hit Dice of the Wardens it is linked to?

Base HD X plus 1 hit dice per X HD of Tomb Wardens it is animating?



Shade said:


> Since it's crystalline, rather than stone, I'd recommend different vulnerabilities.   Sonic and shatter seem no-brainers.   A few others are spelled out:




Makes sense.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 17, 2010)

Shade said:


> Updated.
> 
> Should we add "creator must be a dwarf" to the prereqs?




I've checked the Tomb Warden write up and it's fine apart from a couple of minor niggles.

Firstly, the rejuvenation description has "fullly" with three Ls.

Secondly, the Surprise description "A tomb warden melded with the wall receives a +20  circumstance bonus on Hide and Move Silently checks the round after  exiting, often allowing them to surprise intruders." doesn't make a great deal of sense since (a) we've reworked its meld with wall power into wall bound and (b) it ca never "exit" from the wall.

I suggest a replacement with the following:

*Surprise (Ex):* A tomb warden in relief form (see Wall Bound, below) receives a +20  circumstance bonus on Hide and Move Silently checks, often allowing them to surprise intruders.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 17, 2010)

Okay, so getting back to the Tombheart shall we start arguing about Hit Dice?

I was wondering about giving them half the Hit Dice of the largest Warden plus 1 additional Hit Dice for every 5 Hit Dice of Tomb Wardens that it is linked to, then have the size go something like:

5-9 HD: Small
10-19 HD: Medium
20-39 HD: Large
_et cetera_.

That would mean a Tombheart linked to standard-issue 11HD Tomb Wardens would have a base of 5HD plus about 2 HD per Warden, and its size, HD and hp progression would go like this.

One Warden (11HD total) = Small Tombheart with HD 7d10+10 (48 hp)
Two Wardens (22HD total) = Small Tombheart with HD 9d10+10 (59 hp)
Three Wardens (33HD) = Medium Tombheart with HD 11d10+20 (70 hp)
Four Wardens (44HD) = Medium Tombheart with HD 13d10+20 (91 hp)
Five Wardens (55HD) = Medium Tombheart with HD 16d10+20 (108 hp)
Six Wardens (66HD) = Medium Tombheart with HD 18d10+20 (119 hp)
Seven Wardens (77HD) = Large Tombheart with HD 20d10+30 (140 hp)
Eight Wardens (88HD) = Large Tombheart with HD 22d10+30 (151 hp)
...
Ten Wardens (110HD) = Large Tombheart with HD 27d10+30 (178 hp)
  ...
Thirteen Wardens (143HD) = Large Tombheart with HD 33d10+30 (211 hp)
  ...
Sixteen Wardens (176HD) = Huge Tombheart with HD 40d10+40 (260 hp)

It's not an exact match to the original 25hp/warden but it feels about right.

Contrariwise, a Tombheart with four Large 16-HD Tomb Wardens in its wall would work out.

Base HD = Half Warden's HD = 8 HD
Additional HD = Total Wardens HD (16*4 = 64HD) divided by 5 = 12 HD.

=> Large Tombheart with Hit Dice 20d10+30 (140 hp)

Hmm, I think the basic progression is sound.


----------



## freyar (Apr 18, 2010)

The mathematical progression isn't bad, but I don't like the idea that the tombheart can have fewer HD than a warden.  I'm also not sure that we need to go into so much detail, though I'm ok with it.  I'd like a basic tombheart to start at about 14HD, in any case.  They should be more powerful than the wardens, I think.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 18, 2010)

freyar said:


> The mathematical progression isn't bad, but I don't like the idea that the tombheart can have fewer HD than a warden.  I'm also not sure that we need to go into so much detail, though I'm ok with it.  I'd like a basic tombheart to start at about 14HD, in any case.  They should be more powerful than the wardens, I think.




I would prefer them to start out with the same HD as a Tomb Warden.

How about "A Tombheart has Hit Dice equal to the highest Hit Dice Tomb Warden it is linked to, plus 1 HD for every 5 Hit dice of the Tomb Wardens it is linked to. e.g. the Tombheart of four 11-HD Tomb Wardens has a base of 11 HD, plus 8 HD (44 HD divided by 5), or 19 Hit Dice."

The Tombheart size could go Medium 11-20 HD, Large 21-40 HD, Huge 41-80 HD _etc_.

That would translate to:

One 11 HD Warden (11HD/5=2HD) -> 13 HD Medium Tombheart
Two 11 HD Wardens (22HD/5=4HD) -> 15 HD Medium Tombheart
Three 11 HD Wardens (33HD/5=6HD) -> 17 HD Medium Tombheart
Four 11 HD Wardens (44HD/5=8HD) -> 19 HD Medium Tombheart
Five 11 HD Wardens (55HD/5=11HD) -> 22 HD Large Tombheart
Six 11 HD Wardens (66HD/5=13HD) -> 24 HD Large Tombheart
 Seven 11 HD Wardens (77HD/5=15HD) -> 26 HD Large Tombheart
 Eight 11 HD Wardens (88HD/5=17HD) -> 28 HD Large Tombheart
Nine 11 HD Wardens (99HD/5=19HD) ->  30 HD Large Tombheart
Ten 11 HD Wardens (110HD/5=22HD) ->  33 HD Large Tombheart
Eleven 11 HD Wardens (121HD/5=24HD) ->  35 HD Large Tombheart
Twelve 11 HD Wardens (132HD/5=26HD) ->  37 HD Large Tombheart
Thirteen 11 HD Wardens (143/5=28HD) -> 39 HD Large Tombheart
Fourteen 11 HD Wardens (154HD/5=30HD) ->  41 HD Huge Tombheart
...
Thirty Two 11 HD Wardens (352HD/5=70HD) ->  81 HD Gargantuan Tombheart

While for Large Tomb Wardens...

One 16 HD Warden (16HD/5=3HD) -> 19 HD Medium Tombheart
Two 16 HD Wardens (32HD/5=6HD) -> 22 HD Large Tombheart
Three 16 HD Wardens (48HD/5=9HD) -> 25 HD Large Tombheart
 Four 16 HD Wardens (64HD/5=12HD) -> 28 HD Large Tombheart
 Five 16 HD Wardens (80HD/5=16HD) -> 32 HD Large Tombheart
 Six 16 HD Wardens (96HD/5=19HD) -> 35 HD Large Tombheart
Seven 16 HD Wardens (112HD/5=22HD) -> 38 HD Large Tombheart
Eight 16 HD Wardens (128HD/5=25HD) -> 41 HD Huge Tombheart
Nine 16 HD Wardens (144HD/5=28HD) ->  44 HD Huge Tombheart
 Ten 16 HD Wardens (160HD/5=32HD) ->  48 HD Huge Tombheart
...
Twenty One 16 HD Wardens (336HD/5=67HD) ->  83 HD Gargantuan Gargantuan Tombheart

Hmm...

No, I think we should drop this approach and simplify the whole thing.

How about the following.

A Tombheart must be linked to at least two Tomb Wardens, which must all have the same Hit Dice. The Tombheart has a size and Hit Dice according to the following table:

'No. of Tomb'''''Tombheart
''Wardens'''''Size''''''Hit Dice
'''''2'''''Warden -1''As Warden * 1
''''3-4''''As Warden''As Warden * 1.5
''''5-6''''As Warden''As Warden * 2
''''7-8''''Warden +1''As Warden * 2.5
''''9-12'''Warden +1''As Warden * 3
'''13-16'''Warden +2''As Warden * 3.5
'''17-24'''Warden +2''As Warden * 4
'''25-32'''Warden +3''As Warden * 4.5
'''33-40'''Warden +3''As Warden * 5

Example: A wall containing Seven Large 16 HD Tomb Wardens will have a Tombheart one size larger with 2.5 times as many Hit Dice, for a Huge 40 HD Tombheart.

That way we don't need to worry about calculations, just present a table that gives reasonable Hit Dice values.


----------



## freyar (Apr 18, 2010)

That last approach could work, though it still seems like a bit of trouble just for advancement.  Let's see what Shade thinks.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 19, 2010)

freyar said:


> That last approach could work, though it still seems like a bit of trouble just for advancement.  Let's see what Shade thinks.




Might as well. I could do with a break from fussing over it.


----------



## Shade (Apr 19, 2010)

The last approach should suffice, although even that approach is a bit more work for the DM than I think necessary.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 19, 2010)

Shade said:


> The last approach should suffice, although even that approach is a bit more work for the DM than I think necessary.




Well we need something about how to work out the heart's HD, and if you can come up with something simpler than a table that give reasonable figures for the 'heart's size and HD I'd be glad to hear it.

Revising to tidy up the example...

A Tombheart must be linked to at least two Tomb Wardens, which must all  have the same Hit Dice. The Tombheart has a size and Hit Dice according  to the following table:

'No. of  Tomb'''''Tombheart
''Wardens'''''Size''''''Hit Dice
'''''2'''''Warden  -1''As Warden * 1
''''3-4''''As  Warden''As Warden * 1.5
''''5-6''''As  Warden''As Warden * 2
''''7-8''''Warden  +1''As Warden * 2.5
''''9-12'''Warden  +1''As Warden * 3
'''13-16'''Warden  +2''As Warden * 3.5
'''17-24'''Warden  +2''As Warden * 4
'''25-32'''Warden  +3''As Warden * 4.5
'''33-40'''Warden  +3''As Warden * 5

*Example:* A wall containing seven Tomb Wardens will have a Tombheart one size larger than the Wardens with 2.5 times as many Hit Dice, so for seven Large 16 HD Tomb Wardens have a Huge Tombheart with 40  Hit Dice.

EDIT: Upon reflection, standard sized Tomb Wardens would probably be better for the example. Here's another take, with an alternative wording:

*Example:* A wall of seven Tomb Wardens will have a  Tombheart one size larger than the Wardens with 2.5 times the Hit  Dice of each Warden, thus the Tombheart of seven standard Tomb Wardens (Medium-sized 11 HD) is Large-sized and has 27 Hit Dice.

Example #2 works better for me.


----------



## Shade (Apr 20, 2010)

Cleon said:


> Well we need something about how to work out the heart's HD, and if you can come up with something simpler than a table that give reasonable figures for the 'heart's size and HD I'd be glad to hear it.




Being a fan of simplicity, I'd just stat 'em up at a base size and assume a certain number of tomb wardens, then note that they advance by X HD for each additional tomb warden.  

Still, you're approach is acceptable, and I find Example #2 preferable.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 20, 2010)

Shade said:


> Still, you're approach is acceptable, and I find Example #2 preferable.




Let's use the Table & Example for advancement then.

Now that that's settled, shall start on the actual stats?

For a basic tombheart we'd better use two 11-HD Wardens as the linked Wardens, since that's the weakest it will go.

The current table says it'd be a Small Construct with 11 Hit Dice, although I'd be game for modifying the table to make them start out Medium-sized if you'd prefer them that way.

Its stats would probably be pretty similar to a Tomb Warden except for it being immobile and having 4 tendril attacks. The original version has tendrils that do 2d8 damage, but I'll assume that's for a Medium-sized Tombheart and scale the damage down for our Small basic 'heart.

So, we've got something like:

EDIT: Changed to start out Medium-sized and adding Dispelling Blow.

*Golem, Tombheart*
Medium Construct
Hit Dice: 11d10+30 (80 hp)
Initiative: +0
Speed: 0 ft. (immobile)
Armor Class: 16 (+6 natural), touch 10, flat-footed 16
Base Attack/Grapple: +8/+13
Attack: Tentacle +13 melee (1d10+5)
Full Attack: 4 tentacles +13 melee (1d10+5)
Space/Reach: 5 ft./5 ft.
Special Attacks: —
Special Qualities: Construct traits, damage reduction 10/bludgeoning,  darkvision 60 ft., dispelling blow, fast healing 1, immunity to magic, low-light vision, wall bound
Saves: Fort +3, Ref +3, Will +3
Abilities: Str 21, Dex 11, Con —, Int —, Wis 11, Cha 1
Skills: —
Feats: —
Environment: Any
Organization: Buttress (1 plus 2-4 tomb wardens) or wall (1 plus 4-24 tomb wardens)
Challenge Rating: ?
Treasure: None
Alignment: Always neutral
Advancement: Special (see below)
Level Adjustment: —

*Advancement*
The size and Hit Dice of a Tombheart depends on the number, size and Hit Dice of the Tomb Wardens it is linked to. A Tombheart must be linked to at least two Tomb Wardens, which must all   have the same Hit Dice. The Tombheart has a size and Hit Dice according   to the following table:

'No. of  Tomb'''''Tombheart
''Wardens'''''Size''''''Hit Dice
'''''2'''''As Warden''As Warden * 1
''''3-4''''As   Warden''As Warden * 1.5
''''5-6''''As   Warden''As Warden * 2
''''7-8''''Warden   +1''As Warden * 2.5
''''9-12'''Warden   +1''As Warden * 3
'''13-16'''Warden   +2''As Warden * 3.5
'''17-24'''Warden   +2''As Warden * 4
'''25-32'''Warden   +3''As Warden * 4.5
'''33-40'''Warden   +3''As Warden * 5

*Example:* A wall of seven Tomb Wardens will have  a  Tombheart one size larger than the Wardens with 2.5 times the Hit   Dice of each Warden, thus the Tombheart of seven standard Tomb Wardens  (Medium-sized 11 HD) is Large-sized and has 27 Hit Dice.

We'll need to modify *Wall Bound* so it can only strike through stone with its tentacles and note that its Wardens can walk through it as easily as the rest of its wall.

Apart from that is their anything you'd like?

I wondered about Improved Grab and Constrict for the tentacles, but don't much like the idea - I prefer striking tentacles only.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 20, 2010)

Oh, and Shade, did you miss the niggles about the Tomb Warden stats I brought up in post #83.



Cleon said:


> Firstly, the rejuvenation description has "fullly" with three Ls.
> 
> Secondly, the Surprise description "A tomb warden melded with the wall  receives a +20  circumstance bonus on Hide and Move Silently checks the  round after  exiting, often allowing them to surprise intruders."  doesn't make a great deal of sense since (a) we've reworked its meld  with wall power into wall bound and (b) it ca never "exit" from the  wall.
> 
> ...


----------



## Shade (Apr 20, 2010)

I did miss the niggles...Fixed.


----------



## freyar (Apr 21, 2010)

I'd very much prefer starting at the same size as the wardens.  But, yes, these are pretty simple.  We might give them dispelling blow, also; the original isn't totally clear on that point.  I think I'd like that.

Just thinking a little.  The original text says "If the heart is destroyed, all the construct's sections stop functioning within 3d6 turns."  What if we replace the warden's rejuvenation ability with the following (numbers subject to change)?

Heart Dependent (Su): Each tomb warden is linked to a construct known as a tombheart, which is embedded in the same wall as the warden.  As long as the tombheart is functioning, tomb wardens have fast healing 1 and a destroyed tomb warden is restored to a fully functioning state with maximum hp after 24 hours.  However, if the tombheart is destroyed, all tomb wardens linked to it become inert after 1 hour.


----------



## Shade (Apr 21, 2010)

freyar said:


> I'd very much prefer starting at the same size as the wardens.




Agreed.



freyar said:


> We might give them dispelling blow, also; the original isn't totally clear on that point.  I think I'd like that.




Me too.  Let's do that.



freyar said:


> Just thinking a little.  The original text says "If the heart is destroyed, all the construct's sections stop functioning within 3d6 turns."  What if we replace the warden's rejuvenation ability with the following (numbers subject to change)?
> 
> Heart Dependent (Su): Each tomb warden is linked to a construct known as a tombheart, which is embedded in the same wall as the warden.  As long as the tombheart is functioning, tomb wardens have fast healing 1 and a destroyed tomb warden is restored to a fully functioning state with maximum hp after 24 hours.  However, if the tombheart is destroyed, all tomb wardens linked to it become inert after 1 hour.




Great idea.  Let's do that too!


----------



## Cleon (Apr 22, 2010)

freyar said:


> I'd very much prefer starting at the same size as the wardens.  But, yes, these are pretty simple.  We might give them dispelling blow, also; the original isn't totally clear on that point.  I think I'd like that.
> 
> Just thinking a little.  The original text says "If the heart is destroyed, all the construct's sections stop functioning within 3d6 turns."  What if we replace the warden's rejuvenation ability with the following (numbers subject to change)?
> 
> Heart Dependent (Su): Each tomb warden is linked to a construct known as a tombheart, which is embedded in the same wall as the warden.  As long as the tombheart is functioning, tomb wardens have fast healing 1 and a destroyed tomb warden is restored to a fully functioning state with maximum hp after 24 hours.  However, if the tombheart is destroyed, all tomb wardens linked to it become inert after 1 hour.




All good ideas, especially the "Heart Dependent".

I'll modify my Tombheart proposal appropriately.


----------



## Shade (Apr 22, 2010)

Updated tomb warden.

Added tombheart to Homebrews.

Shall we work on revising wall bound to meet the tombheart's needs?


----------



## freyar (Apr 22, 2010)

Ok, here's what we have for the warden:


> Wall Bound (Su): A tomb warden is part of an enchanted stone wall. The wall must be at least 5 feet thick and voluminous enough to contain all the tomb wardens that are part of it (i.e. a wall with 4 wardens must occupy at least 4 5-foot squares). Some walls are far larger than the wardens bound to them, giving these golems space to maneuver.
> 
> A tomb warden can take the form of a shallow carving on the surface of its wall. In its relief carving form, the golem can see and hear out of the stone surface that it is melded with. The golem can also take on a three dimensional form and move through the stone of its wall as easily as a fish swims through water. This burrowing leaves behind no tunnel or hole, nor does it create any ripple or other signs of its presence. Tomb wardens may never leave the wall they are part of. It may lean out of its wall to attack intruders, but must keep at least half its body within the wall. Any carvings or paintings on the wall will shift and alter to accommodate the movement of the tomb warden. The tomb warden can switch between its 2D and 3D forms as a free action.




What needs to be changed?  Just take out the second paragraph and insert a line about attacking through the wall?  Maybe another one that wardens can move through tombhearts freely?


----------



## Cleon (Apr 23, 2010)

freyar said:


> What needs to be changed?  Just take out the second paragraph and insert a line about attacking through the wall?  Maybe another one that wardens can move through tombhearts freely?




Yes, that's it basically. Something like:

*Wall Bound (Su):* A tombheart is linked to two or more tomb wardens, both heart and wardens are part of an enchanted stone wall. The  wall must be at least 5 feet thick and voluminous enough to contain all  the tomb wardens that are part of it (i.e. a wall with 4 Medium-sized wardens must  occupy at least 4 5-foot squares).

A tombheart is hidden somewhere within its wall, the stone wall covering it is at least a foot thick, and often 5 feet or more. There is no bulge, mark or other sign upon the wall's surface to show were the tombheart is. To attack a tombheart an opponent must dig into the wall to reach it or enter the wall using _passwall_ or similar magic. The tombheart's immobile body cannot flee attack, but it can produce four powerful tentacles to defend itself, these tentacles can move through solid stone as easily as an octopus's tentacles reach through water, leaving no hole or ripple in their wake.

A tomb warden can walk through a tombheart as easily as any other part of the wall, and a tombheart's tentacles can strike through a tomb warden as if the warden was not there.


----------



## freyar (Apr 23, 2010)

Make "These tentacles can move..." a new sentence, and I'm quite happy with that.


----------



## Shade (Apr 23, 2010)

Updated.

What's left?


----------



## freyar (Apr 23, 2010)

I think just CR.  It's much the same as a warden.  It has higher damage output due to having more attacks, but it's immobile.  Should we call it a wash and make it CR 8 like the wardens?


----------



## Shade (Apr 23, 2010)

I think so.  Plus, it makes it easier when planning encounters if they're all the same CR.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 23, 2010)

freyar said:


> I think just CR.  It's much the same as a warden.  It has higher damage output due to having more attacks, but it's immobile.  Should we call it a wash and make it CR 8 like the wardens?




Sounds sound to me. Let's make it Challenge Rating 8 and call it a day.

It's a day!


----------



## Cleon (Apr 23, 2010)

Shade said:


> Updated.
> 
> What's left?




You need to get rid of an are from the "Tombhearts are are" in the first paragraph of the fluff, but apart from that it looks good to go.


----------



## Shade (Apr 26, 2010)

Fixed and finished.


----------



## Shade (Jun 10, 2010)

The following critter is part of a spell...

*Question Ball (Alteration/Conjuration)*
Level: 5
Range: Touch
Duration: Special
Area of effect: One ball
Components: V,S,M
Casting Time: 3 rounds
Saving Throw: None

Explanation/Description: This spell transforms a normal crystal ball into a unique question ball, which answers any questions put to it. The material components of the spell are a crystal ball, a gem of seeing, and a pound of pure sulphur. The caster piles the sulphur in a heap and burns it with the gem and the crystal ball in the middle. While the flames consume the gem and crystal ball, the caster performs the verbal and somatic components of the spell, upon the completion of which the gem and crystal disappear in a sulphurous explosion (no damage) marking the creation of the question ball.

The ball is a partial manifestation of an extraplanar humanoid being of divine nature, who uses the gem of seeing and its own powers to discern the answers to the caster.s questions. The being speaks common and 2-3 other languages, as well as tongues exclusive to his mysterious plane. The being, as payment for the gem of seeing, is bound to answer a number of questions equal to the caster’s level. A percentile roll of less than 50 minus the level of the caster indicates that the being tells a carefully fabricated and reasonably believable lie. When the being has answered a number of questions equal to the level of the caster, the question ball will darken and crumble to useless powder.

The being can be released on the Prime Material Plane, the ball shattering and all of the being’s possessions (including the gem of seeing) appearing in its place, if any of the following things happen to the question ball:
1. If any attempt is made to move the ball to another plane;
2. If trap the soul, gate, monster summoning VII, or cache is cast on the ball;
3. If the ball is destroyed using any of the methods for destruction of artifacts or relics (see the DMG, p. 164);
4. If a wraith or similar creature performs an energy drain on the ball.

The being is neutral in alignment, AC 2, HD 10 +6, # ATT 3, DAM 1-6/1-6 (plus 5% chance of disease) by claws, and 2-12 (plus poison, save at -2) by fangs. Its poison causes sleep for 1-6 days, during which time the being will eat its victim. Its claws are infected with a terminal blood disease, as per the DMG. The being has all the spell-like abilities of a type I demon, and it can travel in the Astral and Ethereal Planes. Its other possessions number 2-12, each having a 20% chance of being magical in nature.

Originally appeared in Dragon Magazine #106 (1986).

The _Wizards Spell Compendium_ has a slightly different stat block:

*Being of the Ball:* AC 2; MV 9 Fl 18 (B); HD 10+6; THAC0 11; #AT 3; Dmg 1d6/1d6 (claw), 2d6 (fang); SA disease (claw, 5%/hit), poison (fang, save at -2), spells; SD spells; AL N; SZ M; ML 15; XP 6,000. The being's poison causes sleep for 1d6 days, during which time the being eats its victim. The being has all the spell-like abilities of a vrock (greater tanar'ri), and can travel in the Astral and Ethereal Planes. Its other possessions number 2d6, each having a 20% chance of being magical in nature.


----------



## Shade (Jun 10, 2010)

We can convert the spell as an underbar, but I think we should come up with some flavor text for other ways to encounter them to make for a better stand-alone monster.

In addition to the name-drop, since the HD are the same, we can probably use the vrock as a basis for stats.

Downsizing a vrock to Medium yields...
Str 15, Dex 17, Con 21, Int 14, Wis 16, Cha 16

I might consider boosting Int to 18 or 20, due to its oracle-like nature.


----------



## Cleon (Jun 12, 2010)

Shade said:


> We can convert the spell as an underbar, but I think we should come up with some flavor text for other ways to encounter them to make for a better stand-alone monster.
> 
> In addition to the name-drop, since the HD are the same, we can probably use the vrock as a basis for stats.
> 
> ...




Downsizing a rock seems a good start.

They've got all the SLAs of a vrock, plus a sleep-poison bite and a "terminal blood disease" in their claws.

I'm thinking that rather than giving them all a _gem of seeing_ we should just give them continuous _true seeing _plus the divination powers of a top-of-the-range _crystal ball_ - scrying, see invisibility, detect thoughts and telepathy.


----------



## freyar (Jun 13, 2010)

I'm with you guys.

For flavor, perhaps they are (slightly) redeemed vrocks of some sort?


----------



## Cleon (Jun 13, 2010)

freyar said:


> I'm with you guys.
> 
> For flavor, perhaps they are (slightly) redeemed vrocks of some sort?




Don't much care for that notion. I'd rather leave it mysterious.

What are we going to call these creatures anyway? I fear any name containing "ball" might lead to sophomoric humour. Since it's a "Question Ball" maybe it's called a "Question Keeper" or something similar?


----------



## Cleon (Jun 13, 2010)

Okay, here's a rough draft of the "Questioner".

Medium Outsider (Extraplanar)
Hit Dice: 10d8+50 (95 hp)
Initiative: +5
Speed: 30 ft. (6 squares), fly 50 ft. (good)
Armor Class: 22 (+3 Dex, +9 natural), touch 13, flat-footed 19
Base Attack/Grapple: +10/+12
Attack: Claw +12 melee (1d6+2 plus disease)
Full Attack: 2 claws +12 melee (1d6+2 plus disease) and bite +10 melee (2d6+1 plus poison) and 2 talons +10 melee (1d6+1 plus disease)
Space/Reach: 5 ft./5 ft.
Special Attacks: Disease, poison, spell-like abilities, true seeing
Special Qualities: Damage reduction 10/good, darkvision 60 ft., immunity to electricity and poison, resistance to acid 10, cold 10, and fire 10, scrying, spell resistance 17, telepathy 100 ft.
Saves: Fort +12, Ref +10, Will +12
Abilities: Str 15, Dex 17, Con 21, Int 18, Wis 20, Cha 16
Skills: 12 skills at 13 ranks
Feats: Multiattack plus 3 others
Environment: ?
Organization: Solitary?
Challenge Rating: 9?
Treasure: Standard?
Alignment: Always neutral?
Advancement: 11-14 HD (Medium); 15-30 HD (Large)
Level Adjustment: —

Combat

Disease (Ex): ?

Poison (Ex): Fort save or unconsciousness for X hours?

Scrying (Su): This ability is similar to a _scry_ spell (caster level 14th) except the scrying lasts as long as the [Whatever they're called] continues to concentrates on it, and the [Whatever they're called] may use any detect spell or the message spell through the scrying sensor with no chance of failure.

Spell-Like Abilities: At will—_detect thoughts_, _mirror image_, _telekinesis _(DC 18), _greater teleport _(self plus 50 pounds of objects only); 1/day—_heroism_. Caster level 12th. The save DCs are Charisma-based.

True Seeing (Su): A [Whatever they're called] has continuous true seeing as the spell (caster level 14th). If this true seeing is dispelled the [Whatever they're called] can restart it on its next round as a free action.

Skills: [Whatever they're called] have a +8 racial bonus on Listen and Spot checks.


----------



## freyar (Jun 14, 2010)

Magic 8 Ball?


----------



## Shade (Jun 14, 2010)

I'd rather we stick with it's given name, _*Being of the Ball*_.


----------



## Shade (Jun 14, 2010)

Added to Homebrews.

First off, we should drop the DR x/good from the vrock, as these aren't evil creatures.  I could see replacing with /silver or /cold iron, though.

The original lacked SR, but I'm fine with granting it some.



> The being speaks common and 2-3 other languages, as well as tongues exclusive to his mysterious plane.




A being of the ball speaks Common, Abyssal, Celestial, Infernal and its own language?



> A percentile roll of less than 50 minus the level of the caster indicates that the being tells a carefully fabricated and reasonably believable lie.




Good Bluff skill ranks and possibly racial bonus.



> Its poison causes sleep for 1-6 days, during which time the being will eat its victim.




That's a crazy-long duration for sleep.  Knock it down to hours, or even minutes?



> Its claws are infected with a terminal blood disease, as per the DMG.




Demon fever seems a good fit (1d6 Con drain).



> The being has all the spell-like abilities of a type I demon, and it can travel in the Astral and Ethereal Planes.




Astral projection and ethereal jaunt as SLAs, or borrow these?

Plane Shift (Sp): A spectral hound can travel from the Astral Plane to any plane that borders the Astral Plane and back again. This ability is similar to a plane shift spell, except that the spectral hound can transport itself only and it chooses its destination with pinpoint accuracy.

Ethereal Jaunt (Su): An ethereal marauder can shift from the Ethereal Plane to the Material Plane as a free action, and shift back again as a move action. The ability is otherwise identical with the ethereal jaunt spell (caster level 15th).



> Its other possessions number 2-12, each having a 20% chance of being magical in nature.




Treasure:  Double items?


----------



## freyar (Jun 15, 2010)

Generally agreed to all that.

Knock sleep down to minutes.  But really, if it tries to eat you, doesn't the damage give you a chance to wake up?

Demon fever, I guess borrow the unique abilities (still thinking on that).  Yes to double treasure.


----------



## Cleon (Jun 16, 2010)

Shade said:


> First off, we should drop the DR x/good from the vrock, as these aren't evil creatures.  I could see replacing with /silver or /cold iron, though.




Could we make its DR something crystalline, to its harmed by a substance matching the ball that binds it?



Shade said:


> A being of the ball speaks Common, Abyssal, Celestial, Infernal and its own language?




That makes sense. Maybe throw in Draconic as well?



Shade said:


> That's a crazy-long duration for sleep.  Knock it down to hours, or even minutes?




I'm OK with the long duration since they'll be woken up if the Being wounds them (although they would have to save vs sleep again if it uses its bite).

If we're going to cut it down I'd prefer hours.



Shade said:


> Demon fever seems a good fit (1d6 Con drain).




I agree.



Shade said:


> Astral projection and ethereal jaunt as SLAs, or borrow these?
> 
> Plane Shift (Sp): A spectral hound can travel from the Astral Plane to any plane that borders the Astral Plane and back again. This ability is similar to a plane shift spell, except that the spectral hound can transport itself only and it chooses its destination with pinpoint accuracy.
> 
> Ethereal Jaunt (Su): An ethereal marauder can shift from the Ethereal Plane to the Material Plane as a free action, and shift back again as a move action. The ability is otherwise identical with the ethereal jaunt spell (caster level 15th).




Plane shift is my favourite among those suggestions.



Shade said:


> Treasure:  Double items?




The original owned a _gem of seeing_ which is worth 75k in 3rd edition, that suggests a fairly good treasure.

I'm also thinking it's likely to collect gemstones.

How about Treasure: Triple goods (gems only), double items ?


----------



## Shade (Jun 16, 2010)

Cleon said:


> Could we make its DR something crystalline, to its harmed by a substance matching the ball that binds it?




Nope, since that's nonstandard.  Sorry!



Cleon said:


> That makes sense. Maybe throw in Draconic as well?




Sure!



Cleon said:


> I'm OK with the long duration since they'll be woken up if the Being wounds them (although they would have to save vs sleep again if it uses its bite).
> 
> If we're going to cut it down I'd prefer hours.




Hours it is.



Cleon said:


> Plane shift is my favourite among those suggestions.




Plane shift it is. Like so?

Plane Shift (Sp): A being of the ball can travel from the Astral Plane or Ethereal Plane to any plane that borders either and back again. This ability is similar to a plane shift spell, except that the being of the ball can transport itself only and it chooses its destination with pinpoint accuracy.



Cleon said:


> The original owned a _gem of seeing_ which is worth 75k in 3rd edition, that suggests a fairly good treasure.
> 
> I'm also thinking it's likely to collect gemstones.
> 
> How about Treasure: Triple goods (gems only), double items ?




That works for me.

Updated.


----------



## Cleon (Jun 17, 2010)

Shade said:


> Plane shift it is. Like so?
> 
> Plane Shift (Sp): A being of the ball can travel from the Astral Plane or Ethereal Plane to any plane that borders either and back again. This ability is similar to a plane shift spell, except that the being of the ball can transport itself only and it chooses its destination with pinpoint accuracy.




Fine by me.


----------



## freyar (Jun 17, 2010)

Well, to be fair on the DR, we've done stuff like obsidian before, haven't we?

The rest is looking good.


----------



## Cleon (Jun 17, 2010)

freyar said:


> Well, to be fair on the DR, we've done stuff like obsidian before, haven't we?
> 
> The rest is looking good.




Funnily enough, that was the precedent I was thinking of.

How about DR 10/obsidian or cold iron?


----------



## Shade (Jun 17, 2010)

Interesting.  I wonder how I let that slip by?  

Ahh...probably an Oriental Adventures creature.  They have DR/jade and DR/obsidian in that book.


----------



## freyar (Jun 18, 2010)

It may have been Maztica (or was that only for weapons?).

Anyway, I guess I'd go with cold iron for the DR, since I wouldn't mind playing up the connection to demons a bit.


----------



## Cleon (Jun 19, 2010)

freyar said:


> It may have been Maztica (or was that only for weapons?).
> 
> Anyway, I guess I'd go with cold iron for the DR, since I wouldn't mind playing up the connection to demons a bit.




Cold iron alone would do, but I quite like the idea of throwing in obsidian as well.

I'll leave it up the Shade to decide.


----------



## Shade (Jun 21, 2010)

Let's toss 'em both into the mix.  

Since these things are oracles, shall we give 'em this?

Knowledgeable (Ex): A being of the ball makes Knowledge checks for any Knowledge skills as if it had a minimum of 10 ranks in that skill. To surpass the 10-rank minimum, the being must assign more than 10 ranks to the skill as normal.


----------



## freyar (Jun 21, 2010)

Yup, I was thinking of that too.


----------



## Shade (Jun 21, 2010)

Sounds good.  I wonder if they shouldn't have augury and/or contact other plane as SLAs as well?

Skills: 12 at 13 ranks
Bluff, Concentration, Gather Information, Knowledge (the planes)...

Feats: Multiattack, 3 more
Blind-Fight, Eyes In The Back Of Your Head, Jack of All Trades...


----------



## freyar (Jun 22, 2010)

Those two other SLAs would make a lot of sense.

And I like those three feats.

Must consider skills later...


----------



## Cleon (Jun 22, 2010)

Shade said:


> Let's toss 'em both into the mix.
> 
> Since these things are oracles, shall we give 'em this?
> 
> ...




Are there any other divination spells that seem appropriate - _arcane  sight_ or _legend lore_? How about giving them the  clairsentience psionic power _object reading_?



Shade said:


> Skills: 12 at 13 ranks
> Bluff, Concentration, Gather Information, Knowledge (the planes)...
> 
> Feats: Multiattack, 3 more
> Blind-Fight, Eyes In The Back Of Your Head, Jack of All Trades...




Those skills and feats seem fine to me.


----------



## Shade (Jun 22, 2010)

Any or all of those additional divinations are acceptable.

As for the skills, we'll need a few more than the four I proposed.  

Skills: 12 at 13 ranks
Bluff, Concentration, Gather Information, Knowledge (the planes)...

Maybe add Diplomacy, Listen, Sense Motive, Spot, and Knowledge (any four others)?


----------



## freyar (Jun 22, 2010)

Though with Knowledgeable, I'm not sure they need that many Knowledge skills.  How about Decipher Script just for flavor purposes?  I could also see Forgery, but that's not quite as good a fit.


----------



## Cleon (Jun 23, 2010)

Shade said:


> Any or all of those additional divinations are acceptable.
> 
> As for the skills, we'll need a few more than the four I proposed.
> 
> ...




How about Appraise, Bluff, Concentration, Decipher Script, Gather Information, Knowledge (arcane), Knowledge (the planes), Listen, Sense Motive, Spellcraft, Spot, Use Magic Device ?


----------



## Shade (Jun 23, 2010)

Looks good.  Updated.

Do the uses per day for the additional div powers look appropriate?  Does the writeup of object reading look OK?

SR = CR+8, like a vrock?

Environment: Unknown plane?

Organization: Solitary?

We'll need to decide upon the appearance of these creatures, as no description, image, or size details are given in the original description.   I'm not sure I'd like them to be birdlike as a vrock.   For some reason, I imagine them as smooth-skinned, with few features...a bit like a gray alien perhaps, but not as emaciated.


----------



## Cleon (Jun 24, 2010)

Shade said:


> Looks good.  Updated.
> 
> Do the uses per day for the additional div powers look appropriate?  Does the writeup of object reading look OK?




I'd rather the object reading lasts as long as the Being concentrates, same as its scrying power, e.g.:

*Object Reading (Su):*  A being of the ball may learn details of an  inanimate object’s previous owner simply by studying it.  This works  exactly as the object reading psionic power, except the reading lasts as long as the being of the ball continues to  concentrate on it.



Shade said:


> SR = CR+8, like a vrock?
> 
> Environment: Unknown plane?
> 
> Organization: Solitary?




The spell resistance is fine by me.

I wouldn't mind giving them a "native plane" - maybe the Astral?

Solitary is good, methinks.



Shade said:


> We'll need to decide upon the appearance of these creatures, as no description, image, or size details are given in the original description.   I'm not sure I'd like them to be birdlike as a vrock.   For some reason, I imagine them as smooth-skinned, with few features...a bit like a gray alien perhaps, but not as emaciated.




I'd like them to have some birdlike features. As for the features, I reckon they out to have talons of some sort plus a mouth or a beak, since they've got claw and bite attacks. How about having them look a bit like a cross between a grey and an owl?

Something like the following:

_ A winged, man-shaped creature with a head resembling a great owl's. While its wings are covered in snowy-white feathers, the rest of its body (including the head) is covered in smooth skin with the opalescent colours of mother-of-pearl. Its hands and feet sport raptor's talons but still seem highly dextrous. The head's only features are an owl-like beak and a huge pair of round eyes, which shine like bottomless pools of moonlit water._


----------



## freyar (Jun 24, 2010)

I'll agree with Cleon on all that, and I think the SLA frequency is fine.


----------



## Cleon (Jun 27, 2010)

freyar said:


> I'll agree with Cleon on all that, and I think the SLA frequency is fine.




So we've just got height, weight and the _question ball_ spell left to figure out.

Since they are compared to a Type I demons, shall we use the vrock as a basis for the weight?

A vrock is about 8 feet tall and weighs about 500 pounds.

The description just says they're medium or man-sized, so I'm guessing 5-6 feet tall. That would make them around 125-200 pounds.


----------



## Shade (Jun 29, 2010)

Updated.

CR 9 like a vrock?

Time for question ball?


----------



## Cleon (Jun 29, 2010)

Shade said:


> Updated.
> 
> CR 9 like a vrock?
> 
> Time for question ball?




Challenge Rating 9 seems about right. They do a lot less melee damage than a vrock, but they've got both poison and disease to compensate.

As for _question ball_ I'm thinking something in-between a _contact other plane_ and _legend lore_ spell.

Do we want to increase it from the 5th-level of the original AD&D _question ball_ spell since it can give more than a _contact other plane_ spell's yes/no answers? I doubt the risk of it escaping the ball is enough to lower the caster-level, but we could increase the material cost to compensate. Although it should definitely not cost a _gem of seeing_ - those things are far too costly! - maybe just a crystal sphere or clear gemstone worth X gold pieces or more, whatever X is.


----------



## Shade (Jun 29, 2010)

Yeah, I'm not fond of requiring magic items as material components, especially since they require spell prereqs, which might have material components of their own!

A pricy crystal or gem seems a good compromise.

6th-level sounds about right.  It can give far more information than contact other plane, but also runs the risk of releasing a dangerous outsider.


----------



## Cleon (Jun 30, 2010)

Shade said:


> Yeah, I'm not fond of requiring magic items as material components, especially since they require spell prereqs, which might have material components of their own!
> 
> A pricy crystal or gem seems a good compromise.
> 
> 6th-level sounds about right.  It can give far more information than contact other plane, but also runs the risk of releasing a dangerous outsider.




Okay, shall we start roughing it out then:
*
Question Ball*
*Conjuration?*
*Level:* Sor/Wiz 6
*Components:* V, S, M
*Casting Time:* 10 minutes
*Range:* Touch
*Duration:* Concentration

A _question ball_ spell conjures a magical sphere containing an extraplanar being which answers any questions put to it. The caster places a gem or piece of crystal atop a pile of sulphur and sets fire to it. While the flames consume the sulphur, the caster performs the verbal and somatic components of the spell, upon the completion of which the gem or crystal disappears in a sulphurous flash (no damage), leaving behind the "question ball", which resembles a shimmering sphere of crystal.

The being inside the question ball is bound to answer the caster's questions as payment for the gemstone that disappeared.  It will answer one question per caster level. The caster must concentrate on maintaining the spell (a standard action) in order to ask questions or receive to the being's answers.

Some stuff about what questions it can answer. The being of the ball may give answers ranging from a simple "yes" or "no" to multiple sentences, but no answer will be longer than a minute. These beings have a 50% chance of answering accurately, the other 50% of the time the answer will be a well-crafted lie (the being has a +Y Bluff check).

If the question ball is broken, the being of the ball will appear and may attack the caster or anyone else in the vicinity before plane shifting away with whatever valuables it can lay its talons on. The ball can be broken by great physical force (AC A, hp B, DR C, Break DC D), or by having any dimensional travel, soul-trapping, banishment or monster summoning spell cast on it (no saving throw) - e.g. _trap the soul, plus some other spells_. 

The question ball will vanish once the caster ceases concentrating or has used up all their questions.

Material component: A gem or piece of crystal worth at least X gold pieces.


----------



## Shade (Jun 30, 2010)

A great start!

It's Bluff modifier is +16.

Things it might be able to answer could include anything pertaining to the planes, planar personages of note, and planar history.



> The ball can be broken by great physical force (AC A, hp B, DR C, Break DC D), or by having any dimensional travel, soul-trapping, banishment or monster summoning spell cast on it (no saving throw) - e.g. trap the soul, plus some other spells.




Let's ditch the monster summoning spells (the range of spells is too wide, and it feels odd to me), and let's limit "dimensional travel" spells to specific high-level ones, such as plane shift and gate.


----------



## Shade (Jul 2, 2010)

Updated with underbar using the proposed revisions.

5,000 gp for the material component?


----------



## Cleon (Jul 2, 2010)

Shade said:


> A great start!
> 
> It's Bluff modifier is +16.
> 
> ...




That's OK by me. Shall we select some spells then - _gate, greater shout, plane shift,_ _trap the soul_? How about adding the _baleful teleport_ power?

I'd also like to rework the first sentence of that paragraph from "If the question ball is broken, the being of the ball will appear and  may attack the caster or anyone else in the vicinity before plane  shifting away with whatever valuables it can lay its talons on."

We've still got to decide the extent of the Being's knowledge for the "Some stuff about what questions it can answer" bit. I'm thinking "The being of the ball can answer questions about any object or creature except for divine beings, artifacts, and subjects concealed from divination by powerful magic such as the sequester or screen spells."

As for the 5,000 gp material cost that seems about right. A scroll of _legend lore_ costs at least 950 gp and a question ball is a good deal more useful. Indeed it may be too useful, I am considering cutting it down to 1 question per 2 caster levels, like a _contact other planes_ spell.

I'll stick some appropriate-feeling numbers in for the _question ball's_ physical defences.

Revising...

*Question Ball*
*Conjuration*
*Level:* Sor/Wiz 6
*Components:* V, S, M
*Casting  Time:* 10 minutes
*Range:* Touch
*Duration:*  Concentration

A _question ball_ spell conjures a magical sphere containing an  extraplanar being which answers any questions put to it. The caster  places a gem or piece of crystal atop a pile of sulphur and sets fire to  it. While the flames consume the sulphur, the caster performs the  verbal and somatic components of the spell, upon the completion of which  the gem or crystal disappears in a sulphurous flash (no damage),  leaving behind the "question ball", which resembles a shimmering sphere  of crystal.

The being inside the question ball is bound to answer the caster's  questions as payment for the gemstone that disappeared.  It will answer  one question per caster level. The caster must concentrate on  maintaining the spell (a standard action) in order to ask questions or  receive to the being's answers.

 The being of the ball can answer questions about any object or creature  except for divine beings, artifacts, and subjects concealed from  divination by powerful magic such as the _sequester_ or _screen_ spells. The being of the ball may  give answers ranging from a simple "yes" or "no" to multiple sentences,  but no answer will be longer than a minute. These beings are deceitful. They have a 50%  chance of answering accurately, the other 50% of the time the answer  will be a well-crafted lie (a being of the ball has a +16 Bluff check). A being of the ball never answers "I don't know", it will always lie rather than admit ignorance.

If the question ball is broken, the being of the ball will appear and seek to kill its summoner and any other creature in its vicinity, if it wins the fight it will devour its summoner (or another victim if the summoner escaped its wrath) and then plane  shifts away with any valuables it has taken a fancy to. The ball  can be broken by great physical force (AC 20, hp 30, DR 10/adamantine, Break DC 30) or by having the psionic power _baleful teleport_ or the spells _gate, greater shout, plane shift_ or _trap the soul_ cast upon it (no saving throw).

The question ball will vanish once the caster ceases concentrating or  has used up all their questions.

_ Material component:_ A gem or piece of crystal worth at least 5,000 gold  pieces.


----------



## Shade (Jul 2, 2010)

It looks great!

Updated.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 2, 2010)

Shade said:


> It looks great!
> 
> Updated.




Does that mean they're done then?

The only thing that looks a bit suspect is the "A being of the ball's natural weapons, as well as any weapons it wields,  are treated as evil-aligned for the purpose of overcoming damage  reduction."

They're neutral, so should we change this to "are treated as magical" ?


----------



## Shade (Jul 2, 2010)

Oops!  Nope, we should just remove it.

Updated.  I think we're finished.  I like how these originally "barebones" creatures developed!


----------



## Cleon (Jul 3, 2010)

Shade said:


> Oops!  Nope, we should just remove it.
> 
> Updated.  I think we're finished.  I like how these originally "barebones" creatures developed!




Yup, I think this being turned out particularly nicely.

Anyhow, it looks done.


----------



## freyar (Jul 5, 2010)

I wouldn't mind making it a little easier for the ball to break accidentally, but I can live with it as is.

Actually, shouldn't the ball have hardness rather than DR, as an object?


----------



## Shade (Jul 6, 2010)

freyar said:


> Actually, shouldn't the ball have hardness rather than DR, as an object?




Yes, yes it should.  Hardness 10?


----------



## freyar (Jul 6, 2010)

If it's like glass, it should be hardness 1 and only 1/hp per inch "thickness" (diameter I guess).  So how about 3 hp, hardness 1, break DC 15 maybe?  I could go with maybe doubling that (or boosting the break DC to maybe 20) because it's magic, but I'd prefer to let the Being out more often.


----------



## Shade (Jul 7, 2010)

Doubling to 6 hp, hardness 2, break DC 20 appeals.  Updated.


----------



## freyar (Jul 8, 2010)

I guess it's done!


----------



## Cleon (Jul 10, 2010)

freyar said:


> I guess it's done!




I'm happy to make the ball more fragile, since it'll let the Being out to play more often. 

So it's still done.


----------



## Shade (Aug 31, 2010)

Since we're working on lammasu-like creatures, we might as well tackle this one too...

*Lammasu*
Lesser Greater 
CLIMATE/TERRAIN: ---Warm, with visits to other climes---
FREQUENCY: Rare Very rare 
ORGANIZATION: Pride Solitary (Pride) 
ACTIVITY CYCLE: Day Day 
DIET: Herbivore Herbivore 
INTELLIGENCE: Genius (17-18) Supra-genius (19-20) 
TREASURE: R, S, T Nil 
ALIGNMENT: Lawful good Lawful good 
NO. APPEARING: 2-8 1-2 
ARMOR CLASS: 6 3 
MOVEMENT: 12, Fl 24 (C) 15, Fl 30 (B) 
HIT DICE: 7+7 12+7 
THAC0: 13 7 
NO. OF ATTACKS: 2 2 
DAMAGE/ATTACK: 1-6/1-6 2-12/2-12 
SPECIAL ATTACKS: See below See below 
SPECIAL DEFENSES: See below See below 
MAGIC RESISTANCE: 30% 40% 
SIZE: L L (5' high at shoulder) 
MORALE: Elite (14) Champion (16) 
XP VALUE: 4,000 8,000 

*Greater Lammasu*
These creatures are slightly larger than a lesser lammasu and one or two may be found dwelling with a pride of six or more lesser lammasu. Greater lammasu can travel the Astral and Ethereal Planes, become invisible, teleport without error and dimension door, all at will. They radiate protection from evil in a 20' radius (-4 penalty to evil attacks and +4 bonus to saving throws) and have the curative powers of their lesser cousins. Their priest spells consist of five 1st-level, four 2nd-level, three 3rd-level, two 4th-level, and one 5th-level spell. Fifty percent of greater lammasu can speak a holy word as well. They cast spells as 12th-level priests.

Greater lammasu have empathy, telepathic communication, and speak their racial speech and the common tongue. Despite their greater stature, these lammasu are just as gentle and humble as their lesser brethren.

Originally appeared in Monster Manual II (1983).  This is the Monstrous Manual version.

The MMII version had one additional power:  “The cures of the greater lammasu are double strength and based on 1d6+1, so that a cure light wounds will cure 4-14 lsot hit points and a cure serious wounds has double effect (8-28).”

I intentionally left the standard lammasu stats in the above stat block for ease of comparison.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 1, 2010)

Shade said:


> Since we're working on lammasu-like creatures, we might as well tackle this one too...
> 
> *Greater Lammasu*
> 
> I intentionally left the standard lammasu stats in the above stat block for ease of comparison.




Blast you, I was having enough trouble keeping the Narra and Opinicus apart.

Well we ought to start by upgrading the SRD Lammasu.

Greater Lammasu are super-geniuses, so +4 to all their mental stats?

They do twice the damage with their paws, so raise the Str by +4 and make the paws 1d8 damage?


----------



## Shade (Sep 1, 2010)

Sounds good!

Added to Homebrews.



> Greater lammasu can travel the Astral and Ethereal Planes,




Borrow these?

Depart (Su): Once per week, a narra may cast astral projection (caster level 18th). The ability affects only the narra.

Ethereal Jaunt (Su): A narra can shift from the Ethereal Plane to the Material Plane as a free action, and shift back again as a move action. This ability is otherwise identical with ethereal jaunt (caster level 15th).



> become invisible, teleport without error and dimension door, all at will.




Move the standard narra's greater invisibility and dimension door to at will?  Make greater teleport (self only) at will as well?



> Fifty percent of greater lammasu can speak a holy word as well.




Let's just make this standard.  1/day?



> Greater lammasu have empathy, telepathic communication, and speak their racial speech and the common tongue.




Take the standard lammasu's languages and add telepathy?   60 ft.?   Do anything with empathy?



> The MMII version had one additional power:  “The cures of the greater lammasu are double strength and based on 1d6+1, so that a cure light wounds will cure 4-14 lsot hit points and a cure serious wounds has double effect (8-28).”




Give them an ability that treats all cure spells as Empowered?


----------



## Cleon (Sep 1, 2010)

Shade said:


> Sounds good!
> 
> Borrow these?
> 
> ...




I'd rather give them a genie's Plane Shift supernatural power.



Shade said:


> Move the standard narra's greater invisibility and dimension door to at will?  Make greater teleport (self only) at will as well?




Yes to at-will for all three of those SLAs, except I'd make it regular _invisibility_.

 Oh, and I was going to go for _holy word_ 1/day for them all as well.



Shade said:


> Take the standard lammasu's languages and add telepathy?   60 ft.?   Do anything with empathy?




I was going to go for 100 foot telepathy and add a couple of languages for their greater intelligence.

Maybe Abyssal and Infernal, so they can understand what the enemy are saying?



Shade said:


> Give them an ability that treats all cure spells as Empowered?




Yes, how's this:

*Blessed Healer (Sp):* Any healing spell or spell-like ability a greater lammasu casts has all variable, numeric effects increased by one-half. This increase stacks with that from Empower Spell or Empower Spell-Like Ability, so if a greater lammasu cast an empowered _cure light wounds_ it would do +100% healing.

Speaking of spell casting, what level clerical spellcasting should we give them? The listed spell levels (five 1st-level, four 2nd-level, three 3rd-level, two 4th-level, and one 5th-level spell) correspond to a 9th level cleric, but it then says "They cast spells as 12th-level priests."

A regular lammasu casts as a cleric of a level equal to its Hit Dice (7th level cleric and 7 HD), so I favour making the greater version 12th level clerics to match their 12 Hit Dice.


----------



## Shade (Sep 1, 2010)

Cleon said:


> I'd rather give them a genie's Plane Shift supernatural power.




Not I.  Too much fudging to get the planes right, when we've already got these abilties from monsters in the same "family".   

Freyar, the ball's in your court.  



Cleon said:


> Yes to at-will for all three of those SLAs, except I'd make it regular _invisibility_.




I can live with that, as long as we also keep greater invisibility 3/day like the standard lammasu.



Cleon said:


> Oh, and I was going to go for _holy word_ 1/day for them all as well.




One step ahead of you.  



Cleon said:


> I was going to go for 100 foot telepathy and add a couple of languages for their greater intelligence.
> 
> Maybe Abyssal and Infernal, so they can understand what the enemy are saying?




That works for me.



Cleon said:


> Yes, how's this:
> 
> *Blessed Healer (Sp):* Any healing spell or spell-like ability a greater lammasu casts has all variable, numeric effects increased by one-half. This increase stacks with that from Empower Spell or Empower Spell-Like Ability, so if a greater lammasu cast an empowered _cure light wounds_ it would do +100% healing.




That'll work, except it shouldn't be Sp.  Probably Su.



Cleon said:


> Speaking of spell casting, what level clerical spellcasting should we give them? The listed spell levels (five 1st-level, four 2nd-level, three 3rd-level, two 4th-level, and one 5th-level spell) correspond to a 9th level cleric, but it then says "They cast spells as 12th-level priests."
> 
> A regular lammasu casts as a cleric of a level equal to its Hit Dice (7th level cleric and 7 HD), so I favour making the greater version 12th level clerics to match their 12 Hit Dice.




I'd assumed we'd go with 12th.  Since you like it as well, let's go with 12th.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 1, 2010)

Shade said:


> Not I.  Too much fudging to get the planes right, when we've already got these abilties from monsters in the same "family".




I'm OK with astral departure and ethereal jaunt if we make them both standard actions going both ways. Just don't want them to use the as an "ethereal mugging" power.



Shade said:


> I can live with that, as long as we also keep greater invisibility 3/day like the standard lammasu.




It's a deal.



Shade said:


> That'll work, except it shouldn't be Sp.  Probably Su.




That's OK by me, I just couldn't make up my mind which it should be.

Is a Metamagic feat (Su) or (Sp)?



Shade said:


> I'd assumed we'd go with 12th.  Since you like it as well, let's go with 12th.




Well I reserve the right to change my mind...

*Ahem*

12th it is then!


----------



## Shade (Sep 2, 2010)

Updated.

Spells: A greater lammasu casts spells as a 12th-level cleric, and can choose spells from the cleric spell list, plus any two of the following domains: Good, Healing, Knowledge, or Law. 

Typical Cleric Spells Prepared (6/7+1/5+1/5+1/4+1/4+1//2+1; save DC 15 + spell level): 
0—detect magic, guidance (2), light, read magic, resistance; 
1st—bless (2), detect evil, divine favor, entropic shield, protection from evil*, 1 more; 
2nd—aid*, bear’s endurance, bull’s strength, lesser restoration, resist energy, 1 more; 
3rd—daylight, dispel magic, magic circle against evil*, remove curse, 2 more; 
4th—holy smite*, neutralize poison, 3 more;
5th—x;
6th—x.
*Domain spell. Domains: Good and Healing.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 2, 2010)

Shade said:


> Updated.
> 
> Spells: A greater lammasu casts spells as a 12th-level cleric, and can choose spells from the cleric spell list, plus any two of the following domains: Good, Healing, Knowledge, or Law.
> 
> ...




Why does it have _magic circle against evil_ when it has it as a SQ? I'd swap it for _magic circle against chaos_.

_Remove fear_ for the 1st level spell?
_Owl's wisdom_ for the 2nd level spell?
_Prayer_ and _searing light_ for the 3rd level spells?
_D__imensional anchor, neutralize poison_ and _divine power_ for the 4th level spells?
_Break enchantment, dispel evil*, mark of justice, righteous might_ and _symbol of sleep_ for the 5th level spells?
_Banishment, blade barrier*_ and _find the path_ for the 6th level spells?


----------



## Shade (Sep 2, 2010)

Wow...that's odd.  I lifted that list from the standard lammasu, which also possesses continuous magic circle.  Anyway, it needs to be replaced, most certainly!

At a glance, your other selections look appropriate.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 3, 2010)

Shade said:


> Wow...that's odd.  I lifted that list from the standard lammasu, which also possesses continuous magic circle.  Anyway, it needs to be replaced, most certainly!




Hold on, I know why it's got it. That's its 3rd level domain spell. There's no point in it getting the 3rd level Healing domain spell (_cure serious wounds_), since it can cast it spontaneously.

Actually, Healing is a pretty useless Domain to it, so why don't we give it Law instead? I'll swap the vs evil Domain spells for vs chaos. It's got _holy word_ as a 1/day SLA so it could do with some offensive Domain spells that affect Chaotic creatures. 

I dithered about swapping _holy smite_ for _order's wrath_, but decided we were better off leaving it as is - Lammasus are more about Smiting Evil than Correcting the Chaotic.



Shade said:


> At a glance, your other selections look appropriate.




Let's stick them in then!

Just realized it already has _neutralize poison_ in its 4th level spells, so I'll put in _death ward_ instead.

Revising...

_*Spells:*_ A greater lammasu casts spells as a 12th-level cleric, and can  choose spells from the cleric spell list, plus any two of the following  domains: Good, Healing, Knowledge, or Law. 

Typical Cleric Spells Prepared (6/7+1/5+1/5+1/4+1/4+1/2+1; save DC 15 + spell level): 
0—_detect magic, guidance_ (2)_, light, read magic, resistance;_ 
1st—_bless_ (2)_, detect evil, divine favor, entropic shield, protection from chaos*, remove fear_; 
2nd—_aid*, bear’s endurance, bull’s strength, lesser restoration, owl's wisdom, resist energy; _
3rd—_daylight, dispel magic, magic circle against chaos*, prayer, remove curse, searing light;_ 
4th—_death ward, dimensional anchor, divine power, holy smite*, neutralize poison;_
5th—_break enchantment, dispel chaos*, mark of justice, righteous might_, _symbol of sleep_;
6th—_Banishment, blade barrier*_, _find the path._
*Domain spell. Domains: Good and Law.


----------



## Shade (Sep 3, 2010)

Good catch.  Updated.

Skills: 7 at 15 ranks (standard lammasu have Concentration, Knowledge (arcana), Listen, Sense Motive, Spot)

Feats: Blind-Fight, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, plus 2 more


----------



## Cleon (Sep 3, 2010)

Shade said:


> Good catch.  Updated.
> 
> Skills: 7 at 15 ranks (standard lammasu have Concentration, Knowledge (arcana), Listen, Sense Motive, Spot)




Add Diplomacy and Knowledge (religion)?



Shade said:


> Feats: Blind-Fight, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, plus 2 more




How about something from the SRD Divine Feats.

Divine Might and its Power Attack prerequisite?


----------



## Shade (Sep 3, 2010)

Those skills sound great.

Divine Might would be wonderful if it were able to turn undead.  

We can give it to the opinicus, though!


----------



## Cleon (Sep 3, 2010)

Shade said:


> Those skills sound great.
> 
> Divine Might would be wonderful if it were able to turn undead.
> 
> We can give it to the opinicus, though!




It's your own fault for having too many LG human-headed animal spirits on the go simultaneously.

How about Spell Focus in either Abjuration or Evocation instead?



Shade said:


> We can give it to the opinicus, though!




Yes, we should consider it to the Greater Opinicus when we get around to that.


----------



## Shade (Sep 7, 2010)

Cleon said:


> How about Spell Focus in either Abjuration or Evocation instead?




It's got two feats left, so give it both?


----------



## Cleon (Sep 8, 2010)

Shade said:


> It's got two feats left, so give it both?




That's fine by me.


----------



## Shade (Sep 8, 2010)

Updated.

Organization: Solitary or pride (1 plus 6-x lammasu)

Challenge Rating: x

Advancement: x

Level Adjustment: +x


----------



## Cleon (Sep 8, 2010)

Shade said:


> Updated.
> 
> Organization: Solitary or pride (1 plus 6-x lammasu)




The AD&D version of the Lammasu has the regular variety living in Prides of 2-8 and the Greater Lammasu being Solitary with a no. appearing of 1-2.

That suggests Pride (1-2 plus 1-6 lammasu).

However, it also mentions they meet in a "Whitemoon" of 2-8 Greater and 6-36 standard Lammasu, and I think we should honor that.

*Organization:* Solitary or pride (1-2 plus 1-6 lammasu) or whitemoon (2-8 plus 6-36 lammasu).



Shade said:


> Challenge Rating: x
> 
> Advancement: x
> 
> Level Adjustment: +x




*Challenge Rating* 13 I would think.

Following the standard Lammasu, their Advancement would be:

*Advancement:* 13-18 HD (Large); 19-36 (Huge)

*Level Adjustment *+6?


----------



## Shade (Sep 9, 2010)

I really like the Whitemoon bit!

Updated.  Finished?


----------



## Cleon (Sep 9, 2010)

Shade said:


> I really like the Whitemoon bit!
> 
> Updated.  Finished?




Yes, looks that way. Well, except it's still got a "narra" in the Depart write-up.

I thought the plural of lammasu was also lammasu, but I suppose we should follow the SRD's "lammasus" even though I suspect it's wrong.


----------



## Shade (Sep 10, 2010)

Cleon said:


> I thought the plural of lammasu was also lammasu, but I suppose we should follow the SRD's "lammasus" even though I suspect it's wrong.




Me too.  It's probably one of those "simplification" changes like Dwarven --> Dwarf, etc.  

I fixed the leftover "narra".


----------



## Cleon (Sep 11, 2010)

Shade said:


> Me too.  It's probably one of those "simplification" changes like Dwarven --> Dwarf, etc.
> 
> I fixed the leftover "narra".




Well in the case of "Dwarven" I vaguely recall that spelling was popularised by the works of Mr Tolkein over the more conventional "Dwarfish".

Anyhow, who (or what) is up next?


----------



## freyar (Sep 14, 2010)

You guys didn't really miss me at all, did you?


----------



## Shade (Sep 14, 2010)

freyar said:


> You guys didn't really miss me at all, did you?




More than you will ever know.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 15, 2010)

freyar said:


> You guys didn't really miss me at all, did you?




Who are you again? 

...

Come back! I was only joking.


----------



## Shade (Sep 24, 2010)

*Neglected Spirit, Ancestral*
Among the most terrifying monsters that inhabit the Chinese countryside are the neglected spirits of ancestors. As long as one’s descendants make the proper sacrifices, ancestral spirits are neutral or beneficent beings. But if an ancestral spirit is ignored, it eventually goes mad and begins preying on humans. The first victims are inevitably the descendants who ignored it. Later, however, it is not so selective, and may attack anybody unfortunate enough to happen by at the wrong time.

Ancestral spirits invariably take on the shriveled appearance of their mortal corpses, save that they grow long yellow fangs and claws, have burning red eyes, and extremely foul breath. Ancestral spirits are a form of undead and can be turned by priests with that ability. In such cases, they are treated as spectres.

AC -2 NO. 1 SZ 6’ XP: 9,000
MV 18 (f) ML 18 AL ce INT high
HD 8 HP 64 MR 10% THAC0 13
#AT 3 Dmg ld8/ld8/ld12

Special Att/Def: Neglected spirits can assume wraithform at will and are only hit by +1 or better magic weapons. Each round, they attack with two claws and a bite. Victims of their claws must save versus poison or lose 1d6 points of Constitution. These return at a rate of 1 per day. Victims of their savage bite must save versus death or lose one level (permanently).

Originally appeared in Legends and Lore (1990).


----------



## Shade (Sep 24, 2010)

It sounds like a corporeal undead, with the ability to assume incorporeal form.

Ghast: 4 HD, Str 17, Dex 17, Con —, Int 13, Wis 14, Cha 16, AC 20
Wight:  4 HD, Str 12, Dex 12, Con —, Int 11, Wis 13, Cha 15, AC 17
Bodak: 9 HD, Str 13, Dex 15, Con —, Int 6, Wis 12, Cha 12, AC 15
Morgh: 14 HD, Str 21, Dex 19, Con —, Int 11, Wis 10, Cha 10, AC 23

These have 8 HD, Int 13-14, and AC 22.

So maybe Str 17, Dex 19, Con —, Int 13, Wis 14, Cha 16?

64 hp (8 hp/hit die) suggests unholy toughness to me.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 24, 2010)

Hmm, so Undead with lots of Hit Dice - 64/4.5 would indicate 14 HD.

They seem to be able to become incorporeal at will, do Con damage with their claws and energy drain with their bite.


----------



## freyar (Sep 25, 2010)

8 HD with unholy toughness sounds better to me than 14 HD, given the special attacks.  They should have DR X/magic, as well, and I'd say it should be DR 5.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 25, 2010)

freyar said:


> 8 HD with unholy toughness sounds better to me than 14 HD, given the special attacks.  They should have DR X/magic, as well, and I'd say it should be DR 5.




I'll go along with 8 HD and Unholy Toughness, but would like the Charisma to be higher than 16 then. I also think they should be stronger than a Ghast.

Str 19, Dex 17, Con —, Int 13, Wis 14, Cha 18 ?


----------



## freyar (Sep 26, 2010)

Did you mean to swap the Str and Dex, too?


----------



## Cleon (Sep 26, 2010)

freyar said:


> Did you mean to swap the Str and Dex, too?




Yes I did.


----------



## Shade (Sep 27, 2010)

Keep the Dex at 19 and I'm in.  They have very good AC for their Hit Dice, and I think high Dex needs to be a part of that.

Added to Homebrews.


----------



## freyar (Sep 28, 2010)

Looks pretty good, but I don't think I like create spawn for these. I'd rather drained victims become some other kind of undead -- it's too bad it's not energy drain, or they'd automatically become wraiths.


----------



## Shade (Sep 28, 2010)

We can still specify wraiths, although it seems odd to create spawned undead with better special abilities than the creator.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 29, 2010)

Shade said:


> We can still specify wraiths, although it seems odd to create spawned undead with better special abilities than the creator.




Energy drain normally creates wights, not wraiths.


----------



## Shade (Sep 29, 2010)

So...create free-willed wights?


----------



## Cleon (Sep 29, 2010)

Shade said:


> So...create free-willed wights?




That'd be OK by me.

We could just not have them create spawn at all, since there's no mention of them doing so in the original text.


----------



## Shade (Sep 29, 2010)

I was going to reply "works for me", thinking they only did Con damage, and then I reread the entry...



> Victims of their savage bite must save versus death or lose one level (permanently).




So they'll be creating wights, whether we include a create spawn entry or not.  In that case, might as well spell it out, eh?


----------



## freyar (Oct 2, 2010)

Ooops, that's "wright" on the wights.  

I'm ok with adding create spawn, but I think we should only bother to add it if we always want them to create wights.  If it's only energy drain through the bite, we can leave it off.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 3, 2010)

Shade said:


> I was going to reply "works for me", thinking they only did Con damage, and then I reread the entry...
> 
> So they'll be creating wights, whether we include a create spawn entry  or not.  In that case, might as well spell it out, eh?




Might as well.

I'd be tempted to give them some control over the wights, maybe just a set number of them, so they have a bunch of minions.



freyar said:


> Ooops, that's "wright" on the wights.




Better wight than wrong, but you were wrong with your wright. 



freyar said:


> I'm ok with adding create spawn, but I think we should only bother to add it if we always want them to create wights.  If it's only energy drain through the bite, we can leave it off.




Do you mean they can create wights whenever they kill, whether or not it used their bite?

We could have it so a creature that's killed by one comes back as a wight if they've got any negative levels from its bite attack.


----------



## Shade (Oct 4, 2010)

Let's not veer away from the way undead generally work.   Either create spawn if killed in any way by the spirit (like most MM undead), or via energy drain only (like a vampire).  I'd prefer the former.

Regardless of the case, I'd prefer "all or nothing" on the enslavement...either the spawn are free-willed, or they're enslaved.

In other words, "Two wrongs don't make a wright."  



> Neglected spirits can assume wraithform at will




It looks like I stuck the wraithform ability in the wrong thread!  

Wraithform (Su): A wraithworm may become incorporeal for up to 10 minutes per hour. It may not use its natural attacks or paralyzing gaze while incorporeal.

Skills: 5 at 11 ranks
Wights have Hide, Listen, Move Silently, Spot.  Add Knowledge (history) since they are ancestors?

Feats: 3
Multiattack?  Power Attack?  Reckless Offensive?

Environment: Any?
Organization: Solitary?  (Add wights if we decide upon enslavement)
Challenge Rating: 5?  (A wight improved to 8 HD is CR 4, and these add Con damage and unholy toughness)
Treasure: None (like wights?)
Alignment: Always chaotic evil
Advancement: 9-16 HD (Medium)?  (This follows the wight's "double HD, same size category" advancement)


----------



## freyar (Oct 6, 2010)

I guess we can drop the paralyzing gaze, but wraithform seems good.

Edit: Make the wights free-willed, and the rest looks pretty good.


----------



## Shade (Oct 6, 2010)

Updated.

A neglected ancestral spirit stands 6 feet tall and weighs x pounds.

A neglected ancestral spirit speaks Common?


----------



## Cleon (Oct 6, 2010)

Shade said:


> Let's not veer away from the way undead generally work.   Either create spawn if killed in any way by the spirit (like most MM undead), or via energy drain only (like a vampire).  I'd prefer the former.
> 
> Regardless of the case, I'd prefer "all or nothing" on the enslavement...either the spawn are free-willed, or they're enslaved.




I prefer "energy drain only" and "enslaved", but it won't bother me if you go for something else.



Shade said:


> In other words, "Two wrongs don't make a wright."




Only if the victim has three or more Hit Dice.



Shade said:


> It looks like I stuck the wraithform ability in the wrong thread!
> 
> Wraithform (Su): A wraithworm may become incorporeal for up to 10 minutes per hour. It may not use its natural attacks or paralyzing gaze while incorporeal.




*Wraithform (Su):* A neglected spirit can become incorporeal at will as an X action. It can remain incorporeal for as long as it desires, but during this time it can not harm opponents as it has no incorporeal attacks.



Shade said:


> Skills: 5 at 11 ranks
> Wights have Hide, Listen, Move Silently, Spot.  Add Knowledge (history) since they are ancestors?




Sure!



Shade said:


> Feats: 3
> Multiattack?  Power Attack?  Reckless Offensive?




I'll have to think about this one for a bit.

Power Attack doesn't seem that good an idea, since they have pretty poor attack modifiers.



Shade said:


> Environment: Any?
> Organization: Solitary?  (Add wights if we decide upon enslavement)
> Challenge Rating: 5?  (A wight improved to 8 HD is CR 4, and these add Con damage and unholy toughness)
> Treasure: None (like wights?)
> ...




I'd give them treasure. Neglected Ancestors could have tomb full of treasure.

For Advancement I'd prefer triple HD, i.e. 9-24 HD (Medium), I think they ought to have the potential to get pretty fearsome.

Also, on a philosophical basis I'd prefer "Usually chaotic evil". These are ancestor spirits that have become malevolent due to neglect, so presumably they were once not-chaotic-evil and might even become more pleasant with truly extraordinary propitiation.


----------



## Shade (Oct 7, 2010)

Updated.

A neglected ancestral spirit stands 6 feet tall and weighs x pounds.

A neglected ancestral spirit speaks any languages it knew in life (usually Common)?


----------



## freyar (Oct 7, 2010)

I'd at least reduce the treasure to half-standard if not less.  These become "neglected" because their descendents don't make the proper sacrifices, and it probably starts when they're buried. 

It's shriveled and probably a bit dried out, so maybe 75 lb?  Agreed on the languages.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 9, 2010)

freyar said:


> I'd at least reduce the treasure to half-standard if not less.  These become "neglected" because their descendents don't make the proper sacrifices, and it probably starts when they're buried.




It's neglected 'cause it don't get no respect from them living whippersnappers. Cracking out their hippety-hop music when they ought'a be leavin' incense an sake an goat's livers on the prayer-stones of ther elders and betters.

'Serve them right if you sucks out ther souls if'n they wanders on your lawn. You warned them to stay off it!

*Ahem*

I prefer standard treasure. The sacrifices could easily be items of little value, with mainly symbolic importance.



freyar said:


> It's shriveled and probably a bit dried out, so maybe 75 lb?  Agreed on the languages.




I'd rather they weight about 120 pounds like the SRD Mummy.


----------



## freyar (Oct 12, 2010)

The weight is fine -- usually when I look for a weight on an SRD critter, there isn't one, so I didn't think to check the mummy!

How about standard coins and goods but no items or half items?  If you really insist, standard treasure is ok.  I can see both sides of it.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 14, 2010)

freyar said:


> The weight is fine -- usually when I look for a weight on an SRD critter, there isn't one, so I didn't think to check the mummy!
> 
> How about standard coins and goods but no items or half items?  If you really insist, standard treasure is ok.  I can see both sides of it.




I'd think a "neglected" ancestor would more likely have less coins or goods than less items, wouldn't its descendants be more likely to give it money and goods as offerings? Any magic items it has would most likely have been buried with it.

So, I'd go along with "Standard treasure" or "half coins and goods, standard items".


----------



## freyar (Oct 14, 2010)

Fair enough, either of those is ok.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 16, 2010)

freyar said:


> Fair enough, either of those is ok.




Good-oh.

Anything else to do?

We could expand tactics to say it uses wraithform to leave its sealed tomb and attack unexpectedly through walls or floors, and flees in wraithform if outmatched?


----------



## Shade (Oct 18, 2010)

Sounds good.  Updated.  Finished?


----------



## Cleon (Oct 19, 2010)

Shade said:


> Sounds good.  Updated.  Finished?




It looks fine statwise.

I am wondering whether we should improve its DR and SR a bit.

The spell resistance in particular seems pretty weak. A direct translation of 10% magic resistance (10% failure for CL 11th) would be SR 14.

The DR doesn't bother me so much, since most level-appropriate opponents are likely to be armed with magic weapons.


----------



## Shade (Oct 19, 2010)

I'll boost the SR to 14.


----------



## freyar (Oct 20, 2010)

DR 5 is actually about right for a CR 5 critter.

Why are we basing a 10% failure on CL 11?  These "at par" should be facing CL 5 casters.  I don't particularly mind the higher SR, though it's closer to a 50% failure than 10%.  I'd just like to know the rationale.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 20, 2010)

freyar said:


> DR 5 is actually about right for a CR 5 critter.




I don't mind keeping it DR 5.



freyar said:


> Why are we basing a 10% failure on CL 11?  These "at par" should be facing CL 5 casters.  I don't particularly mind the higher SR, though it's closer to a 50% failure than 10%.  I'd just like to know the rationale.




AD&D Magic Resistance, the precursor of spell resistance, was keyed to a caster level of 11, so an 11th level caster would fail to penetrate 25% magic resistance 25% of the time, a 12th level caster would fail 20%, a 13th level caster 15% et cetera.

In effect, it's the equivalent of Spell Resistance 12 plus 1 for every 5% of MR.

However, the conversion guidelines are set to make the MR the percentage failure of a caster with a level equal to the monster's CR, which means that a low-level AD&D monster with, say, 10% MR would usually have a SR far less effective than the original's MR.

There were a few AD&D monsters with a "fixed" MR that didn't vary according to the attacking caster's level, but the worst exceptions were the few whose MR varied with spell level _*as well as*_ caster level - those would have been a pain to run.


----------



## Shade (Oct 22, 2010)

Regardless of the method, I prefer the higher SR for these fellows.  They seem like they should be rather hardy.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 22, 2010)

Shade said:


> Regardless of the method, I prefer the higher SR for these fellows.  They seem like they should be rather hardy.




I like the SR 14 too.

In fact, I'm happy with them the way they are now.


----------



## Shade (Oct 22, 2010)

Here's the next one to play with...

*Spectral Wizard *
CLIMATE/TERRAIN: Any
FREQUENCY: Very rare
ORGANIZATION: Solitary
ACTIVITY CYCLE: Any (usually night)
DIET: Nil
INTELLIGENCE: High to genius (13-18)
TREASURE: V
ALIGNMENT: Neutral (any)
NO. APPEARING: 1-2
ARMOR CLASS: 0 or 8 (see below)
MOVEMENT: 12, F1 15 (B)
HIT DICE: 5
THACO 15
NO. OF ATTACKS: 1
DAMAGE/ATTACK: Special
SPECIAL ATTACKS: Spells, paralyzing touch
SPECIAL DEFENSES: See below
MAGIC RESISTANCE: Nil
SIZE: M (6‘  tall)
MORALE: Champion (15-16)
XP VALUE: Low level: 4,000
High level: 5,000

Spectral wizards are undead creatures that retain their abilities to cast spells. They are created by a unique spell that functions on human and elven wizards and gnome illusionists. The magic takes hold only on demihumans whose bodies once channeled wizard magic.

Spectral wizards appear as they did in life, though most of the color has been drained from their hair, eyes, and skin. They appear in whatever clothing they wore at the time of death. Their clothing is as insubstantial as their bodies. Spectral wizards are noncorporeal, and are nearly invisible in bright light. In darkness, they cast an unearthly glow.

Combat: Spectral wizards exist partially on the ethereal plane and are usually encountered while noncorporeal. While in such a state, these creatures can be affected only by spells, silver or enchanted weapons, or by ethereal combatants. If challenged on the ethereal plane, a spectral wizard is AC 8. While noncorporeal, a spectral wizard attacks with its paralyzing touch. A successful hit causes one of its opponent’s limbs, chosen at random (roll ld4: 1= right arm, 2 = left arm, 3 = right leg, 4 =left leg; reroll any duplicates), to become numb and useless for 2d4 rounds. Approaching within 10 feet of a spectral wizard causes portions of the victim’s body to tingle as if they had ”fallen asleep” and results in a -1 penalty to attack rolls. With a great deal of effort, a spectral wizard can become solid, allowing it to use weapons and material spell components. Solidification takes one round in darkness or 2d4 rounds in bright light (such as daylight or a continual light spell). In both noncorporeal and solid forms, the wizard is AC 0.

When spectral wizards are created, they are permanently drained of ld4 levels and will forever cast spells at this new level. Spectral wizards who operate at level 5 and above are considered high level when rewarding experience points.

Material components carried on the spectral wizard’s person become insubstantial and resolidify when it does.  Spectral wizards are immune to sleep, charm, hold, cold, fear, polymorph, parulyzation, and death magic. They are turned as spectres.

Habitat/Society: Spectral wizards can be encountered anywhere. They often make lairs in their former homes or in a place where other wizards live. All continue to memorize spells from their books and scrolls, and many become involved in research into new spells or magical items. Spectral wizards have difficulty studying because of their immaterial state. Though spectral wizards can be of any neutral alignment, the majority are neutral evil and only a few (5%) are neutral good. Their insubstantial nature seems to cause a mental imbalance which tuns them to a neutral evil alignment.

Ecology: Spectral wizards are created artificially and have no ecological niche.

*Create Spectral Wizard (Necromancy)*
8th-level Wizard Spell
Range: Touch
Components: V, S, M
Duration: Permanent
Casting Time: 1 turn
Area of Effect: One wizard
Saving Throw: Special

This spell allows the caster to cause a human or elven wizard or gnome illusionist to die and become a spectral wizard. If the spell is cast on an unwilling recipient, the victim is allowed a saving throw vs. death magic. A successful saving throw negates the spell.

In the process of dying and becoming undead, the spell’s recipient is drained of ld4 levels. Once animated, the spectral wizard is free-willed, but any utterance from its creator acts as a suggestion spell on the spectral wizard.
Only a wish spell can free a spectral wizard of its undead state. Depending on the wording of the wish, the individual may remain dead unless further magic is used; if the wizard is restored to life, there is a 50% chance that he will be restored with his original levels intact. It is possible that another undiscovered process may restore the spectral wizard.

Originally appeared in HHQ2 – Wizard’s Challenge (1992).


----------



## Shade (Oct 22, 2010)

I'll go ahead and throw my vote in for "template" right now.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 23, 2010)

Shade said:


> I'll go ahead and throw my vote in for "template" right now.




Yes, these definitely look like a template job.

Shall we modify a Ghost by adding a dash of Lich?


----------



## Shade (Oct 25, 2010)

Cleon said:


> Yes, these definitely look like a template job.
> 
> Shall we modify a Ghost by adding a dash of Lich?




Sounds good!



> Spectral wizards are undead creatures that retain their abilities to cast spells. They are created by a unique spell that functions on human and elven wizards and gnome illusionists. The magic takes hold only on demihumans whose bodies once channeled wizard magic.




Stick with wizards only, or extend to any non-spontaneous (or even allow sponteneous) arcane spellcasters?



> While noncorporeal, a spectral wizard attacks with its paralyzing touch. A successful hit causes one of its opponent’s limbs, chosen at random (roll ld4: 1= right arm, 2 = left arm, 3 = right leg, 4 =left leg; reroll any duplicates), to become numb and useless for 2d4 rounds. Approaching within 10 feet of a spectral wizard causes portions of the victim’s body to tingle as if they had ”fallen asleep” and results in a -1 penalty to attack rolls.




This is reminscent of the yphoz's numbing poison effect.



> With a great deal of effort, a spectral wizard can become solid, allowing it to use weapons and material spell components. Solidification takes one round in darkness or 2d4 rounds in bright light (such as daylight or a continual light spell). In both noncorporeal and solid forms, the wizard is AC 0.




A variation on manifestation?



> When spectral wizards are created, they are permanently drained of ld4 levels and will forever cast spells at this new level. Spectral wizards who operate at level 5 and above are considered high level when rewarding experience points.




Rather than imposed permanent level drain, how about just simply state the caster level is reduced by -x?


----------



## freyar (Oct 25, 2010)

Something like ghost plus lich, yes.  I like the idea of borrowing from the yphoz for the partial paralysis, though.  It seems like we'll need to tone down the various special abilities, too.

Edit: answering Shade, any arcane casters should do.  I think the corporealization is a bit distinct from manifestation, since these don't seem to be partly ethereal, and they seem to need to turn corporeal to manipulate things.  I might go with reducing the CL, but I like permanent negative levels with some means to remove them (though I'm not sure what right now).


----------



## Cleon (Oct 26, 2010)

Shade said:


> Stick with wizards only, or extend to any non-spontaneous (or even allow sponteneous) arcane spellcasters?
> 
> This is reminscent of the yphoz's numbing poison effect.
> 
> ...




I'd go for any arcane caster with a set reduction of caster level.

The yphoz did spring to mind for me, too, as did some form of "physical manifestation".


----------



## Shade (Oct 27, 2010)

Shall we tackle the "solidify" ability first, then?


----------



## Cleon (Oct 27, 2010)

Shade said:


> Shall we tackle the "solidify" ability first, then?




They seem to have three phases of existence - ethereal, incorporeal and solid.

That would give us something like this:

*Manifestation (Su):* A spectral wizard normally dwells on the Ethereal Plane where, as an ethereal creature, it cannot affect or be affected by anything in the material world. However, a spectral wizard can partially or fully manifest on the Material Plane. It takes 1 move action for a spectral wizard to partially manifest, 1 full-round action to fully manifest. It takes the spectral twice as long to manifest in areas of bright light, such as daylight or a _continual flame_ spell.

A spectral wizard has two home planes, the Material Plane and the Ethereal Plane.  It is not considered extraplanar when on either of these planes. Manifested spectral wizards can be attacked by foes from either the Material or Ethereal Planes, but are somewhat protected by incorporeality.

When a spellcasting ghost is not manifested and is on the Ethereal  Plane, its spells cannot affect targets on the Material Plane, but they  work normally against ethereal targets.

A partially manifested spectral wizard becomes visible but incorporeal on the Material Plane. It can pass through solid objects at will, and has an incorporeal touch attack. Its incorporeality protects it from foes on the Material Plane, but not from foes on the Ethereal Plane. Its spells continue to affect ethereal targets and can affect targets on  the Material Plane normally unless the spells rely on touch. A  partially manifested spectral wizard's touch spells don't work on nonethereal targets.

A fully manifested spectral wizard has assumed physical substance on the Material Plane. Fully manifest spectral wizards have no incorporeal touch attack, but can manipulate material objects, wield weapons and cast spells just like a material creature. It is not incorporeal to foes on the Material Plane, but is incorporeal to foes on the Ethereal Plane. Its spells affect targets on the Material Plane and Ethereal Plane normally, except its touch spells only work on material targets, they have no affect on ethereal targets.

A manifested spectral wizard always moves silently.


----------



## Shade (Oct 27, 2010)

Fantastic!   Added to Homebrews.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 28, 2010)

Shade said:


> Fantastic!   Added to Homebrews.




Glad you like it! I was hoping to cut the word count down, but my attempts just made it confusing.

I can see a few changes we need:

* Attack:* A spectral wizard retains all the attacks of the base creature,  attacks relying on physical contact only affect creatures on the  Material plane when the spectral is fully manifest (see manifestation). It gains an incorporeal touch attack (see numbing touch) which it can only uses when it manifests.

* Full Attack:* A spectral wizard retains all the attacks of the base  creature,  attacks relying on physical contact only affect creatures on the  Material plane when the spectral is fully manifest (see manifestation).  It gains an incorporeal touch attack (see numbing touch) which it can only uses when it  manifests.

*Damage:* A spectral wizard retains the base  creature's damage values, but usually can only damage ethereal creatures with these attacks. It can use the base creature's damage values against nonethereal opponents when it fully manifest (see manifestation). It has an incorporeal touch attack that does XdX damage and causes numbness (see numbing touch), but can only be used when the spectral wizard manifests.


----------



## freyar (Oct 28, 2010)

Hey, do ghosts and these spectral wizards use ethereal material components?  Does the ethereal copy of whatever they're carrying at death count?  

I don't like a fully manifested spectral wizard always moving silently, since it's not incorporeal anymore.  Did I miss something in the original text?


----------



## Cleon (Oct 29, 2010)

freyar said:


> Hey, do ghosts and these spectral wizards use ethereal material components?  Does the ethereal copy of whatever they're carrying at death count?




Presumably they do, since even standard ghosts use ethereal equipment.



freyar said:


> I don't like a fully manifested spectral wizard always moving silently, since it's not incorporeal anymore.  Did I miss something in the original text?




No, I just liked it that way. 

My interpretation is that a fully manifest spectral wizard isn't solid per se, and is probably still floating about like a ghost, so will remain spookily silent.


----------



## freyar (Oct 31, 2010)

Since it has physical substance, I'd like it to be able to make sound.  Probably should gain a land speed as well as the flight speed in fully manifested/solid form, too, I think.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 31, 2010)

freyar said:


> Since it has physical substance, I'd like it to be able to make sound.  Probably should gain a land speed as well as the flight speed in fully manifested/solid form, too, I think.




But they can make sound.

Surely a Ghost's "always moves silently" just means they automatically succeed at Move Silently checks?

A manifested Ghost (or Spectral Wizard) can talk, clap, sing or play ghostly instruments to its heart's content.


----------



## Shade (Nov 2, 2010)

Per the Special Abilities descriptions:



> Incorporeal creatures are inaudible unless they decide to make noise.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 3, 2010)

Shade said:


> Per the Special Abilities descriptions:




Quite.

Hold on, Shade - or at least _something that looks like Shade_ - is agreeing with me against Freyar.

Does this mean the Greater Doppleganger I sent to aid my takeover of the Enworld monster conversion board has finally had some success?


----------



## Shade (Nov 3, 2010)

Cleon said:


> Hold on, Shade - or at least _something that looks like Shade_ - is agreeing with me against Freyar.
> 
> Does this mean the Greater Doppleganger I sent to aid my takeover of the Enworld monster conversion board has finally had some success?




What do you mean, _master_...er, _mister_?


----------



## Cleon (Nov 4, 2010)

Shade said:


> What do you mean, _master_...er, _mister_?




Hush now, the time is not yet ripe for our conquest.  

So, if we're settled on Manifestation the only SA to work out is Numbing Touch, right?

There was talk of basing that on the Yphoz's numbing attack, which seems reasonable.

We can use the same effects, but add a longer duration since the Spectral Wizard doesn't attach itself to opponents.

Apart from that it's just CR, Treasure, Alignment and LA to figure out and we can start on a sample creature.


----------



## Shade (Nov 5, 2010)

I think we should remove the random element from the numbness.  The spectral wizard should be able to decide where to touch the victim.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 6, 2010)

Shade said:


> I think we should remove the random element from the numbness.  The spectral wizard should be able to decide where to touch the victim.




That'd be OK by me.


----------



## freyar (Nov 8, 2010)

Shade said:


> Per the Special Abilities descriptions:






Cleon said:


> Quite.
> 
> Hold on, Shade - or at least _something that looks like Shade_ - is agreeing with me against Freyar.
> 
> Does this mean the Greater Doppleganger I sent to aid my takeover of the Enworld monster conversion board has finally had some success?






Shade said:


> What do you mean, _master_...er, _mister_?




Err, fully manifested spectral wizards aren't incorporeal.  I'm not sure what this has to do with what I was sayin'.... ???  I still think the fully manifested, solid, corporeal ones should make noise and have to make Move Silently checks like anyone else.

I'm fine with removing randomness from the numbing as well as increasing the duration.  The original duration is 2d4 rounds; want to stick to that or boost to 1d10 or even 1d12?


----------



## Cleon (Nov 8, 2010)

freyar said:


> Err, fully manifested spectral wizards aren't incorporeal.  I'm not sure what this has to do with what I was sayin'.... ???  I still think the fully manifested, solid, corporeal ones should make noise and have to make Move Silently checks like anyone else.




I think the approach we're taking is that it isn't _really_ corporeal, it's just faking it. 



freyar said:


> I'm fine with removing randomness from the numbing as well as increasing the duration.  The original duration is 2d4 rounds; want to stick to that or boost to 1d10 or even 1d12?




I meant increasing the duration from the Yphoz's 1d6 rounds. 2d4 round is OK by me, although I have not objection to 2d6 if you think it's desirable.


----------



## Shade (Nov 9, 2010)

Cleon said:


> I think the approach we're taking is that it isn't _really_ corporeal, it's just faking it.




We were?  

I was just supporting a supernaturally silent movement while solid to make 'em creepier.



Cleon said:


> I meant increasing the duration from the Yphoz's 1d6 rounds. 2d4 round is OK by me, although I have not objection to 2d6 if you think it's desirable.




I'm fine with any of those durations.


----------



## freyar (Nov 9, 2010)

Really?



> A fully manifested spectral wizard has assumed physical substance on the Material Plane. Fully manifest spectral wizards have no incorporeal touch attack, but can manipulate material objects, wield weapons and cast spells just like a material creature. It is not incorporeal to foes on the Material Plane, but is incorporeal to foes on the Ethereal Plane. Its spells affect targets on the Material Plane and Ethereal Plane normally, except its touch spells only work on material targets, they have no affect on ethereal targets.




Doesn't that sound pretty corporeal?  I'm just getting confused here.  If it's corporeal in pretty much every other way, why doesn't it make noise?  Or do you need a magic weapon to hit it?  I thought I understood, but this silent motion business has me (and probably other future DMs) confused.


----------



## Shade (Nov 9, 2010)

Yeah, I agree that they become fully corporeal.  I was supporting an "always moves silently (if it wants to)" extra benefit.  If we retain that, perhaps we should move it to a separate ability to avoid confusion?


----------



## freyar (Nov 9, 2010)

I'd be ok with moving silent movement into a separate ability.  Keeping it is ok.

For the manifestation, should we maybe spell out a little more clearly what incorporeal benefits it keeps and doesnt?


----------



## Shade (Nov 10, 2010)

freyar said:


> For the manifestation, should we maybe spell out a little more clearly what incorporeal benefits it keeps and doesnt?




Sure, can do.  Suggestions?


----------



## Cleon (Nov 10, 2010)

freyar said:


> I'd be ok with moving silent movement into a separate ability.  Keeping it is ok.




Go ahead and make it a separate ability if it helps.



freyar said:


> For the manifestation, should we maybe spell out a little more clearly what incorporeal benefits it keeps and doesnt?




I thought it was pretty clear, but I'm open to suggestions.


----------



## freyar (Nov 11, 2010)

Why don't we try something like this?  I didn't see evidence that they stop being fully ethereal when fully manifested, either, so I changed that for simplicity.

Creepy (Su): A spectral wizard, even when fully manifested and corporeal, never makes noise without choosing and may move silently at will.

Manifestation (Su): A spectral wizard normally dwells on the Ethereal Plane where, as an ethereal creature, it cannot affect or be affected by anything in the material world. However, a spectral wizard can partially or fully manifest on the Material Plane. It takes 1 move action for a spectral wizard to partially manifest and 1 full-round action to fully manifest. It takes the spectral twice as long to manifest in areas of bright light, such as daylight or a continual flame spell.  A spectral wizard may un-manifest as a move action.

A spectral wizard has two home planes, the Material Plane and the Ethereal Plane. It is not considered extraplanar when on either of these planes. Manifested spectral wizards can be attacked by foes from either the Material or Ethereal Planes, but are somewhat protected by incorporeality unless fully manifested.

When a spellcasting ghost is not manifested and is on the Ethereal Plane, its spells cannot affect targets on the Material Plane, but they work normally against ethereal targets.

A partially manifested spectral wizard becomes visible but incorporeal on the Material Plane. It can pass through solid objects at will, and has an incorporeal touch attack. Its incorporeality protects it from foes on the Material Plane, but not from foes on the Ethereal Plane. Its spells continue to affect ethereal targets and can affect targets on the Material Plane normally unless the spells rely on touch. A partially manifested spectral wizard's touch spells don't work on nonethereal targets.

A fully manifested spectral wizard has assumed physical substance on the Material Plane and loses the incorporeal subtype. Fully manifest spectral wizards have no incorporeal touch attack, but can manipulate material objects, wield weapons (using Str to modify melee attack rolls), grapple creatures, and cast spells, since they are corporeal.  Fully manifested spectral wizards are also affected normally by non-magic weapons and mundane fire, cold and acid, but they retain their deflection bonus to AC and remain weightless.  Despite being corporeal, spectral wizards are still etheral and interact normally with foes on the Ethereal Plane. Its spells affect targets both on the Material Plane and Ethereal Plane normally.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 12, 2010)

freyar said:


> Why don't we try something like this?  I didn't see evidence that they stop being fully ethereal when fully manifested, either, so I changed that for simplicity.




I don't mind that if it's OK with Shade.

I liked the symmetry of the partially ethereal version, but I accept it's not close to the original.


----------



## Shade (Nov 15, 2010)

It works for me.  Updated.


----------



## freyar (Nov 16, 2010)

Cleon said:


> I don't mind that if it's OK with Shade.
> 
> I liked the symmetry of the partially ethereal version, but I accept it's not close to the original.



The symmetry was appealing, but it seemed like introducing a whole new condition.  

Shall we fix up the numbing touch now?


----------



## Shade (Nov 16, 2010)

Rather than numbing touch, perhaps this?



			
				Wither Limb spell said:
			
		

> You choose to wither either the arms or the legs of a humanoid. Withered legs force a subject to fall prone while at the same time reducing the subject's land speed to 5 feet. Withered arms make it impossible for the subject to use objects or cast spells with somatic components.
> 
> A withered limb can be restored to normal by a successful dispel magic from a spellcaster of a level higher than the level of the wither limb caster.




I just thought I'd throw that out there.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 17, 2010)

Shade said:


> Rather than numbing touch, perhaps this?
> 
> I just thought I'd throw that out there.




Well _wither_ was permanent in its AD&D original. I'd rather keep it temporary, although I wouldn't object to complete incapacity of the affected part for the duration.

*Numbing Touch (Su):* Any living creature a spectral wizard hits with its touch attack must succeed on a Fortitude save or be suffer incapacitating numbness in either their head or a limb (spectral wizard's choice) for X rounds. A numbed arm make it impossible for the subject to cast spells with somatic components to use objects in with that arm. A numbed leg forces the subject to fall prone and reduces their land speed to 10 feet (or 5 ft. if all their legs are numbed). A numbed head makes it impossible for the subject to speak, which also prevents them casting spells with verbal components. Numbness can be removed with a _dispel magic_ or _lesser restoration_ spell if the caster can succeed at a caster level check against a DC of 10 plus the spectral wizard's hit dice.


----------



## Shade (Nov 18, 2010)

That'll work!


----------



## freyar (Nov 20, 2010)

Perfect!  Make it a minute or two duration, I think.  Somehow, this seems like it might be even more frustrating than normal lich paralysis since you can just do something...


----------



## Cleon (Nov 20, 2010)

freyar said:


> Perfect!  Make it a minute or two duration, I think.  Somehow, this seems like it might be even more frustrating than normal lich paralysis since you can just do something...




So what shall we put for the duration: 3d6 rounds? 1d3 minutes?


----------



## freyar (Nov 22, 2010)

1d3 minutes works for me.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 22, 2010)

freyar said:


> 1d3 minutes works for me.




Works for me too.


----------



## Shade (Nov 23, 2010)

Ditto here.  Updated.

Did we decide upon damage for the incorporeal touch?


----------



## freyar (Nov 24, 2010)

Not that I recall.  1d6? 

Looking back at the original monster, it seems there should be a numbing aura, too.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 24, 2010)

freyar said:


> Not that I recall.  1d6?




I don't think we did, but 1d6 is fine by me.



freyar said:


> Looking back at the original monster, it seems there should be a numbing aura, too.




Isn't that more flavour than something that applies a game mechanic penalty though?


----------



## freyar (Nov 25, 2010)

The original numbing aura is "Approaching within 10 feet of a spectral wizard causes portions of the victim’s body to tingle as if they had ”fallen asleep” and results in a -1 penalty to attack rolls."  Sounds like a mechanical penalty to me.   I could see boosting that to -2 and making it to all attack rolls, Str- and Dex-based skill and ability checks, and Ref saves, too.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 26, 2010)

freyar said:


> The original numbing aura is "Approaching within 10 feet of a spectral wizard causes portions of the victim’s body to tingle as if they had ”fallen asleep” and results in a -1 penalty to attack rolls."  Sounds like a mechanical penalty to me.   I could see boosting that to -2 and making it to all attack rolls, Str- and Dex-based skill and ability checks, and Ref saves, too.




You weren't expecting me to go to the effort of looking it up when I could leave it to someone else, were you?

I'd be OK with a penalty to attacks, Str- and Dex-based skills and checks and Reflex saves but would prefer -1.


----------



## freyar (Nov 29, 2010)

-1 it is then.

Numbing Aura (Su): Any creature that approaches within 10 ft of a spectral wizard feels their body begin to tingle all over.  The creature must make a DC X Fortitude save or become slightly numb, taking a -1 penalty to all attack rolls, Strength- and Dexterity-based skill and ability checks, and Reflex saves.  This penalty lasts as long as the victim is within 10 ft of the spectral wizard; a creature leaving and re-entering the numbing aura must make a new save each time it enters the aura.  The save DC is Charisma-based.


----------



## Shade (Nov 29, 2010)

Updated.

Anything else before moving on to the sample?


----------



## freyar (Nov 29, 2010)

Let's move along...  We can use the sample Fool from the master lich if you agreed to those stat changes, too!


----------



## Shade (Nov 30, 2010)

Applying to the revised Fool...

Spectral Wizard
13th-level Human Wizard
Medium Undead (Incorporeal)
Hit Dice: 13d12 (84 hp)
Initiative: +3
Speed: Fly 30 ft. (6 squares)(perfect)
Armor Class: 16 (+3 Dex, +3 deflection), touch 16, flat-footed 13 or 13 (+3 Dex), touch 10, flat-footed 13
Base Attack/Grapple: +6/+5
Attack: Incorporeal touch +9 melee or +4 against ethereal foes (1d6 plus numbing touch or 1d6-1 plus numbing touch against ethereal foes); or weapon +5 melee (xdx-1) or weapon +9 ranged (xdx-1)
Full Attack: Incorporeal touch +9 melee or +4 against ethereal foes (1d6 plus numbing touch or 1d6-1 plus numbing touch against ethereal foes); or weapon +5/+0 melee (xdx-1) or weapon +9 ranged (xdx-1)
Space/Reach: 5 ft./5 ft.
Special Attacks: Manifestation, numbing aura (DC 19), numbing touch (DC 19), spells
Special Qualities: Creepy, immunity to cold, electricity, polymorph, and mind-affecting attacks, incorporeal traits, summon familiar, +2 turn resistance, undead traits
Saves: Fort +4, Ref +7, Will +9
Abilities: Str 8, Dex 16, Con —, Int 16, Wis 12, Cha 17
Skills: 89 ranks (+8 racial bonus on Hide, Listen, Search, and Spot checks)
Feats: Scribe Scroll (B), 5 more plus 2 wizard bonus feats and 1 human bonus feat
Environment: Any
Organization: Solitary or pair
Challenge Rating: 13+x
Treasure: x
Alignment: Always neutral, never lawful or chaotic
Advancement: By character class
Level Adjustment: +0 +x

Beginning ability scores: Str 8, Dex 14, Con 10, Int 15, Wis 12, Cha 13
Int boosted at 4th level
Dex boosted at 8th level
Dex boosted at 12th level

Combat

Wizard Spells Prepared (4/5/5/4/3/2; save DC 13 + spell level). 
0—x; 
1st—x; 
2nd—x; 
3rd—x; 
4th—x; 
5th—x.

Skills: Spectral wizards have a +8 racial bonus on Hide, Listen, Search, and Spot checks.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 30, 2010)

Well a lot of wizards would have moved those double boosts in Dex into Int, but I can live with it.

Anything special in mind for the spells?


----------



## Shade (Dec 1, 2010)

Cleon said:


> Well a lot of wizards would have moved those double boosts in Dex into Int, but I can live with it.




We can switch it.  That was really there to help get the Fool's Dex up to its 2e levels.



Cleon said:


> Anything special in mind for the spells?




Not particularly.  Probably things that are beneficial while both corporeal and incorporeal.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 1, 2010)

Shade said:


> We can switch it.  That was really there to help get the Fool's Dex up to its 2e levels.
> 
> Not particularly.  Probably things that are beneficial while both corporeal and incorporeal.




Am I wrong to fancy _spectral hand_ and _ghost touch_?


----------



## freyar (Dec 2, 2010)

Spectral hand is always useful.  But there's not a "ghost touch" spell in the SRD.  You didn't mean ghoul touch, did you?


----------



## Cleon (Dec 4, 2010)

freyar said:


> Spectral hand is always useful.  But there's not a "ghost touch" spell in the SRD.  You didn't mean ghoul touch, did you?




Yes I did.

Ghosties or ghoulies, what's the difference. 

How about _chill touch_ and _vampiric touch_ to finish off the set.


----------



## freyar (Dec 6, 2010)

Since they have the numbing touch, I don't like ghoul touch -- it's like turning it into a lich.  Chill touch and vampiric touch work, though.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 7, 2010)

freyar said:


> Since they have the numbing touch, I don't like ghoul touch -- it's like turning it into a lich.  Chill touch and vampiric touch work, though.




Well I might not have been _entirely_ serious about all of those suggestions.

No need to turn it into a lich, I'm happy enough with its touch of the chill vampire spectre.


----------



## Shade (Dec 7, 2010)

Let's throw on dread wraithform of the wight devourer.  

Thus far we have...

Wizard Spells Prepared (4/5/5/4/3/2; save DC 13 + spell level). 
0—x; 
1st—chill touch; 
2nd—spectral hand; 
3rd—vampiric touch; 
4th—x; 
5th—x.


A few more suggestions:  ghost sound (0), touch of fatigue (0), false life (2nd), scare (2nd), cone of cold (5th), mind fog (5th)


----------



## freyar (Dec 8, 2010)

I'll go along with all those suggestions.


----------



## Shade (Dec 8, 2010)

Updated.

Some suggestions (in bold) to finish up the list):

Wizard Spells Prepared (4/5/5/4/3/2; save DC 13 + spell level). 
0—*detect magic*, ghost sound, *prestidigitation*, touch of fatigue; 
1st—chill touch, *magic missile, ray of enfeeblement (2), reduce person*; 
2nd—false life, *gust of wind, hideous laughter, *scare, spectral hand; 
3rd—*dispel magic, ray of exhaustion, slow, *vampiric touch; 
4th—crushing despair, phantasmal killer; 
5th—*cone of cold, dimensional anchor, mind fog*.


----------



## freyar (Dec 9, 2010)

Looks pretty good from here!  What's next for this?


----------



## Shade (Dec 9, 2010)

Skills: 89 ranks (+8 racial bonus on Hide, Listen, Search, and Spot checks)

Feats: Scribe Scroll (B), 5 more plus 2 wizard bonus feats and 1 human bonus feat


----------



## freyar (Dec 10, 2010)

16 ranks each in Concentration, Knowledge (arcana), Spellcraft, Listen, Spot, maybe some crafts if we want him to have Craft feats.  Metamagic is less useful with the loss of 4 CLs.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 11, 2010)

Shade said:


> Updated.
> 
> Some suggestions (in bold) to finish up the list):
> 
> ...




It has one too many 5th level spells and one too few 4th level spells.

I like the selection except for _cone of cold_. I would prefer _dominate person_ or _magic jar_. Preferably _magic jar._

For the extra 4th level spell I fancy one of _bestow curse_, _black tentacles_, _charm monster_ or _enervation_. They all have their good points, but I'm leaning towards _black tentacles_ since it'd let the wizard "tie down" its foes.

So I'm suggesting:

Wizard Spells Prepared (4/5/5/4/3/2; save DC 13 + spell level). 
0—*detect magic*, ghost sound, *prestidigitation*, touch of fatigue; 
1st—chill touch, *magic missile, ray of enfeeblement (2), reduce person*; 
2nd—false life, *gust of wind, hideous laughter, *scare, spectral hand; 
3rd—*dispel magic, ray of exhaustion, slow, *vampiric touch; 
4th—_*black tentacles*_, crushing despair, phantasmal killer; 
5th—*magic jar, mind fog*.


----------



## freyar (Dec 13, 2010)

Thta seems good, too.  I'm glad someone's reading this carefully.


----------



## Shade (Dec 14, 2010)

Looks good!  Updated.

Cleon - Thoughts on this?



Shade said:


> Skills: 89 ranks (+8 racial bonus on Hide, Listen, Search, and Spot checks)
> 
> Feats: Scribe Scroll (B), 5 more plus 2 wizard bonus feats and 1 human bonus feat






freyar said:


> 16 ranks each in Concentration, Knowledge (arcana), Spellcraft, Listen, Spot, maybe some crafts if we want him to have Craft feats.  Metamagic is less useful with the loss of 4 CLs.


----------



## freyar (Dec 14, 2010)

Well, the skills I've listed get us to 80 ranks.  How about we put the last 9 in Craft (weaponsmithing) and give it Craft Magic Arms and Armor for a feat?


----------



## Shade (Dec 15, 2010)

freyar said:


> Well, the skills I've listed get us to 80 ranks.  How about we put the last 9 in Craft (weaponsmithing) and give it Craft Magic Arms and Armor for a feat?




Sure.  What other feats?


----------



## Cleon (Dec 15, 2010)

Shade said:


> Sure.  What other feats?




Combat Casting? Spell Focus? (maybe with Greater Spell Focus too?) Spell Penetration?

Reach Spell? That gives it an irremovable ranged touch ability with its touch spells, a nasty surprise to someone who dispels its _spectral hand_.

Any of the above would be OK.


----------



## freyar (Dec 15, 2010)

Spell Focus (necromancy), Eschew Materials, Silent Spell, ???

One thought.  The way we have the Spells entry worded could be construed to mean that a spectral wizard can cast all the spells, even of higher level than its CL allows, just using the lower CL for the numerical variables of the spell.  So a 13th level spectral wizard as in the example could cast 7th level spells but only at 10th CL.  We might add something like, "The spectral wizard's spells known/spells per day progression follows that of a caster three levels lower."  Or something.


----------



## Shade (Dec 16, 2010)

Cleon said:


> Reach Spell? That gives it an irremovable ranged touch ability with its touch spells, a nasty surprise to someone who dispels its _spectral hand_.




Is that in the SRD?  I can't find it, but I seem to remember having this discussion before...



freyar said:


> One thought.  The way we have the Spells entry worded could be construed to mean that a spectral wizard can cast all the spells, even of higher level than its CL allows, just using the lower CL for the numerical variables of the spell.  So a 13th level spectral wizard as in the example could cast 7th level spells but only at 10th CL.  We might add something like, "The spectral wizard's spells known/spells per day progression follows that of a caster three levels lower."  Or something.




Good point.  I'll add the clarification.


----------



## freyar (Dec 16, 2010)

Reach Spell is in the divine section of the SRD.  One point against it is that it takes a spell slot 2 levels higher, which reduces the utility a bit with the CL loss from the template.


----------



## Shade (Dec 16, 2010)

OK, let's use it.

I just realized that the skills you suggested upthread won't work...Listen and Spot are both cross-class for wizards.  Give 'em half ranks in each?


----------



## Cleon (Dec 17, 2010)

Shade said:


> OK, let's use it.
> 
> I just realized that the skills you suggested upthread won't work...Listen and Spot are both cross-class for wizards.  Give 'em half ranks in each?




Good point!

Just give it 1 rank apiece in Spot and Listen and invest the rest in class skills.

Knowledge (religion) so it knows about Undead?

Craft (alchemy)?

Decipher Script?


----------



## Shade (Dec 17, 2010)

Combining everyone's suggestions (and throwing in one feat of my own), how about:

Skills: Craft (alchemy) 5, Craft (weaponsmithing) 10, Concentration 16, Decipher Script 5, Knowledge (arcana) 16, Knowledge (religion) 10, Spellcraft 16, Listen 1, Spot 1

Feats:  Combat Casting, Eschew Materials, Greater Spell Focus (necromancy), Reach Spell, Repeat Spell, Scribe Scroll (B), Silent Spell, Spell Focus (necromancy), Spell Penetration


----------



## Cleon (Dec 17, 2010)

Shade said:


> Combining everyone's suggestions (and throwing in one feat of my own), how about:
> 
> Skills: Craft (alchemy) 5, Craft (weaponsmithing) 10, Concentration 16, Decipher Script 5, Knowledge (arcana) 16, Knowledge (religion) 10, Spellcraft 16, Listen 1, Spot 1




Why is weaponsmithing twice the ranks of alchemy? I'd think they'd be more equal be.

For that matter, what are we giving them weaponsmithing for? 

I'd rather cut the weapon crafting in favour of knowledge of the planes, e.g.:

*Skills Ranks:* Craft (alchemy) 5, Concentration 16,  Decipher Script 5, Knowledge (arcana) 16, Knowledge (religion) 10, Knowledge (the planes) 10, Spellcraft 16, Listen 1, Spot 1



Shade said:


> Feats:  Combat Casting, Eschew Materials, Greater Spell Focus (necromancy), Reach Spell, Repeat Spell, Scribe Scroll (B), Silent Spell, Spell Focus (necromancy), Spell Penetration




Feats look fine to me.


----------



## freyar (Dec 18, 2010)

I thought we were including Craft Magic Arms and Armor, which was why the weaponsmithing was there.  If we do that, I'd prefer Shade's skill list, though I'm ok with dropping Listen and Spot to free up ranks for something else.  I'd also prefer dropping alchemy in favor of Know (the planes) if we're keeping the item crafting feat (which seems more interesting than Spell Penetration).


----------



## Shade (Dec 20, 2010)

I'd prefer to drop both crafts and the item creation feats.


----------



## freyar (Dec 20, 2010)

And here I was hoping to give them a reason to corporealize.  Ok, ok, you win. What else?


----------



## Shade (Dec 21, 2010)

I'm sure they can still find reasons to corporealize.  In fact, lets throw a few of those reclaimed ranks into Use Magic Device, since it gets nice synergy bonuses from other skills, but can't use it untrained.

Updated.   Do we want to revise the spell list to account for the metamagic feats?


----------



## Cleon (Dec 22, 2010)

Shade said:


> I'm sure they can still find reasons to corporealize.  In fact, lets throw a few of those reclaimed ranks into Use Magic Device, since it gets nice synergy bonuses from other skills, but can't use it untrained.




Use Magic Device is a good idea.



Shade said:


> Updated.   Do we want to revise the spell list to account for the metamagic feats?




Well there wouldn't be much point giving them those feats if they don't get used. Let's see what we've got...


...You know, I really like the spells as they are. Maybe we should swap those metamagic feats for something else?


----------



## freyar (Dec 22, 2010)

Any other suggestions on feats?  Reach on vampiric touch might be fun.


----------



## Shade (Dec 22, 2010)

Yeah, it is.  I like the spell list except _magic jar_.  How about we keep Reach Spell, give it a reach _vampiric touch_ at 5th-level, and swap out Repeat Spell and Silent Spell with Spell Focus (enchantment) and Greater Spell Focus (enchantment)?


----------



## Cleon (Dec 22, 2010)

Shade said:


> Yeah, it is.  I like the spell list except _magic jar_.  How about we keep Reach Spell, give it a reach _vampiric touch_ at 5th-level, and swap out Repeat Spell and Silent Spell with Spell Focus (enchantment) and Greater Spell Focus (enchantment)?




The problem is it can just cast _spectral hand_ and get a 230 foot reach on all its touch spells for the duration of the hand (13 minutes), with a +2 bonus on its attack rolls to boot.

Indeed, it's such a useful spell for the spectral wizard I'd consider having it prepare the spell twice or giving it a _wand of spectral hand_.

How about Craft Wand, Spell Focus (enchantment) and Greater Spell Focus (enchantment) instead of Still, Reach and Repeat Spell, give it a _wand of spectral hand_ and swap the _spectral hand _for _touch of idiocy_?

*Feats:* Combat Casting, Craft Wand, Eschew Materials, Greater Spell Focus  (enchantment), Greater Spell Focus  (necromancy), Scribe Scroll (B), Spell Focus  (enchantment), Spell Focus (necromancy), Spell Penetration 
*Treasure:* x plus _wand of spectral hand_

Wizard Spells Prepared (4/5/5/4/3/2; save DC 13 + spell level, necromancy spells DC 15 + spell level). 
0—detect magic, ghost sound, prestidigitation, touch of fatigue; 
1st—chill touch, magic missile, ray of enfeeblement (2), reduce person; 
2nd—false life, gust of wind, hideous laughter, scare, touch of idiocy; 
3rd—dispel magic, ray of exhaustion, slow, vampiric touch; 
4th—black tentacles, crushing despair, phantasmal killer; 
5th—magic jar, mind fog.


----------



## Shade (Dec 22, 2010)

I can go for most of that.  I'd still like to replace magic jar, though.  It just feels like a "cheesy" attempt to become more a full ghost (since it lacks malevolence).  I'd rather it strive to be a bit more distinct, than strive to be similar.  <shrug>


----------



## Cleon (Dec 28, 2010)

Shade said:


> I can go for most of that.  I'd still like to replace magic jar, though.  It just feels like a "cheesy" attempt to become more a full ghost (since it lacks malevolence).  I'd rather it strive to be a bit more distinct, than strive to be similar.  <shrug>




If it bothers you I don't mind changing it.

How about _cloudkill?_ The Spectral Wizard will be immune since it's not living.

Failing that, I always have a fondness for _baleful polymorph_.


----------



## Shade (Dec 28, 2010)

Updated.

Time to figure out CR.  A ghost is +2. The wizard actually loses several spellcasting levels.  Is that enough to offset the gained abilities, giving it a CR adjustment of +0?

A ghost has a LA of +5.  I could see reducing it to +2, since 3 spellcasting levels are lost.  Or maybe +3, due to the better manifestation than a standard ghost.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 30, 2010)

Shade said:


> Updated.
> 
> Time to figure out CR.  A ghost is +2. The wizard actually loses several spellcasting levels.  Is that enough to offset the gained abilities, giving it a CR adjustment of +0?




J'accord, losing three spellcasting levels is worth lowering the CR by 2.



Shade said:


> A ghost has a LA of +5.  I could see reducing it to +2, since 3 spellcasting levels are lost.  Or maybe +3, due to the better manifestation than a standard ghost.




I prefer +3. The ability to "solidly manifest" is *much* more useful.


----------



## Shade (Dec 30, 2010)

Updated.  We still need to figure out the treasure entry, and to put weapons on our sample wizard's attack lines.

Oddly, ghost have treasure "None", despite listing a "Ghostly Equipment" sidebar.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 31, 2010)

Shade said:


> Updated.  We still need to figure out the treasure entry, and to put weapons on our sample wizard's attack lines.
> 
> Oddly, ghost have treasure "None", despite listing a "Ghostly Equipment" sidebar.




The Spectral Wizard has Treasure Type V, which is "any 2" maps and magic items, so how about:

*Treasure:* Double items


----------



## Shade (Jan 4, 2011)

Updated.

Do we need to convert this?



> Create Spectral Wizard (Necromancy)
> 8th-level Wizard Spell
> Range: Touch
> Components: V, S, M
> ...




Or would you prefer to come up with different creation mechanics/origins?


----------



## freyar (Jan 4, 2011)

The update looks pretty good.  

I'd probably rather swap the spell for some comments on "arcane rituals" etc.  Maybe something about sacrificing experience to account for the loss of caster levels.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 5, 2011)

Shade said:


> Updated.
> 
> Do we need to convert this?




I wouldn't bother. Either leave it out or use a standard spell.


----------



## Shade (Jan 5, 2011)

freyar said:


> I'd probably rather swap the spell for some comments on "arcane rituals" etc.  Maybe something about sacrificing experience to account for the loss of caster levels.




That actually makes good sense.


----------



## freyar (Jan 6, 2011)

How about we make the first flavor paragraph

"Spectral wizards are undead creatures who voluntarily entered an eternal unlife to continue their magical pursuits.  This transition requires mysterious rituals and a sacrifice of arcane power to fuel the wizard's unending existence.


----------



## Shade (Jan 6, 2011)

Sounds good.  Updated.  

Suggested weapons for the attack lines?


----------



## freyar (Jan 8, 2011)

How about just a dagger?  +1 shocking or something?


----------



## Cleon (Jan 9, 2011)

freyar said:


> How about just a dagger?  +1 shocking or something?




How about a _+1 ghost touch morningstar_?


----------



## freyar (Jan 10, 2011)

Wizards aren't proficient with morningstars....  Edit: I can see the use of ghost touch, sort of, but it would be weird that it needs to manifest to fight incorporeal critters with a ghost touch weapon!


----------



## Shade (Jan 10, 2011)

freyar said:


> Wizards aren't proficient with morningstars....  Edit: I can see the use of ghost touch, sort of, but it would be weird that it needs to manifest to fight incorporeal critters with a ghost touch weapon!




That would be odd!

It's got 35,000 gp to spend.  How about we combine its melee and ranged weapon into one?   How about a +1 ghost touch returning dagger?  That would total 18,302.

Throw in a headband of intellect +4?


----------



## freyar (Jan 10, 2011)

That works well enough, though I still think ghost touch is a bit weird.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 11, 2011)

Shade said:


> That would be odd!




It's not for attacking other incorporeals. If I remember correctly _ghost touch_ works both ways, allowing an incorporeal creature to attack a corporeal one without any miss change.



Shade said:


> It's got 35,000 gp to spend.  How about we combine its melee and ranged weapon into one?   How about a +1 ghost touch returning dagger?  That would total 18,302.
> 
> Throw in a headband of intellect +4?




Suits me.

Oh, I suggested a morningstar because I thought our sample was a Sorcerer for some reason.


----------



## Shade (Jan 11, 2011)

Updated.

Thanks to the headband, it now gets an additional 1st, 4th, and 5th-level spell.

Do we want to make it a specialist wizard?


----------



## Cleon (Jan 13, 2011)

Shade said:


> Updated.
> 
> Thanks to the headband, it now gets an additional 1st, 4th, and 5th-level spell.
> 
> Do we want to make it a specialist wizard?




I would rather keep it a general-purpose wizard.

How about _mage's private sanctum_, _enervation_ and either _mage armor_ or _shield_ for the additional spells?


----------



## Shade (Jan 13, 2011)

Sounds good.  Updated.   All done?


----------



## Cleon (Jan 13, 2011)

Shade said:


> Sounds good.  Updated.   All done?




Hold on, if it's got a _wand of spectral hand_, does it need a _spectral hand_ spell prepared as well?

Swap it for _ghoul touch_ or _touch of idiocy_?

Shouldn't its incorporeal touch be +5 vs ethereal foes, not +4? (BAB +6 plus -1 for Str 8)

The Manifestation has a "spectral wizards are still etheral" which should be "ethereal".

Save for those quibbles I think hope we're finished.


----------



## Shade (Jan 13, 2011)

Let's go with touch of idiocy.

Updated.  Finished?


----------



## Cleon (Jan 15, 2011)

Shade said:


> Let's go with touch of idiocy.
> 
> Updated.  Finished?




Looks sound.


----------



## freyar (Jan 17, 2011)

It's good, but ghost touch is a waste for the weapon, if you ask me.  This thing can manifest fully and can attack corporeal creatures with normal, material weapons.  And we didn't give it "ghostly equipment."  So the only use would be for it to fully manifest and use the ghost touch weapon to attack incorporeals.  Granted, without the incorporeal equipment, it has no weapons to fight other ethereal critters, but that's what its spells are for!

To put it shortly, I think we should give it a more useful weapon enhancement for attacking material beings.  Like shocking, frost, etc.


----------



## Shade (Jan 18, 2011)

freyar said:


> To put it shortly, I think we should give it a more useful weapon enhancement for attacking material beings.  Like shocking, frost, etc.




You've convinced me.  Any preference on the replacement?  Shock appeals slightly more than frost, simply because undead are often associated with cold so this would be a tad more surprising.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 18, 2011)

Shade said:


> You've convinced me.  Any preference on the replacement?  Shock appeals slightly more than frost, simply because undead are often associated with cold so this would be a tad more surprising.




The surprise might even be a bit of a shock. 

I don't mind swapping out the ghost touch.


----------



## Shade (Jan 18, 2011)

Shockingly updated.


----------



## freyar (Jan 19, 2011)

I'm happy with it.


----------



## Shade (Jan 19, 2011)

Completed in under three months!


----------



## freyar (Jan 20, 2011)

It's just all that salaried stuff causing problems. 

Plus we're into the hard monsters now.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 20, 2011)

Shade said:


> Completed in under three months!




Makes a change!

Couldn't see anything wrong with it, so on to the next!


----------



## Shade (Jan 24, 2011)

*Scathe*
Climate/Terrain: Icy plains 
Frequency: Rare 
Organization: Pack 
Activity Cycle: Night 
Diet: Carnivore (carrion) 
Intelligence: Low (5-7) 
Treasure: Q×5 
Alignment: Chaotic evil 
No. Appearing: 4-16  
Armor Class: 5  
Movement: 1, Skating 24
Hit Dice: 4+4 
THAC0: 15 
No. of Attacks: 3 
Damage/Attack: 1-4/1-4/2-12  
Special Attacks: Poison 
Special Defenses: Camouflage, Spell Immunity 
Magic Resistance: Nil 
Size: M (5’) 
Morale: Very Steady (16) 
XP Value: 975 

*Scathe Larva*
Climate/Terrain: Icy plains 
Frequency: Very rare 
Organization: Nest 
Activity Cycle: Night 
Diet: Carnivore (carrion) 
Intelligence: Non- (0) 
Treasure: Nil 
Alignment: Neutral 
No. Appearing: 2-5 
Armor Class:  9 
Movement: 1 
Hit Dice: 1 
THAC0: 19 
No. of Attacks: 1 
Damage/Attack: 1-6 
Special Attacks: Nil 
Special Defenses: Nil 
Magic Resistance: Nil 
Size: T (1-2’) 
Morale: Fearless (20) 
XP Value: 35 

Scathes are a uniform milky-white in color. Their tough, leathery skin is completely hairless. A thin membrane stretches beteen arm and body, ending at the knee. The claws on their feet are quite long, and curve underneath their feet, serving as natural ice skates. Using their arm membranes as sails, they skate rapidly over desolatc arctic plains.

Scathes have excellent infravision, good to a range of 120’. They also have the ability to sense heat emanations from incredible distances, and can locate a warm-blooded body of human size from as far away as a mile.

Scathes are closely related to harriers, jungle predators which use their arm membranes to glide from trees.

Combat: Scathes are very difficult to detect when they are motionless against a background of ice and snow, giving opponents a -2 penalty on suprise rolls. Even moving, they are difficult to see at night, when they normally hunt. A scathe’s body temperature differs only slightly from that of its surroundings, so infravision is almost useless in detecting them. If other sounds, such as howling winds, hide the sounds of their skates on the ice, their opponents are still -2 on surprise rolls.

Adult scathes hunt in packs. They swoop towards their opponents, using their claws and beaks to attack. If a scathe hits with its beak, there is a 25% chance for a burning poison to be injected into the victim. The poison causes an additional 2-12 points of damage, and the pain will cause victims to make attack rolls with a -2 penalty. A successful saving throw vs. poison will halve the damage and eliminate much of the pain effects, leaving the victim at -1 to attack rolls, up to a maximum of -2 for multiple attacks. The effects of the poison last for 5-20 rounds; during this time stricken opponents cannot benefit from any Dexterity bonuses to their Armor Class.

Scathes are immune to all cold-based spells, and to white dragon breath.

Habitat/Society: These monsters communicate in a rudimentary fashion, using howls and shrieks which others often mistake for the violent arctic winds which whip through the creatures’ terrain. They lair in hollows and ravines in icy plains, roaming in packs throughout the territory. A pack leader is male, as are 1-4 other pack members. Each male has a “harem” of 1-4 females.

Pack leaders change with some regularity. The strongest young scathe challenges the pack leader, and the two fight mercilessly for supremacy, often until both are dead and another scathe steps in to lead the pack. The losers’ females divide themselves among the remaining male scathes.

Mating season occurs once a year. About a month after mating, a female scathe lays 2-12 eggs in a crude nest in the lair. Only 2-5 of the eggs survive predators, accidents, and snacking. These hatch into larvae, voracious monsters which devour any food they can find. A very few larvae, 1-3, survive the two months needed to develop into small, but fully developed, scathes. When the change from larval stage occurs, they immediately become members of the pack.

Scathes have no true society beyond the pack, and there is no evidence of civilization among them.

Ecology: A scathe pack will attack any animal which moves close enough to be detected by them, including large and aggressive creatures such as dragons. They will also eat any available carrion, including dead or severely wounded scathes.

A scathe egg or larva might be worth up to 500 gp to a buyer who wants a vicious, unpredictable guard animal. Scathes are virtually untraceable. They become lethargic if taken to warmer environments.

Larva

Scathe larvae are identical to those of the harrier: small, wormlike creatures with mottled brown skin. They have a well-developed, though toothless, beak when they hatch, and this beak grows and develops as they do. A nearly-mature larva has limbs and other organs visible just under its skin. If enough food is available, the larva matures rapidly, shedding its skin after two months.

Originally appeared in Monstrous Compendium Fiend Folio Appendix (1992).


----------



## freyar (Jan 24, 2011)

I have a feeling that the poison's going to be a real pain (pun intended).  

I'd guess monstrous humanoid or maybe aberration, though we should check what harriers are (actually, Echohawk doesn't seem to have a conversion listed for them).


----------



## Cleon (Jan 25, 2011)

freyar said:


> I have a feeling that the poison's going to be a real pain (pun intended).




We could just use some Constitution damage plus the sickened condition.



freyar said:


> I'd guess monstrous humanoid or maybe aberration, though we should check what harriers are (actually, Echohawk doesn't seem to have a conversion listed for them).




Monstrous Humanoid seems the best fit. The Harriers they're closely related to "appear basically humanoid".

They're immune to cold-based spells but don't take extra damage from fire, so I'm against the Cold subtype.

As well as the poison, we've got a fair number of abilities to think about:

"Camouflage" (racial bonus to Hide checks in snowy environs will do, I think)

"Spell Immunity" plus immunity to white dragon's breath says Immunity to Cold to me.

"Skates & Sails" - increased move on ice, especially with the wind in their favour.

"Lethargic in Warm Environments" - sickened if they spend more than X minutes in a temperature above X degrees?

Statwise I think we could start with a Gargoyle, which has similar AC, HD, size and intelligence.

*Scathe:* Monstrous Humanoid, Str 15, Dex 14, Con 18, Int 6, Wis 11, Cha 7, NA +3, claw 1d4, bite 2d6, immunity to cold


----------



## Shade (Jan 25, 2011)

For the skating, we could use the alcor as a foundation...

Downhill Charge (Ex): When an alcor makes a charge while skiing downhill, its attack deals double damage in addition to the normal benefits and hazards of a charge. 

Skiing (Ex): By balancing itself on its large, flat tail, the alcor can glide rapidly across snow and ice while moving downhill. It can move as a run (x4) on slight grades (less than 45 degrees) or as a run (x5) on severe grades (45 degrees or more).


----------



## freyar (Jan 26, 2011)

I like all those ideas from you both.


----------



## Shade (Jan 26, 2011)

Added to Homebrews.

Essentially, we'll need to take the alcor abilities and include movement on flat surfaces using the wind.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 28, 2011)

Shade said:


> For the skating, we could use the alcor as a foundation...
> 
> Downhill Charge (Ex): When an alcor makes a charge while skiing downhill, its attack deals double damage in addition to the normal benefits and hazards of a charge.
> 
> Skiing (Ex): By balancing itself on its large, flat tail, the alcor can glide rapidly across snow and ice while moving downhill. It can move as a run (x4) on slight grades (less than 45 degrees) or as a run (x5) on severe grades (45 degrees or more).




Something like this?:

*Windskating (Ex):* By balancing on its long foot-claws, a scathe can skate across smooth, level ice or snow at a speed of 30 ft. If the icy surface slopes downwards it can move 10 ft. faster (40 ft.) on slight grades (less than 30 degrees), 20 ft. faster (50 ft.) on moderate grades (30 to 45 degrees) and 30 ft. faster (60 ft.) on severe grades (45 to 60 degrees). It cannot skate safely on grades of 60 degrees or steeper. The scathe travels at its normal *10 ft.?* land speed when moving up icy slopes.

Furthermore, a scathe can spread its arm-membranes like sails to travel faster in the direction of the wind. It can move at a speed 10 ft. faster in a light wind, 20 ft. faster in a moderate wind, 30 ft. faster in a strong wind and 50 ft. faster in a severe or stronger wind. Scathes can sail in winds stronger than severe, but must make Fortitude saves to avoid being knocked down or blown away as per the Surroundings, Weather & Environment rules.

The speed increases for slope and wind are cumulative, so a scathe can windskate down a slight grade at 60 ft. with a moderate wind (its base 30 ft. skating speed plus 10 ft. for the slope and 20 ft. for the wind).


----------



## Shade (Jan 28, 2011)

Very, very nice!

Updated.

Shall we borrow the Downhill Charge ability as well?


----------



## Cleon (Jan 29, 2011)

Shade said:


> Very, very nice!
> 
> Updated.
> 
> Shall we borrow the Downhill Charge ability as well?




Sure, except I'd modify it to allow for "wind-driven" speed increases too.

*Windskating Charge (Ex):* When a windskating scathe makes a charge attack at a speed of 50 ft. or higher, its bite attack deals double damage (triple on a confirmed critical), in addition to the normal  benefits and hazards of a charge.

EDIT: I had another idea - we could vary the damage according to the speed.

*Windskating Charge (Ex) #2:* When a windskating scathe makes a charge  attack, its bite attack deals an additional 1d6 damage for every 30 ft. of speed it is travelling, in addition to the normal  benefits and hazards of a charge. If a scathe scores a confirmed critical with a windskating charge it does 4d6 damage plus triple its Strength bonus plus 1d6 damage per 30 ft. of speed.


----------



## freyar (Jan 29, 2011)

I like the idea of option #2, but I think the implementation of #1 is cleaner.  And it fits better with abilities like powerful charge.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 30, 2011)

freyar said:


> I like the idea of option #2, but I think the implementation of #1 is cleaner.  And it fits better with abilities like powerful charge.




Well we could combine the scaling of #2 with the wording of #1 to create option #3:

*Windskating Charge (Ex) #3:* When a windskating scathe makes a  charge  attack at a speed of 30 ft. or higher, its bite attack deals double damage (triple on a confirmed critical),  in addition to the normal  benefits and hazards of a charge. If it charges at a speed of 60 ft. or higher its bite does triple damage (quadruple on a critical).


----------



## freyar (Feb 1, 2011)

That works better.  Sure, let's go for it (whenever Shade gets back).


----------



## Cleon (Feb 3, 2011)

freyar said:


> That works better.  Sure, let's go for it (whenever Shade gets back).




Fine by me.

When is Shade getting back, anyway?


----------



## Shade (Feb 4, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Fine by me.
> 
> When is Shade getting back, anyway?




Right about...now.  

Updated.


----------



## Cleon (Feb 4, 2011)

Shade said:


> Right about...now.
> 
> Updated.




For some reason I feel an eerie musical accompaniment would have been appropriate...

The scathe's version of camouflage seems more like a racial bonus to Hide checks when in snowy terrain than the Camouflage Special Quality.

Should we do something about their "super infravision" which allows them to see a human's body-heat up to a mile away?


----------



## Shade (Feb 7, 2011)

Cleon said:


> For some reason I feel an eerie musical accompaniment would have been appropriate...




You couldn't hear it?  



Cleon said:


> The scathe's version of camouflage seems more like a racial bonus to Hide checks when in snowy terrain than the Camouflage Special Quality.




Agreed.



Cleon said:


> Should we do something about their "super infravision" which allows them to see a human's body-heat up to a mile away?




Superior low-light vision would suit me.


----------



## freyar (Feb 8, 2011)

Agreed to all that.


----------



## Shade (Feb 8, 2011)

Updated.



> Adult scathes hunt in packs. They swoop towards their opponents, using their claws and beaks to attack.




Skills: 7 ranks
Hide, Listen, Spot?

Feats: 2
Multiattack, Stealthy?


----------



## Cleon (Feb 9, 2011)

Shade said:


> Updated.
> 
> Skills: 7 ranks
> Hide, Listen, Spot?




If we're giving them a racial bonus in Hide (and maybe Move Silently?) in snowy terrain we don't need to invest much in Hide, so I suggest ranks of Hide 1, Listen 3, Spot 3.



Shade said:


> Feats: 2
> Multiattack, Stealthy?




No need for Stealthy, how about Multiattack and Combat Reflexes or Reckless Offense?

Reckless Offense seems appropriate to a monster that will attack any creature they encounter, even a dragon!


----------



## Cleon (Feb 9, 2011)

I'm thinking something like this:

*Full Attack:* 2 claws +6 melee (1d4+2) and bite +4 melee (2d6+1)
*Feats:* Multiattack, Reckless Offense
*Skills:* Hide +3*, Listen +3, Move Silently +2*, Spot +3

*Skills:* A scathe's milky-white skin and whisper-smooth sky-claws give it a +6 racial bonus on Hide and Move Silently checks when in snowy or icy terrain.


----------



## Shade (Feb 9, 2011)

Updated.

Did we work on the poison yet?



> If a scathe hits with its beak, there is a 25% chance for a burning poison to be injected into the victim. The poison causes an additional 2-12 points of damage, and the pain will cause victims to make attack rolls with a -2 penalty. A successful saving throw vs. poison will halve the damage and eliminate much of the pain effects, leaving the victim at -1 to attack rolls, up to a maximum of -2 for multiple attacks. The effects of the poison last for 5-20 rounds; during this time stricken opponents cannot benefit from any Dexterity bonuses to their Armor Class.


----------



## freyar (Feb 10, 2011)

I don't recall doing that.  Con damage plus something based on symbol of pain again?  Or Con plus a condition that denies you Dex to AC?


----------



## Shade (Feb 10, 2011)

I'd lean toward both.

I can't find any appropriate conditions that result in a loss of Dex bonus to AC (blinded, cowering, and stunned all don't fit here), so we may just have to spell it out.

It could be based on "grogginess".


----------



## Cleon (Feb 11, 2011)

freyar said:


> I don't recall doing that.  Con damage plus something based on symbol of pain again?  Or Con plus a condition that denies you Dex to AC?




We could modify the scorpionfish or fish-scorpion's poison. They seem pretty similar:

*Scorpionfish
Poison (Ex):* Injury (spines), Fortitude DC 11; initial damage agonizing pain equal to a symbol of pain (-4 penalty on attack rolls, skill checks, and ability checks) for 2d6 minutes; secondary damage agonizing pain for 1d4 hours plus 1d4 Con damage. The save DC is Constitution-based.

*Fish-Scorpion**
Poison (Ex):* Injury (spines or sting), Fortitude DC 13; initial damage agonizing pain (-4 penalty on attack rolls, skill checks, and ability checks) for 2d6 minutes plus 1d3 Con damage; secondary damage agonizing pain for 1d4 hours plus 1 Con damage. The save DC is Constitution-based.

So, something like:

*Scathe **Poison (Ex) #1:* Injury (bite), Fortitude DC 16; initial  damage distracting pain (-1 penalty on attack rolls, skill checks, and  ability checks) for 1d6 minutes plus 1d3 Con damage; secondary damage severe pain (-2 penalty on attack rolls, skill checks, and  ability checks) for 5d4 minutes plus 1d3 Con damage. The save DC is  Constitution-based.

The original description says the poison denies Dexterity bonuses, but  making them flat-footed for the duration seems unduly harsh. How about a  penalty to AC?

*Scathe **Poison (Ex) #2:* Injury (bite), Fortitude DC 16; initial  damage distracting pain (-1 penalty on attack rolls, armor class, skill checks, and  ability checks) for 1d6 minutes plus 1d3 Con damage; secondary damage severe pain (-2 penalty on attack rolls, armor class, skill checks, and  ability checks) for 5d4 minutes plus 1d3 Con damage. The save DC is  Constitution-based.

Do we want to include something to reflect the way two -1 pain penalties add to a -2 penalty in the original? Adding "The pain penalties from multiple scathe poison attacks stack, to a maximum of X." would seem to cover it, with X = -2 if we use the original penalty, or X = -4 if we use the scorpionfish's?

*Scathe **Poison (Ex) #3:* Injury (bite), Fortitude DC 16; initial  damage distracting pain (-1 penalty on attack rolls, armor class, skill  checks, and  ability checks) for 1d6 minutes plus 1d3 Con damage; secondary damage  severe pain (-2 penalty on attack rolls, armor class, skill checks, and  ability checks) for 5d4 minutes plus 1d3 Con damage. The pain penalties from multiple scathe poison attacks stack, to a maximum of -4. The save DC is  Constitution-based.


----------



## Shade (Feb 11, 2011)

#3 seems reasonable, if a bit wordy.


----------



## Cleon (Feb 11, 2011)

Shade said:


> #3 seems reasonable, if a bit wordy.




Better wordy than obscure.

There is room to cut a few words out...

*Scathe **Poison (Ex):* Injury (bite), Fortitude DC  16; initial  damage 1d3 Con  damage plus 1d6 minutes of distracting pain (-1 penalty on attacks, armor  class, skill  and  ability checks); secondary damage  1d3 Con  damage plus severe pain (as distracting pain but -2 penalty) for 5d4 minutes. Penalties from multiple scathe poison attacks stack, to  a maximum of -4. The save DC is  Constitution-based.

That's only 10 fewer words, though.


----------



## Shade (Feb 11, 2011)

Good enough!

Updated.

Organization: Solitary, pack (3-9), or nest (1-2 plus 2-5 larvae)?

Challenge Rating: 3?

Alignment: Usually neutral?

Advancement: x

Level Adjustment: +3?

A scathe is 5 feet tall and weighs x pounds.


----------



## Cleon (Feb 12, 2011)

Shade said:


> Good enough!
> 
> Updated.
> 
> Organization: Solitary, pack (3-9), or nest (1-2 plus 2-5 larvae)?




MC14 says their No. Appearing should be 4-16.

It's 2-5 larvae _per nest_. Assuming half a pack are female there could be up to 8 or so nest, so I think organization should be something like:

Organization: Solitary, pack (4-16), or colony (4-16 plus 4-40 larvae)



Shade said:


> Challenge Rating: 3?
> 
> Alignment: Usually neutral?
> 
> ...




That looks OK.

Advancement: 5-8 HD (Medium?)

They're 5 foot tall humanoids who are related to gliding creatures, so I would guess they're fairly light - 120 pounds?


----------



## Cleon (Feb 12, 2011)

Oh, one more thing. The original scathe had 120' infravision, so how about increasing darkvision to 120 ft.?

Secondly, the scathe was almost invisible to infravision, so how about making it difficult to see with darkvision?


----------



## Shade (Feb 14, 2011)

Cleon said:


> MC14 says their No. Appearing should be 4-16.
> 
> It's 2-5 larvae _per nest_. Assuming half a pack are female there could be up to 8 or so nest, so I think organization should be something like:
> 
> Organization: Solitary, pack (4-16), or colony (4-16 plus 4-40 larvae)




I like.



Cleon said:


> Advancement: 5-8 HD (Medium?)




Sure.



Cleon said:


> They're 5 foot tall humanoids who are related to gliding creatures, so I would guess they're fairly light - 120 pounds?




That makes sense.



Cleon said:


> Oh, one more thing. The original scathe had 120' infravision, so how about increasing darkvision to 120 ft.?




Agreed.  Updated.



Cleon said:


> Secondly, the scathe was almost invisible to infravision, so how about making it difficult to see with darkvision?




I'd rather not, since darkvision does not simply equal "updated infravision".


----------



## Cleon (Feb 15, 2011)

Shade said:


> I'd rather not, since darkvision does not simply equal "updated infravision".




Spoilsport, it seemed an interesting SQ.

I'm giving it to my version and there's nothing you can do to stop me!


----------



## Shade (Feb 15, 2011)

I wouldn't dream of stopping a Cleon Special (TM) in progress!

So, are we finished with the scathes?

EDIT:  Ooops...forgot the larva!

*Scathe Larva*
Climate/Terrain: Icy plains 
Frequency: Very rare 
Organization: Nest 
Activity Cycle: Night 
Diet: Carnivore (carrion) 
Intelligence: Non- (0) 
Treasure: Nil 
Alignment: Neutral 
No. Appearing: 2-5 
Armor Class:  9 
Movement: 1 
Hit Dice: 1 
THAC0: 19 
No. of Attacks: 1 
Damage/Attack: 1-6 
Special Attacks: Nil 
Special Defenses: Nil 
Magic Resistance: Nil 
Size: T (1-2’) 
Morale: Fearless (20) 
XP Value: 35 

Scathe larvae are identical to those of the harrier: small, wormlike creatures with mottled brown skin. They have a well-developed, though toothless, beak when they hatch, and this beak grows and develops as they do. A nearly-mature larva has limbs and other organs visible just under its skin. If enough food is available, the larva matures rapidly, shedding its skin after two months.


----------



## freyar (Feb 16, 2011)

Sort of reminds me of neogi.

Uhh, 1HD, Tiny.  I guess they still have average-ish Str based on the damage, and I'd expect Con to be ok.  Dex is probably low-ish, and mental scores should be -, 10, 11 or so.  Anything else?


----------



## Cleon (Feb 16, 2011)

freyar said:


> Sort of reminds me of neogi.
> 
> Uhh, 1HD, Tiny.  I guess they still have average-ish Str based on the damage, and I'd expect Con to be ok.  Dex is probably low-ish, and mental scores should be -, 10, 11 or so.  Anything else?




That's pretty much my thinking too.

The original AC translates to AC11 in 3E terms, which says a -1 Dex penalty and no natural armour to me (allowing for their Tiny size adjustment).

Str 10, Dex 8, Con 14, Int --, Wis 11, Cha 3 ?


----------



## freyar (Feb 17, 2011)

That would work for me, and I wouldn't object to a more average Cha, either way.  Just slap on the bite and appropriate movement, and it's good to go.  No special abilities, I think.


----------



## Shade (Feb 17, 2011)

Updated.

Drop the superior senses?  

CR 1/2?


----------



## freyar (Feb 18, 2011)

I guess I'd let them keep darkvision (maybe cut down to 60 ft like a regular monstrous humanoid) and maybe normal low-light vision.  But, no, I don't think they need the full-blown senses of the adults.


----------



## Shade (Feb 18, 2011)

freyar said:


> I guess I'd let them keep darkvision (maybe cut down to 60 ft like a regular monstrous humanoid) and maybe normal low-light vision.  But, no, I don't think they need the full-blown senses of the adults.




That's what I was thinking as well.  Updated.

CR 1/2 OK?


----------



## freyar (Feb 18, 2011)

Seems about right.


----------



## Cleon (Feb 19, 2011)

Shade said:


> That's what I was thinking as well.  Updated.
> 
> CR 1/2 OK?




Too high methinks.

A Dire Rat is 1/3 with much better AC, saves and speed. The scathe larva does more damage with its bite, but it's so slow it'll have trouble applying it.

1/4, or possibly 1/3, would suit me better.


----------



## Shade (Feb 21, 2011)

1/4 is fine.  Updated.


----------



## Cleon (Feb 22, 2011)

Shade said:


> 1/4 is fine.  Updated.




The scathe description is missing a "w" in "_A thin membrane stretches *beteen*"_.

I think the larva should have a different organization, since they're found in nests I doubt a single larva would normally be encountered wandering about:

*Organization:* Nest (2-5 plus 1 scathe) or colony (4-40 plus 4-16 scathes)

I also wondered whether the larva have the same Hide and MS bonus in snow terrain like the adults (which would give them *Skills:* Hide +7*, Move Silently -1*), but they're mottled brown grubs so I would assume not.


----------



## Shade (Feb 23, 2011)

Updated.

Since they're so similar...

*Harrier*
Climate/Terrain: Jungle 
Frequency: Very rare 
Organization: Solitary 
Activity Cycle: Night 
Diet: Carnivore (carrion)  
Intelligence: Low (5-7)  
Treasure: Nil 
Alignment: Neutral evil 
No. Appearing: 1-2  
Armor Class: 6  
Movement: 3, gliding 12  
Hit Dice: 7+7  
THAC0: 13 
No. of Attacks: 3  
Damage/Attack: 2-5/2-5/2-12 
Special Attacks: Poison, rear claws 2-5 each 
Special Defenses: Camouflage, spell immunity 
Magic Resistance: Nil 
Size: M (4’ long) 
Morale: Fanatic (18) 
XP Value: 4,000 

*Harrier Larva* 
Climate/Terrain: Jungle 
Frequency: Very rare 
Organization: Nest 
Activity Cycle: Night 
Diet: Carnivore (carrion) 
Intelligence: Non (0) 
Treasure: Nil 
Alignment: Evil 
No. Appearing:2-5 
Armor Class: 9 
Movement: 1 
Hit Dice: 1 
THAC0: 19 
No. of Attacks: 1 
Damage/Attack: 1-6 
Special Attacks: Nil 
Special Defenses: Nil 
Magic Resistance: Nil 
Size: T (1-2’ long) 
Morale: Fearless (20) 
XP Value: 35 

Harriers appear basically humanoid. They have two arms, two legs, and one head. They have somewhat pointed ears, glowing red eyes, and vicious beaks with sharp needle-like teeth spaced around the edges. Their beaks and their leathery skin are mottled green in color. They have no hair.

A thin membrane stretches between arm and body, ending at the knee. Their hands and feet have sharp claws, which are used for climbing trees as well as for combat. Using their arm-membranes as rudimentary wings, harriers glide from treetops to attack their prey. These foul creatures fortunately inhabit only the hottest jungle environments.

Combat: When motionless and against a background of green jungle foliage, harriers blend in well. In this case, opponents receive a -2 penalty to surprise rolls. Harriers attack by swooping quickly toward opponents and using their claws and beak. A beak hit has a 25% chance to inject a burning poison. This poison causes an additional 2-12 points of damage for one round. The pain results in the victim attacking with a -2 penalty. While the poison is in effect, Dexterity adjustments to Armor Class no longer apply. A saving throw reduces the damage to half and eliminates most pain effects, reducing the victim’s attack penalty to -1. The effects of the poison last for 5-20 rounds after it is injected.

If a harrier hits with both its front claws, it attaches itself to its victim, and brings its rear claws to bear. Each rear claw causes 2-5 points of damage with a successful hit. Once the harrier has attached itself to a victim, it becomes difficult to dislodge, requiring the victim to make a successful Strength check to do so. While attached, the harrier automatically causes 1-3 points of damage per front claw per round. It addition, it receives a +2 bonus to attacks when it uses its beak and rear claws on a victim to which it is attached.

Dislodging the creature causes 2-5 points of damage per front claw. This damage applies even after the creature is killed, unless the victim spends one full round to remove each claw.

A harrier is immune to heat and fire-based spells.

Habitat/Society: Harriers have no formal society, meeting only for short periods for courtship rituals and mating. A female harrier lays 2-8 eggs about three weeks after mating. She digs shallow pits for nests, dividing the eggs into two or three groups located several feet apart. Predators, including adult harriers, prevent most of the eggs from hatching into larvae. A month after the eggs are laid, 2-5 larvae hatch and begin to forage on their own. Only 1-2 live to mature into harriers.

Ecology: The harrier is a vicious predator that attacks any living animal it sees, including large and aggressive creatures such as dragons. When live prey is scarce, they scavenge for food, eating any type of carrion, including their own dead. They have no natural predators, but have several enemies in the jungle.

A harrier egg could bring up to 1,000 gold pieces from the right buyer. A young harrier can be trained to recognize a master who feeds it during its larval stage. To fully train the creature and become recognizable to it, the master must spend at least an hour each day with the creature as it matures. Because parental care is not natural for the harrier, however, a harrier cannot be trained to do anything except recognize its master. Even then, the harrier is dangerous and somewhat unpredictable. Once it has been placed somewhere as a guard animal, it guards that area to its death.

Larva

Harrier larvae are small, worm-like creatures with a transluscent, mottled brown skin. They hatch with a welldeveloped, toothless beak, which grows and develops as the larva does. A nearly mature larva has limbs and other organs visible just under its skin. The larva matures rapidly if enough food is available, shedding its skin after two months and emerging as a small, but fully-developed harrier.

Originally appeared in Monstrous Compendium Forgotten Realms Appendix (1991)


----------



## freyar (Feb 25, 2011)

Well, I'd say base these off the scathes, then.  Do we have a "glide" ability for that limited kind of flight, or just go with clumsy maneuverability?  Looks like imp grab plus rake plus maybe gnaw.   Follow the scathe poison but maybe change the Con damage to Dex?


----------



## Shade (Feb 25, 2011)

We've borrowed this before...

Gliding: A hadozee can use its wings to glide, negating any damage from a fall of any height and allowing travel 20 feet horizontally for every 5 feet of descent. A hadozee glides at a speed of 40 feet (poor maneuverability).


----------



## freyar (Feb 26, 2011)

Perfect!


----------



## Cleon (Feb 28, 2011)

Shade said:


> We've borrowed this before...
> 
> Gliding: A hadozee can use its wings to glide, negating any damage from a fall of any height and allowing travel 20 feet horizontally for every 5 feet of descent. A hadozee glides at a speed of 40 feet (poor maneuverability).




That'll do fine.

Apart from immunity to fire and the different movement forms, are their any other significant differences.

The SQ has "Camouflage" but I can't see this explained in the text. Presumably a surprise-boost like the Scathe has.


----------



## Shade (Feb 28, 2011)

The harrier has 3 more Hit Dice, but does less damage with its claws.  So it presumably has slightly lower Str (2 less than scathe?).   Con is probably the same, as both have the same "bonus hit points" as their HD.  The harrier's AC is also one worse.  I'd recommend less natural armor rather than lowering Dex.

Thus:  Str 13, Dex 14, Con 18, Int 6, Wis 11, Cha 7, +2 natural?


----------



## freyar (Mar 3, 2011)

The camo abilitiy is this: "When motionless and against a background of green jungle foliage, harriers blend in well. In this case, opponents receive a -2 penalty to surprise rolls."  I'd just give them a racial bonus to Hide in foliage or whatever.

Shade's abilities look fine.

Thoughts on poison?


----------



## Cleon (Mar 7, 2011)

Shade said:


> The harrier has 3 more Hit Dice, but does less damage with its claws.  So it presumably has slightly lower Str (2 less than scathe?).   Con is probably the same, as both have the same "bonus hit points" as their HD.  The harrier's AC is also one worse.  I'd recommend less natural armor rather than lowering Dex.
> 
> Thus:  Str 13, Dex 14, Con 18, Int 6, Wis 11, Cha 7, +2 natural?




Pardon? Haven't you got that the wrong way round.

The MC13 Scathe does 1-4 claw damage, less than the 2-5 a Harrier does.

I'd give it 2 points *more* strength than a Scathe.

Agree to dropping the NA though.

In other words:

 Str 17, Dex 14, Con 18, Int 6, Wis 11, Cha 7, +2 natural


----------



## Cleon (Mar 7, 2011)

freyar said:


> The camo abilitiy is this: "When motionless and against a background of green jungle foliage, harriers blend in well. In this case, opponents receive a -2 penalty to surprise rolls."  I'd just give them a racial bonus to Hide in foliage or whatever.




A racial bonus is fine by me.



freyar said:


> Thoughts on poison?




Just give them the same poison as the Scathe. Its effects are practically the same.


----------



## freyar (Mar 7, 2011)

Fair enough on everything.  Agreed.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 8, 2011)

freyar said:


> Fair enough on everything.  Agreed.




OK!

I think we ought to wait for Shade to start a Homebrew with what we've got so far.


----------



## Shade (Mar 8, 2011)

Added to Homebrews.


----------



## freyar (Mar 11, 2011)

Looks pretty good!  Put the remaining three ranks in Hide, I think.  And make the last feat Flyby Attack, if we think gliding lets it qualify.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 11, 2011)

freyar said:


> Looks pretty good!  Put the remaining three ranks in Hide, I think.  And make the last feat Flyby Attack, if we think gliding lets it qualify.




I'd prefer 1 rank in Hide and 2 in Move Silently.

Flyby Attack doesn't suit me very well. They seem more the "leap and let rip" than the "dash, slash & flee" type. I would prefer Weapon Focus (claw) or Power Attack, probably the latter.

Oh, and its bite should be +8 melee due to its Multiattack, not +5 melee.


----------



## Shade (Mar 11, 2011)

PA is desirable.

Updated.

Challenge Rating: x

Advancement: 8-14 HD (Medium)?

Level Adjustment: +3?

A harrier is slightly over 4 feet tall and weighs x pounds.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 12, 2011)

Shade said:


> PA is desirable.
> 
> Updated.
> 
> ...




Challenge Rating 4 and +3 LA?

The Scathe's Advancement is only 5-8 HD, so I was thinking more 8-12 HD (Medium) for the Harrier.

The MC11 entry says Harrier's are 4 feet *long*, not tall. That's a bit odd for a humanoid creature. Maybe they spend most of their time bent over, but would be taller if they were to stand fully erect?

Anyhow, how about giving them the same weight as their cousins the Scathe: 120 pounds.


----------



## Shade (Mar 14, 2011)

Updated.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 14, 2011)

Shade said:


> Updated.




The Claws should be 1d4+3 and the Rakes 1d4+1, due to their Strength 17.

Oh, and if they're arboreal they ought to be able to Climb trees!

Give them a 10 ft. Climb speed with Climb +11 in skills and the standard racial bonuses?


----------



## Shade (Mar 14, 2011)

Cleon said:


> The Claws should be 1d4+3 and the Rakes 1d4+1, due to their Strength 17.
> 
> Oh, and if they're arboreal they ought to be able to Climb trees!
> 
> Give them a 10 ft. Climb speed with Climb +11 in skills and the standard racial bonuses?




Indeed!  Updated.


----------



## freyar (Mar 16, 2011)

Agreed to all that!  Are they done?


----------



## Shade (Mar 16, 2011)

Probably, pending Cleon's fine-toothed comb.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 18, 2011)

Shade said:


> Probably, pending Cleon's fine-toothed comb.




Not that much combing was needed to find a few nits:

*COMBAT
*Harriers lie in ambush on high branches and treetops.   When prey  *approches*, they attack by swooping quickly toward opponents and using  their claws and beak, while injecting painful toxin. 

* Improved Grab (Ex):* To use this ability, a *dire tiger *must hit 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 rake.

Meow!

Make that *approaches* and *harrier* and I think it's good to go.


----------



## Shade (Mar 21, 2011)

Picked nits have been squashed.  Updated.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 23, 2011)

Shade said:


> Picked nits have been squashed.  Updated.




That's them done then.

Next?


----------



## Shade (Apr 7, 2011)

*Flawder*
Climate/Terrain: Temperate or tropical/aquatic 
Frequency: Rare 
Organization: Tribal 
Activity Cycle: Any 
Diet: Herbivore 
Intelligence: Average (8-10) 
Treasure: See below 
Alignment: Neutral good 
No. Appearing: 4-80 
Armor Class: 7 (-3, see below) 
Movement: 3 
Hit Dice: 1-3 
THAC0: 1-2 HD: 19
3 HD: 17 
No. of Attacks: 1 
Damage/Attack: 1-3 (stone dagger) 
Special Attacks: Nil 
Special Defenses: Nil 
Magic Resistance: Nil 
Size: S (3½-4’ tall) 
Morale: Irregular (6) 
XP Value: 1 HD: 35
2 HD: 120
3 HD: 175 

Flawder are peaceful, snail-like nomads which live in aquatic environments. They look much like upright snails, but do not have spiral shells. Their shells are quite beautiful. Each tribe has a different, distinctive pattern and color combination.

Flawder have two eyes, which bob at the tips of eyestalks sprouting from their heads. Below the eyestalks is a pair of tentacles, which they use to feed themselves and to wield tools or weapons. A flawder’s mouth is a round hole with several rows of blunt teeth inside.

Flawder speak their own language, a beautiful, musical tongue.

Combat: Flawder prefer to avoid combat, but will fight to defend themselves and their tribe. Only about half of the flawder encountered will be armed, and the others will flee at any sign of trouble, fighting only if cornered. An unarmed flawder can bite for 1-2 points of damage at -1 to its attack rolls.

For every 20 flawier encountered, there will be a 2 HD group leader. This leader will use spells as a 2nd-level wizard. A tribe has a 3 HD chief who is a 3rd-level spellcaster. DMs should choose spells randomly from the schools of abjuration, conjuration/summoning, divination, or enchantment/charm.

All flawder have exceptionally tough shells. While they are Armor Class 7 to frontal attacks, their shells are AC -3.

Habitat/Society: Flawder live in small, nomadic tribes which travel the floors of seas or large lakes. They do not swim, but slide along the ground. They cannot breathe air, and will “drown” after 3-12 minutes out of water. A flawder chief rules absolutely, normally leading the others about in search of food. In rare instances, a chief will lead the tribe to attack a particularly dangerous predator.

A flawder chief will sometimes (20%) have a familiar. A familiar might be a normal fish, crab, lobster, cuttlefish, squid, or sea horse; roll on a d6 to determine which. All familiars have good, wide-angle vision, and all can sense underwater sounds or vibrations from great distances. Crabs, lobsters, and some fish can attack for 1-2 points of damage. Cuttlefish and squid can release inky clouds, blinding opponents for 1-2 rounds. All are 6-18” long and have the same statistics as those listed in the 2nd Edition Player’s Handbook under the find familiar spell.

The spells of the flawder leaders are inscribed on flat pieces of shell about 6” in diameter. All the leaders share this “spell book”, which is carried in a small net by a specially chosen common flawder. Tribes may also carry 1-20 similar shells on which they have recorded histories, legends, and songs.

Flawder are hermaphrodites. With the participation of another adult, any flawder can produce 3-12 soft eggs which will hatch in 6 weeks. They can reproduce at any time, and their young grow to adulthood in 6 months. An immature flawder has the same statistics as a normal adult, but is only 1-3’ tall. They reproduce often, leaving eggs at many places throughout their territory, which helps preserve their race and replenish their easily decimated population.

Flawder are nervous around almost any other aquatic race, but will sometimes associate with tritons, mermen, or aquatic elves.

Barring predators, flawder can live for up to 40 years.

Ecology: Flawder artifacts consist only of their writing shells and their flint daggers.

Flawder are quite tasty, and are therefore hunted by many other races, including unknowing or less civilized intelligent beings.

If they travel or are transported to a place without predators, they will reproduce at an alarming rate, eating all plant matter in the area, upsetting the normal ecosystem and causing the eventual death by starvation of the tribe.

Though they collect no treasure, they swallow small rocks to aid digestion. Any flawder has a 10% chance to have 1-4 rough gemstones in its gullet. These, plus their fine shells which can sell for up to 500 gp, also serve to make them desirable as prey.

Originally appeared in Monstrous Compendium Fiend Folio Appendix (1992).


----------



## Cleon (Apr 8, 2011)

Shade said:


> *Flawder*




Snailfolk eh.

I was afraid such a day would come. Guess it's no surprise the Flawder took so long to arrive.

First question is Type - it could be Monstrous Humanoid (Aquatic), Magical Beast (Aquatic) or Aberration (Aquatic), depending on how bizarre their anatomy is.

I shudder to imagine what the illustration of a sapient snail might look like...

...hmm, pretty decent actually. Basically just a standup snail, not the mollusc-humanoid chimera of my nightmares.

I think Magical Beast (Aquatic) is the best fit.

Second question, do we give the sample creature a character class or a monster Hit Dice? Does their chief being a 3rd level "spellcaster" support character class?

I would prefer monster HD over class levels.The "leader" can be a separate monster with innate spellcasting, like we did for the Infernites.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 8, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Second question, do we give the sample creature a character class or a monster Hit Dice? Does their chief being a 3rd level "spellcaster" support character class?
> 
> I would prefer monster HD over class levels.The "leader" can be a separate monster with innate spellcasting, like we did for the Infernites.




I'm reconsidering the character class question.

The leader uses a spell book, so giving it 3 levels in wizard seems a better fit than innate spellcasting, since that's usually sorcery.

Still not sure about the "basic model" - 1st level Warrior or 1 HD Magical Beast?


----------



## GrayLinnorm (Apr 8, 2011)

1 HD Magical Beast.


----------



## Shade (Apr 8, 2011)

GrayLinnorm said:


> 1 HD Magical Beast.




Agreed, with advancement "by character class (favored class: wizard)".


----------



## Cleon (Apr 9, 2011)

Shade said:


> Agreed, with advancement "by character class (favored class: wizard)".




Works for me.

So the group leaders are 1st-2nd level wizards and the chief is a 3rd+ level wizard?


----------



## Shade (Apr 11, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Works for me.
> 
> So the group leaders are 1st-2nd level wizards and the chief is a 3rd+ level wizard?




That sounds about right.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 12, 2011)

Shade said:


> That sounds about right.




So, can anyone think of another creature to use as a framework for this, or shall we build it from scratch?

I suppose a 3E Crabman or Tortle might be sort-of-similar?


----------



## freyar (Apr 12, 2011)

Agreed.

EDIT: since Cleon snuck one in there: no idea anything to base it on.  Crabmen don't seem right.


----------



## Shade (Apr 12, 2011)

Downsize a giant slug (Huge) for physical scores?

Giant Slug:  Str 26, Dex 8, Con 21, Int -, Wis 10, Cha 7

Also, this:

Creature Catalog - Preview Creature


----------



## GrayLinnorm (Apr 12, 2011)

_Monster Geographia: Underground_ has snailfolk.  They're Medium, and have the following ability scores:

Str 13 Dex 6 Con 21 Int 11 Wis 13 Cha 10

They have Great Fortitude as a feat.


----------



## Shade (Apr 13, 2011)

GrayLinnorm said:


> _Monster Geographia: Underground_ has snailfolk.  They're Medium, and have the following ability scores:
> 
> Str 13 Dex 6 Con 21 Int 11 Wis 13 Cha 10
> 
> They have Great Fortitude as a feat.




The Con is way too high, but otherwise the scores appeal.  Drop it to the 13-15 range, and I'm content.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 13, 2011)

Shade said:


> The Con is way too high, but otherwise the scores appeal.  Drop it to the 13-15 range, and I'm content.




Downsizing a giant slug is Con 13.

At first that seems too low, I was thinking Con 16 or so, but the original monster doesn't have any bonus hit points.

Strength 13 is too high - they're Small size and do 1d3 damage with their daggers suggesting Strength 10 or so.

I think I'd keep the Wisdom average (10-11) as well.

Str 11, Dex 6, Con 13, Int 11, Wis 10, Cha 10, +5 natural armour?


----------



## Shade (Apr 13, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Str 11, Dex 6, Con 13, Int 11, Wis 10, Cha 10, +5 natural armour?




I like this.  Another way of looking at it:  flawder characters have -4 Dex and +2 Con.  Since they are all 1 racial HD, this is a good fit.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 14, 2011)

Shade said:


> I like this.  Another way of looking at it:  flawder characters have -4 Dex and +2 Con.  Since they are all 1 racial HD, this is a good fit.




Looks like we've got enough to start a Homebrew/Working Draft then.

Small Magical Beast (Aquatic)
1 HD
Speed: 10 ft. (2 squares)
+5 natural armour
Str 11, Dex 6, Con 13, Int 11, Wis 10, Cha 10
Armed with daggers


----------



## Shade (Apr 14, 2011)

Added to Homebrews.


----------



## freyar (Apr 15, 2011)

Ahh, the imorph.  Those were interesting, to put it mildly.

These look pretty good.  Since the wizardly bits are advancement, are we ready for skills and feats?  I might suggest Listen, Spot, and Alertness, so they know when to get out of the way.  Or maybe swap in some stealth stuff.  What do you think?

1 minute per point of Con is probably enough in water dependent.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 15, 2011)

freyar said:


> Ahh, the imorph.  Those were interesting, to put it mildly.
> 
> These look pretty good.  Since the wizardly bits are advancement, are we ready for skills and feats?  I might suggest Listen, Spot, and Alertness, so they know when to get out of the way.  Or maybe swap in some stealth stuff.  What do you think?
> 
> 1 minute per point of Con is probably enough in water dependent.




I'm thinking Endurance.

Since they're slow moving nomads they must spend an awful long time moving from place to place.

Skills: Listen +2, Spot +2
Feats: Endurance


----------



## Shade (Apr 15, 2011)

Updated.



> Flawder prefer to avoid combat, but will fight to defend themselves and their tribe. Only about half of the flawder encountered will be armed, and the others will flee at any sign of trouble, fighting only if cornered. An unarmed flawder can bite for 1-2 points of damage at -1 to its attack rolls.




I'll add a 1d2 bite attack to attack lines.

Challenge Rating: 1/2?



> Though they collect no treasure, they swallow small rocks to aid digestion. Any flawder has a 10% chance to have 1-4 rough gemstones in its gullet. These, plus their fine shells which can sell for up to 500 gp, also serve to make them desirable as prey.




Treasure: See text?

Alignment: Usually neutral good?

Level Adjustment: +0?  Does the slow speed offset the natural armor bonus?


----------



## GrayLinnorm (Apr 15, 2011)

For treasure: No coins, standard goods, no items? (wizards may have gear, so I'm not sure).


----------



## Cleon (Apr 16, 2011)

Shade said:


> Updated.
> 
> I'll add a 1d2 bite attack to attack lines.




I was going to bring up the bite if you missed it, but you denied me my nit-picking opportunity.



Shade said:


> Challenge Rating: 1/2?
> 
> Alignment: Usually neutral good?




Yes to both.



Shade said:


> Level Adjustment: +0?  Does the slow speed offset the natural armor bonus?




Not by itself, but slow speed AND a -4 racial penalty to Dex should just about do it.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 16, 2011)

GrayLinnorm said:


> For treasure: No coins, standard goods, no items? (wizards may have gear, so I'm not sure).




The originals have shells worth up to 500 gp, which is pretty good for a 1-3 HD monster, as well as possibly containing gems.

If they have wizard leaders, they are able to make their own magic items.

Something like this:

Treasure: No coins, standard goods (see below), 50% items

A flawder may contain gemstones or pearls in its gullet, and their beautiful shells are valued as artworks. A few flawders carry special or enchanted items, mostly crafted by their wizard leaders.


----------



## freyar (Apr 17, 2011)

That's all probably about right.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 17, 2011)

freyar said:


> That's all probably about right.




That's about it for them mechanically.

I'm wondering whether we should make their native language a dialect of Aquan rather than a unique tongue.


----------



## Shade (Apr 18, 2011)

Cleon said:


> I'm wondering whether we should make their native language a dialect of Aquan rather than a unique tongue.




That works for me.

Updated.

The flavor text could use some paraphrasing.


----------



## freyar (Apr 19, 2011)

Ehh, it's ok to leave the long flavor text.


----------



## Shade (Apr 19, 2011)

Do we want to stat up a leader?


----------



## freyar (Apr 20, 2011)

Since it's just character level advancement, I don't see a need to.  But I won't complain if the rest of you want to do it.


----------



## demiurge1138 (Apr 21, 2011)

I don't think so, but let's give them an "as characters" paragraph. Favored class wizard?


----------



## Cleon (Apr 22, 2011)

demiurge1138 said:


> I don't think so, but let's give them an "as characters" paragraph. Favored class wizard?




Sure, put in a Flawder As Characters section, we've already got Wizards as favoured class.

As for the text. Firstly, if they are MARINE creatures they wouldn't live in lakes, so I'd cut that out. The bit about their shells not being spiralled ought to be in the _description_. Some of the rest of it can be paraphrased. Oh, and I reckon a weight of 60 pounds for them:

_This creature resembles an upright snail, although its beautiful shell does not spiral like a snail.  Two eyestalks sprout from its head. A pair  of tentacles extend beneath the eyestalks, above a round mouth with  several rows of blunt teeth._

Flawder are peaceful nomads who roam the floor of seas and large lakes. They live in small tribes, each tribe has shells of a different,  distinctive pattern and coloration.

Flawder are hermaphroditic and can breed at any time, producing 2-12 soft eggs per pair, which they hide throughout their territory. Flawder reproduce at an alarming rate, hatching in 6 weeks  and reaching adulthood in 6 months. If predators are absent, a tribe of flawder will quickly grow so numerous it eats all plant  matter in the area, resulting in the  tribe's death by starvation.

Flawder are led by wizards. A flawder chief rules absolutely, leading the others in  search of food. In rare instances, a chief leads their tribe to attack a particularly dangerous predator.

All of a tribes' leaders share one "spell book" make from inscribed flat pieces of shell. This spell book is carried by a  specially chosen common flawder. Tribes may also carry 1-20 similar  shell books which record histories, legends, and songs. A few flawder carry  special or magical items, mostly crafted by their wizard leaders. A flawder may contain gemstones or pearls in its gullet, and their  beautiful shells are valued as artistic works.

  Flawder are quite tasty, and are therefore hunted by many other races.  As a result,  flawder are nervous around almost any other aquatic race, but will  sometimes associate with tritons, mermen, or aquatic elves.

A typical flawder is 3-1/2 to 4 feet long and weighs about 60 pounds. A flawder can live for up to 40 years.

Flawder speak a dialect of Aquan in a beautiful, musical tongue.


----------



## Shade (Apr 22, 2011)

Updated, with an "as characters" section.  Do the domains and bonus languages look OK?


----------



## demiurge1138 (Apr 22, 2011)

Makes sense to me. Both elves and dragons sometimes hang out under water.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 23, 2011)

Shade said:


> Updated, with an "as characters" section.  Do the domains and bonus languages look OK?




The languages and domains are fine, except I don't like Travel for them. I'd prefer Knowledge, Protection or Weather.

Hmm, going by the original description they should only bite when they lack weapons. Their bite is also pretty feeble, so may be a secondary-only attack like the SRD Camel's.

That would make their Full Attack line and Attack lines one of the following:*Primary Bite version*
Attack: Dagger +2 melee (1d3/19-20) or bite +2 melee (1d2) or dagger +0 ranged (1d3/19-20)
Full Attack: Dagger +2 melee (1d3/19-20) or bite -3 melee (1d2) or dagger +0 ranged (1d3/19-20)

*Secondary Bite version*
Attack: Dagger +2 melee (1d3/19-20) or bite* +2 melee (1d2) or dagger +0 ranged (1d3/19-20)
 Full Attack: Dagger +2 melee (1d3/19-20) or bite* -3 melee (1d2) or dagger +0 ranged (1d3/19-20)

COMBAT
Flawder prefer to avoid combat, but will fight to defend themselves and their tribe. Only about half of the flawder encountered will be armed, and the others will flee at any sign of trouble, fighting only if cornered.​*A flawder's bite is treated as a secondary attack and adds only half the flawder's Strength bonus to the damage roll.

Oh, and we should make clear that they're herbivores. I'd change the first paragraph to:Flawder are peaceful herbivores who roam the floor of seas and large lakes. They live in small nomadic tribes, each tribe's shells has a distinctive pattern and coloration.​Apart from that I don't see anything worth fussing with. You know me, I don't like to fuss unnecessarily.


----------



## Shade (Apr 25, 2011)

Cleon said:


> The languages and domains are fine, except I don't like Travel for them. I'd prefer Knowledge, Protection or Weather.




I went with Travel because they were nomadic, but Knowledge is fine.



Cleon said:


> Hmm, going by the original description they should only bite when they lack weapons. Their bite is also pretty feeble, so may be a secondary-only attack like the SRD Camel's.




Good call.



Cleon said:


> Oh, and we should make clear that they're herbivores. I'd change the first paragraph to:Flawder are peaceful herbivores who roam the floor of seas and large lakes. They live in small nomadic tribes, each tribe's shells has a distinctive pattern and coloration.​Apart from that I don't see anything worth fussing with. You know me, I don't like to fuss unnecessarily.




No, not you, never.  

Updated.


----------



## freyar (Apr 26, 2011)

Looks pretty good.  Next?


----------



## Cleon (Apr 26, 2011)

Shade said:


> No, not you, never.
> 
> Updated.




My unfussy self still thinks that "each tribe's shells has a distinctive pattern and coloration." is a better wording than "each with shells of a different, distinctive pattern and coloration". It's just clearer that the whole tribe has a particular shell pattern.

Oh, and I mucked up the Attack line bite in my secondary bite sample. It should be -3 melee for both, since it always has the -5 attack penalty for being secondary:*Secondary Bite version*
Attack: Dagger +2 melee (1d3/19-20) or bite* -3 melee (1d2) or dagger +0 ranged (1d3/19-20)
 Full Attack: Dagger +2 melee (1d3/19-20) or bite* -3 melee (1d2) or dagger +0 ranged (1d3/19-20)​


----------



## Shade (Apr 28, 2011)

Cleon said:


> My unfussy self still thinks that "each tribe's shells has a distinctive pattern and coloration." is a better wording than "each with shells of a different, distinctive pattern and coloration". It's just clearer that the whole tribe has a particular shell pattern.




That's fine, but it doesn't work within this sentence:



> They live in small nomadic tribes, each tribe's shells has a distinctive pattern and coloration.




It's probably just a difference in punctuation on both sides of the ocean, but we can't separate two complete sentences by a comma on this side.  

How about...

Flawder are peaceful herbivores who live in small nomadic tribes on the floor of seas and large lakes.  Each tribe's shells has a distinctive pattern and coloration.


----------



## freyar (Apr 28, 2011)

Looks fine to me.


----------



## Cleon (May 2, 2011)

Shade said:


> That's fine, but it doesn't work within this sentence:
> 
> It's probably just a difference in punctuation on both sides of the ocean, but we can't separate two complete sentences by a comma on this side.




Well we could split the difference and use a semi-colon. 



Shade said:


> Flawder are peaceful herbivores who live in small nomadic tribes on the floor of seas and large lakes.  Each tribe's shells has a distinctive pattern and coloration.




Shouldn't that be "Each tribe's shells *have* a distinctive  pattern and coloration", since it's the shells (plural) that's the subject?

Hmm, "Each tribe has shells of a distinctive  pattern and coloration, a flawder can identify another flawder's tribe with a glance."?


----------



## freyar (May 2, 2011)

Just change that comma to a semicolon, and that's fine.


----------



## Shade (May 4, 2011)

New sentence and semicolon FTW!   Updated.   Finito?


----------



## freyar (May 5, 2011)

Finally, I think!


----------



## Shade (May 6, 2011)

*Zygraat*
Climate/Terrain: Forest 
Frequency: Uncommon 
Organization: Solitary 
Activity Cycle: Day 
Diet: Carnivore 
Intelligence: Semi- (4) 
Treasure: Nil 
Alignment: Neutral 
No. Appearing: 1 
Armor Class: 3 
Movement: 24 (C), Wb 12 
Hit Dice: 1 
THAC0: 19 
No. of Attacks: 1 
Damage/Attack: 1d4 + Special 
Special Attacks: Poison or discharge web 
Special Defenses: Nil 
Magic Resistance: Nil 
Size: S (4’) 
Morale: Average (10) 
XP Value: 270 

More commonly known as spider hawks, zygraats are an unusual cross between a bird and a spider. Unlike true birds, this creature is able to entrap its prey through its web and poisonous bite.

Zygraats are readily identifiable by anyone who has ever heard of theme for they ramble six-legged birds of prey with a spiderlike underbelly and abdomen. If the creature’s mouth is examined closely, a series of tiny, hollow fangs will be observed running along both ridges of its jaw. The abdomen of the monster is grey in color and, if cut open, will be found to contain a milky fluid that coalesces into a mass of silky threads upon exposure to air.

Combat: The more passive attack form of the zygraat is to weave a large web some ten feet square within a tree or between two opposing vertical surfaces. It then flies up to a vantage point to wait. While the web is not sticky, it is made up of several different layers of fine silky each laid against the other, creating a netlike barrier. This webbing has an incredible strength but is only lightly secured. Prey wandering into this web thus pulls it free from its anchoring points and becomes trapped during that round. Immediately, the zygraat will swoop down from its vantage point and attack with a bite that delivers 1-4 points of damage, forcing its victim to make a save vs. poison or suffer 3d6 points of additional damage. The entangled prey is then permitted a saving throw against paralysis each round to work itself free of the net.

The zygraat’s other means of attack is to project a stream of netting from its abdomen at a man-sized or smaller target within 50’. The monster often resorts to this attack when hunting away from its lair. This attack is usable three times in any 24-hour period, and the victim is allowed a save vs. wands to dodge aside only if he/she is not surprised. Failure to make the save, or being caught by surprise, means that the victim is trapped as above. This particular attack is possible only if the zygraat is perched upon a tree or other roosting spot, and cannot be employed while it is in flight.

Habitat/Society: Adult males of this species are somewhat rare, for in the process of mating, they are killed and devoured by the female, which soon thereafter lays 6d6 egg sacks in a weblike nest that she builds atop high trees or in rocky cliffsides. Baby zygraats lack the ability to fly or form webs, but can scurry upon their legs, climbing up and down trees, rock or web with ease. Their bite inflicts 1 point of damage, plus an additional 1-4 points of poison damage if a saving throw is failed.

Zygraats are not interested in treasure or gems. They will ignore anything shiny, but will utilize shreds of clothing or other material for their nest-building. They will occasionally secure brightly-colored bits of cloth to trees or rocks near their webs to attract curious creatures to their doom.

Nesting zygraats with young will often have a larder of fresh meat nearby to feed their ravenous youngsters.

Ecology: For the most part, zygraats do not pose a great threat as they are found only in isolated forest areas. The monsters also prefer relatively small prey, and thus they will tend to avoid most adventurers unless their nets are threatened.

The fluid within the creature’s abdomen is prized, for if used in casting a web spell, all those caught inside the web’s area of effect must save at -3 when trying to escape. Each full abdomen provides a wizard with sufficient material for three such uses.

The zygraat’s webs can also be fashioned into a robe that affords excellent protection against attack, granting an armor class bonus of three points. Each full web can be made into a single man-sized garment.

Originally appeared in Monstrous Compendium Fiend Folio Appendix (1992).


----------



## freyar (May 7, 2011)

Start with web-throwing monstrous spider, add flight speed, boost mental stats a little?


----------



## Mortis (May 11, 2011)

Hmm... I'm thinking Magical Beast rather than Vermin.



			
				Freyar said:
			
		

> Start with web-throwing monstrous spider, add flight speed, boost mental stats a little?



Well, we're given a Int of 4 to start with.
How about averaging out the small monstrous spider and the eagle's other stats for

Str 8, Dex 16, Con 11, Int 4, Wis 12, Cha 4

1 Feat: Weapon Finesse? bit boring I know.

Regards
Mortis


----------



## Shade (May 12, 2011)

Agreed to magical beast and Str 8, Dex 16, Con 11, Int 4, Wis 12, Cha 4.

Weapon Finesse is fine, but we might just make it a bonus feat like many small animals and magical beasts and use our "real" feat for something more exciting.


----------



## freyar (May 12, 2011)

I'll agree to all that (don't know why I didn't think to mention the type), including WF as a bonus.  Keep the appropriate spider poison and web abilities, then?


----------



## Cleon (May 16, 2011)

Shade said:


> *Zygraat*




These reminded me of the Webbird from _Expedition to the Barrier Peaks_ (and the original _Monster Manual II_). A closer looks shows that apart from both being "spider birds" and shooting silk from their abdomen they have very little in common.

Statwise, I'd use at least as much Eagle as Small Monstrous Spider.

*SRD Eagle:* Str 10, Dex 15, Con 12, Int 2, Wis 14, Cha 6, +1 NA
*Small Spider:* Str 7, Dex 17, Con 10, Int --http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#intelligence, Wis 10, Cha 2, no NA

I'd rather give them an Eagle's Strength than average the two original beast's.

Str 10, Dex 16, Con 11, Int 4, Wis 12, Cha 4, +1 NA

The original creature has AC 3, equivalent to AC17 in 3E. That requires either a higher Dex or a higher NA to give it another 2 points of AC. I prefer a little from both columns. I'll also tweak the stats to give it three odd ones:

*Zygraat:* Str 10, Dex 18, Con 11, Int 4, Wis 13, Cha 5, +2 NA

For the feat, I'd give them Flyby Attack (almost as dull, I know) plus Weapon Finesse as a bonus.


----------



## freyar (May 16, 2011)

I can live with Flyby Attack and really either set of abilities.


----------



## Mortis (May 18, 2011)

Cleon said:
			
		

> I'll also tweak the stats to give it three odd ones:
> Str 10, Dex 18, Con 11, Int 4, Wis 13, Cha 5, +2 NA



I don't particularly see 'em as strong as 10. How about giving them Str 9 and leaving Wis at 12 - you'll still get your 3 odd stats 

I've no problem with +2 NA though

Regards
Mortis


----------



## Shade (May 18, 2011)

Mortis said:


> I don't particularly see 'em as strong as 10. How about giving them Str 9 and leaving Wis at 12 - you'll still get your 3 odd stats
> 
> I've no problem with +2 NA though
> 
> ...




This works for me, as well as the proposed feats.


----------



## Cleon (May 19, 2011)

Mortis said:


> I don't particularly see 'em as strong as 10. How about giving them Str 9 and leaving Wis at 12 - you'll still get your 3 odd stats




I can live with that.


----------



## Shade (May 19, 2011)

Added the basics to Homebrews.


----------



## Cleon (May 20, 2011)

Shade said:


> Added the basics to Homebrews.




Bite damage should be 1d4-1 now you lowered the Strength.

We were using the same web SA as a Tiny Monstrous Spider, right? Do we want to halve the "netting" attacks to 3/day like the Zygraat or leave it 8/day like a Monstrous Spider?


----------



## freyar (May 24, 2011)

I don't see any reason not to make it identical to the Small Monstrous Spider.


----------



## Cleon (May 28, 2011)

freyar said:


> I don't see any reason not to make it identical to the Small Monstrous Spider.




Well I saw a couple of reasons.
a) To follow the original monster.
b) To distinguish them from said Tiny Monstrous Spider.

Besides, it's not likely they'd use the attack more than the original's 3/day before getting killed.


----------



## freyar (May 30, 2011)

3/day is ok by me if you prefer.


----------



## Cleon (May 31, 2011)

freyar said:


> 3/day is ok by me if you prefer.




I does, I does.


----------



## Shade (May 31, 2011)

Updated.


----------



## Cleon (May 31, 2011)

Skills next?

What racial bonuses should it have?

A Spot bonus, obviously, since Eagles, Hawks and Monstrous Hunting Spiders all get +8.

I don't see any support for a Hide bonus, but would like a bonus in Climb since they like living atop trees and cliffs. Plus, baby zygraats but "scurry upon their legs, climbing up and down trees, rock or web with ease".

Hmm, that tells me we should give them a Climb speed and the standard skill perks that come with it.

Do we want to give them a Web-Spinner's "*Web-spinning spiders have a +8  racial bonus on Hide and Move Silently checks when using their webs"?  In principle I'm OK with it, but would rather cut the bonus to +4.

I'll give them 3 rank in Listen, 1 rank in Spot if you're keeping score.

That comes to:

*Speed:* 30 ft. (6 squares), climb 20 ft., fly 60 ft. (average)
*Skills:* Climb +12, Hide +8*, Listen +4, Move Silently +4*, Spot +10

*Skills:* Zygraats have a +8 racial bonus on Spot checks and Climb checks. A zygraat can always choose to take 10 on Climb checks, even if rushed or threatened. Zygraats use either their Strength or Dexterity modifier for Climb checks, whichever is higher. 

*Zygraats have a +4  racial bonus on Hide and Move Silently checks when using their webs.


----------



## Shade (May 31, 2011)

Yep, I was thinking a climb speed suits them well.  Especially since they can move their climb speed in their webs.  

The rest looks good.


----------



## Cleon (Jun 1, 2011)

Shade said:


> Yep, I was thinking a climb speed suits them well.  Especially since they can move their climb speed in their webs.
> 
> The rest looks good.




Might as well plug it in then.

What does that leave us apart from flavour and tactics?

I'm thinking we should add a "nest" to the organization, i.e.:

*Organization:* Solitary or nest (1 female plus 6-36 young)

Of course, that means we'll have to stat up their young, but that's no chore.


----------



## Shade (Jun 1, 2011)

Updated.

We still need to figure out the poison.  1 Con like the Tiny monstrous spider seems too low compared to the original dealing an additional 3d6 damage.  Maybe 1d3 Con?   It sounds like 1 Con is appropriate for the young.


----------



## Mortis (Jun 1, 2011)

Shade said:


> Maybe 1d3 Con?   It sounds like 1 Con is appropriate for the young.



Works for me, a small sized monstrous spider does a 1d3 Str, so a 1d3 seems right.

Regards
Mortis


----------



## Cleon (Jun 3, 2011)

Shade said:


> Updated.
> 
> We still need to figure out the poison.  1 Con like the Tiny monstrous spider seems too low compared to the original dealing an additional 3d6 damage.  Maybe 1d3 Con?   It sounds like 1 Con is appropriate for the young.




I was thinking a tad more than that, maybe 1d4 or 1d6.


----------



## freyar (Jun 6, 2011)

Compromise with 1d4?  I agree 1d3 seems a little low, but I wouldn't want to overpower it.


----------



## Shade (Jun 6, 2011)

That'll work.  Updated.

Environment: Temperate forests?

Challenge Rating: x

Advancement: x

A typical zygraat is 4 feet long, with a wingspan of x feet, and weighs x pounds.


----------



## Cleon (Jun 7, 2011)

freyar said:


> Compromise with 1d4?  I agree 1d3 seems a little low, but I wouldn't want to overpower it.




1d4 works for me.



Shade said:


> That'll work.  Updated.
> 
> Environment: Temperate forests?




How about warm and temperate forests. Spider-hawks would fit in jungles quite nicely.



Shade said:


> Challenge Rating: x




Challenge Rating 1?



Shade said:


> Advancement: x




I'd go for 2-3 HD (Medium) like an Eagle.



Shade said:


> A typical zygraat is 4 feet long, with a wingspan of x feet, and weighs x pounds.




8 foot wingspan and 20 pound weight?


----------



## Shade (Jun 7, 2011)

Sounds good.  Updated.

What's left?


----------



## Cleon (Jun 8, 2011)

Shade said:


> Sounds good.  Updated.
> 
> What's left?




The bite attack should be +6 melee, not +5. We seem to have forgotten the +1 bonus for being Small.

The BAB/grapple is missing the grapple penalty for being Small, it should be +1/-4.

Apart from that it just need stats for Zygraat young.

I suggest:

*Zygraat Young
*Diminutive Magical Beast
*Hit Dice:* ¼d10 (1 hp)
*Initiative:* +4
*Speed:* 20 ft. (6 squares), climb 10 ft.
*Armor Class:* 18 (+4 size, +4 Dex), touch 18, flat-footed 14
*Base Attack/Grapple:* +1/–16
*Attack:* Bite +9 melee (1d2-5 plus poison)
*Full Attack:* Bite +9 melee (1d4-1 plus poison)
*Space/Reach:* 1 ft./0 ft.
*Special Attacks:* Poison
*Special Qualities:* Darkvision 60 ft., low-light vision
*Saves:* Fort +2, Ref +6, Will +1
*Abilities:* Str 1, Dex 18, Con 11, Int 4, Wis 12, Cha 5
*Skills:* Climb +12, Hide +16*, Listen +4, Move Silently +4*, Spot +10
*Feats:* Flyby Attack, Weapon Finesse (B)
*Environment:* Temperate and warm forests
*Organization:* Nest (6-36 plus 1 adult female)
*Challenge Rating:* 1/6
*Treasure:* None
*Alignment:* Usually neutral
*Advancement:* ½HD (Tiny)
*Level Adjustment:* —

A typical zygraat hatchling is about a 1 foot long and weighs 5 or 6 ounces.

*Poison (Ex)*: Injury, Fortitude DC 10, initial and secondary damage 1d2 Con. The save DC is Constitution-based.


----------



## Shade (Jun 9, 2011)

Updated.


----------



## Cleon (Jun 9, 2011)

Shade said:


> Updated.




Looks pretty good.

The tactics entry reads more like a description than a proper set of strategies. How about moving it to the background text and giving it a new tactics, e.g.:Zygraats, often called "spider hawks", are an unusual blend of avian and  arachnid.  They are strictly carnivorous, feeding only upon smaller  prey, although they will zealously defend their nests if threatened.  Zygraats weave large webs between trees to ensnare prey.  They are also  capable of spitting globs of webbing, usually employed while perched  upon a tree or other roosting spot.

During mating, females kill and devour males, then lay egg sacs in a  weblike nest built atop high trees or in rocky cliffsides. Baby zygraats  lack the ability to fly or form webs, but can scurry upon their legs,  climbing up and down trees, rock or web with ease. Nesting zygraats  often keep a larder of fresh meat nearby to feed their ravenous  youngsters.

Zygraats are not interested in treasure or gems. They will ignore  anything shiny, but will utilize shreds of clothing or other material  for their nest-building. They will occasionally secure brightly-colored  bits of cloth to trees or rocks near their webs to attract curious  creatures to their doom.

A typical zygraat is 4 feet long, with a wingspan of 8 feet, and weighs 20 pounds. 

COMBAT

A zygraat will try to prey on creatures many times its size; a female with a nest of young is especially aggressive. They usually try to immobilize an opponent with webbing, then swoop down to use their poisonous bite.​Better?


----------



## Shade (Jun 10, 2011)

Sure!  Updated.


----------



## Cleon (Jun 10, 2011)

Shade said:


> Sure!  Updated.




I think that'll do.

Must fix that broken quote in post #461 before I forget. It really bothers me.


----------



## Shade (Jun 15, 2011)

Since we're converting a variant kobold, might as well Cleave two!  

*Kobold, Dragon Mountain*
Climate/Terrain: Subterranean 
Frequency: Uncommon 
Organization: Clan 
Activity Cycle: Any 
Diet: Omnivore 
Intelligence: Average (8-10) 
Treasure: J,O (Q×5) 
Alignment: Lawful evil 
No. Appearing: 5-20 
Armor Class: 7 (10) 
Movement: 6 
Hit Dice: ½ (1-4 hp) 
THAC0: 20 
No. of Attacks: 1 
Damage/Attack: 1-4 or 1-6 (by weapon) 
Special Attacks: Nil 
Special Defenses: Nil 
Magic Resistance: Nil 
Size: S (3’ tall) 
Morale: Average (10) 
XP Value: 7
Chiefs/Guards: 15
Shamans/Witchdoctors: 35 

The kobolds of Dragon Mountain are well off compared to their more mundane cousins. They live a prosperous life and are well protected by the dragon Infyrana. Having adapted their lifestyle to the halls and passages of the dwarven stronghold, they are cunning creatures who use their knowledge to outwit opponents. The kobolds of Dragon Mountain are a force to be reckoned with.

Combat: The kobolds of Dragon Mountain have adapted to their surroundings so well that they have learned to use many of the old dwarven weapons and traps that were left after the dragon took power. They utilize their resources to the fullest extent possible, and they acquire additional supplies and so forth from the various villages and towns that they raid and plunder. The kobolds understand that they are heavily overmatched in toe-to-toe fights, so they almost never combat enemies this way if they can avoid it. Instead, they try to lure invaders into specially prepared traps where they can bombard the enemy with flaming oil, deadfalls, poisonous arrows, and so forth. Following are some of the kobolds’ favorite battle tactics:

A witch doctor casts a web spell to entrap enemies and then a large force of warriors fires large quaintities of arrows or jabs repeatedly with spears at them; enemies are lured into an area with a pit trap or some low-lying area from which there is no escape, and a stinking cloud spell is cast; a shaman casts heat metal on the armor of any warrior while the rest of the force attacks with ranged weapons; a shaman casts silence, 15’ radius on spellcasters; shamans use any type of charm or hold person spells to take control of members of adventuring parties. In addition to spellcasting, kobolds in Dragon Mountain like to entrap adventurers with nets and ropes that pin them down while the kobolds attack.

When kobolds do attack face to face, they do not simply jump out and run at adventurers, swinging their weapons. (They know this is the best way to a quick death.) Instead, they prefer to gain surprise through ambush and then swarm over characters, attempting to overbear them. The following additions to the standard overbearing rules in the Player’s Handbook (and the Dungeon Master Guide) should be taken into account, due to the kobolds’ smaller size but greater tenacity and ferociousness.

When determining the chance of success for a group of kobolds attempting to overbear an opponent, assume that up to 10 kobolds can swarm a single human-sized opponent, while six can swarm a dwarf, gnome, or halfling. When determining effective Armor Class, do not consider the base AC of any armor worn; only take into account the magical protective bonuses from armor, rings, and bracers, along with the natural Dexterity adjustment of the individual from the base AC of 10.

For example, a human male fighter in plate mail +2 and with a Dexterity of 16 has a normal AC of -1. But for the purpose of the kobolds overbearing him, his effective AC is 6 (magical bonus from the armor is +2 (down to 8) and Dex bonus is -2 (down to 6). Thus, if 10 kobolds swarm the fighter, they have a base chance of 9 to overbear him (a base THAC0 of 20 to overbear an AC of 6 gives a 14, but there is a -4 penalty due to the difference in size, so the adjusted number is 18. The nine additional kobolds participating add a +9 bonus, for a final of 9). Once overbearing is accomplished, more kobolds are required to tie the character up or to strip armor or magical items away. Until extra kobolds arrive, the original 10 must make successful overbearing checks each round to keep the warrior pinned.

Habitat/Society: Kobold society within the mountain is heavily supernatural, and therefore the clan leadership descends from the chief to the witchdoctors and shamans.

Kobold shamans are primitive priests, far more concerned with the well-being of their communities (and own aggrandizement) than the typical priest. They take spells from the priestly spheres by praying for them as a priest would. They use their spells for punishment, fortune-telling, and the clan’s benefit. Kobold shamans can advance as high as 5th level. The spheres from which they can take their spells include All, Charm, Combat, Divination, Elemental, Guardian, Healing, Necromantic, Protection, Summoning, Sun (reversed), War, and Wards.

They might take part in hunting, war, and spying, but almost never adventure. They perform minor divinations for their people, and even seize control of their clans when they feel the chief is not acting in the tribe’s best interests.

The witch doctors are much like the shamans, except that they also combine minor mage spells with their clerical allotment, and are therefore much more rare than the shamans. They may use spells from only one school, though they are not specialist wizards in any way. Unlike shamans, witch doctors can only attain 4th level. They need spellbooks to rememorize their spells. They can use any magical item allowed to wizards.

Kobold witch doctors serve their clans as advisors to the chiefs, scholars, and in time of battle, that extra punch needed to sway the fight. Like the shamans, witch doctors might participate in special activities such as spying or battles, but they never wander off alone – their presence within the clan is much too important. Witch doctors are also likely to be sent to negotiations with witch doctors from other clans, in addition to, it not in place of, a clan chief.

There have been cases within Dragon Mountain of warring clans sending out secret strike forces for the sole purpose of eliminating enemy shamans and witch doctors in order to demoralize the clan. Because of this type of behavior, it is rare to see a shaman or witch doctor without an escort of at least six (and more often 10) kobolds for protection.

For both witch doctors and shamans, the spell level limit that can be memorized (prayed for) and cast is one-half their level rounded up.Thus, a 4th level witch doctor can cast 2nd level spells, while a 5th level shaman can cast 3rd level spells.

The kobolds of Dragon Mountain have as diverse a society as the dwarves before them, and one that is, perhaps, even more complex. Their stratified society allows those at the top to focus on their pursuits without having to work too hard for their labors. Those on the bottom, on the other hand, must constantly toll for their survival. The various clans of the mountain continually struggle with each other in efforts to better their living condition, or to maintain those that they have achieved through similar in-fighting.

However, despite their differences, the kobolds can come together with amazing alacrity to combat any intruders in the mountain. Though the various clans might take advantage of the distractions caused by invaders to better themselves, they will not press the advantage too far. They know that ther is no point in bettering themselves at the price of losing the whole mountain.

At the top of the heap is the king. However, his power is only theoretical, obeyed by the clans when it suits them. The true power is in a council of kobold leaders, who make important decisions and pass them along to the king for ratification. If he disagrees with said policy, they ignore him and implement it anyway. The chieftains are not equal in power; those leading the more powerful clans naturally have a greater say in the policies of Dragon Mountain than those who lead the weaker clans. Those in power propagate their power through decisions that favor them, though they do not abuse this to the point that the rest of the mountain suffers.

Below the chieftains are the shamans and witch doctors, and below them are the general populace. The “under-kobolds” (as they are called by those above them), while downtrodden, are fiercely devoted to their leader, their tribe, their family, and the mountain, in that order. Though there are, of course, some exceptions, the normal kobold will sacrifice its life for the well-being of these. The sacrifice for the tribe is one that many make in daily confrontations with the enemies of their tribes, but the majority of Dragon Mountain kobolds need not worry about making these sacrifices where outsiders are concerned. With some mild modification, the dwarves stonework makes an ideal setting for numerous traps. Indeed, most of the mountain can be seen as a trap, with the kobolds as the architects. The Dragon Mountain kobolds have perfected several versions of traps, including the chute trap, the pit trap, and various traps involving needles and other sharp obects. All of these play havoc with the unwary.

Ecology: Ecology: The kobolds are intricately intertwined with the ecology of Dragon Mountain. They practically rule the entire mountain, and as long as none of their activities violate the dragon’s desires, they have free rein to do whatever they wish. They have no natural and overpowering enemies in the mountain, although there are several monsters within that make kobolds a regular part of their diet. However, most kobolds can avoid this fate. Only the foolish ones suffer.

Kobolds reproduce as do most humanoids, requiring both male and female partners. A pregnant kobold typically births four-to-five children, though smaller and larger letters are not unheard of.

The kobolds of Dragon Mountain are not scavengers, instead earning their sustenance by raiding towns near Dragon Mountain. They supplement this by raising a few crops and herds of animals. However, their main died comes from the supplies of raided towns.

Originally appeared in Dragon Mountain (1993).


----------



## freyar (Jun 16, 2011)

Once again, can you summarize the difference between these and regular 2e kobolds?


----------



## Shade (Jun 16, 2011)

*Kobold *
Climate/Terrain: Any land 
Frequency: Uncommon 
Organization: Tribe 
Activity Cycle: Night 
Diet: Omnivore 
Intelligence: Average (8-10) 
Treasure: J,O (Q×5) 
Alignment: Lawful evil 
No. Appearing: 5-20 (5d4)  
Armor Class: 7 (10) 
Movement: 6 
Hit Dice: ½ (1-4 hit points)  
THAC0: 20 
No. of Attacks: 1 
Damage/Attack: 1-4 or 1-6 (by weapon)  
Special Attacks: Nil 
Special Defenses: Nil 
Magic Resistance: Nil 
Size: S (3’ tall) 
Morale: Average (8-10) 
XP Value: 7
Chiefs/guards: 15


----------



## Cleon (Jun 17, 2011)

freyar said:


> Once again, can you summarize the difference between these and regular 2e kobolds?




They're basically the same.

If we're going to justify a conversion I think we'd have to jazz up the differences. Give them a special overbearing attack (copy the Saluqi's?) and increase the number and power of the spellcasters. Maybe stat up a "witch doctor" with spells or SLAs from the proposed tactics (e.g. _web_, _silence_, _charm person_, _hold person_).


----------



## freyar (Jun 17, 2011)

Frankly, it seems like the shamans, witch doctors, etc, are just kobolds with class levels.  Do you agree?  I don't mind statting those up, though that's more of an NPC conversion than a monster conversion.


----------



## Shade (Jun 17, 2011)

freyar said:


> Frankly, it seems like the shamans, witch doctors, etc, are just kobolds with class levels.  Do you agree?  I don't mind statting those up, though that's more of an NPC conversion than a monster conversion.




I agree.  And I also don't mind statting them up as kobolds with slightly different equipment, feat, and skill selection.


----------



## freyar (Jun 17, 2011)

Shade said:


> I agree.  And I also don't mind statting them up as kobolds with slightly different equipment, feat, and skill selection.



Make the shamans into adept 5 and the witchdoctors into adept 3/sorc 2 or something?


----------



## Cleon (Jun 17, 2011)

Shade said:


> I agree.  And I also don't mind statting them up as kobolds with slightly different equipment, feat, and skill selection.




I agree the Shamans and Witchdoctors read as Kobolds with class levels, but thought we need _something_ unusual to make them worth our time. Maybe make them Half-Dragons?

What about the "Overbearing" Special Attack proposal for Dragon Mountain Kobolds?


----------



## freyar (Jun 18, 2011)

There's a draconic template in the Draconomicon IIRC that would work better than half-dragon, I'd think.  I'm not sure half-dragon really quite fits.

Overbearing is possible, though it could just be tactics (ie, they use aid another actions when one tries to overbear).  

The real question is if these are really different monsters than normal kobolds.  I'm not sure they are.


----------



## Cleon (Jun 19, 2011)

freyar said:


> There's a draconic template in the Draconomicon IIRC that would work better than half-dragon, I'd think.  I'm not sure half-dragon really quite fits.
> 
> Overbearing is possible, though it could just be tactics (ie, they use aid another actions when one tries to overbear).
> 
> The real question is if these are really different monsters than normal kobolds.  I'm not sure they are.




As written, they're definitely ordinary kobolds with different flavour.

If we're not going to give them _something_ different mechanically I see little point in converting them.


----------



## freyar (Jun 20, 2011)

Just statting some of them out as NPCs.  But we could consider them converted as normal kobolds.


----------



## Cleon (Jun 20, 2011)

freyar said:


> Just statting some of them out as NPCs.  But we could consider them converted as normal kobolds.




Well if you insist, although vanilla kobold NPCs don't seem that good a use of our time.

Since these are "uber kobolds" I'd be tempted to give them all adventurer classes rather than NPC classes.

So, what sample NPCs shall we go for?

Trooper - 1st level ranger with favoured enemy (human)?
Scout/Trapmaker - low-mid level rogue?
Chief - low-mid level level ranger?
Witchdoctor - 6th level sorcerer with _web_?
Shaman - 6th level cleric?

The 'King' appears to be a Chief or Witchdoctor, since he doesn't seem to be personally powerful.


----------



## Shade (Jun 21, 2011)

freyar said:


> Just statting some of them out as NPCs.  But we could consider them converted as normal kobolds.




I'd be fine with just calling 'em converted and moving on.  But if not...



Cleon said:


> Well if you insist, although vanilla kobold NPCs don't seem that good a use of our time.
> 
> Since these are "uber kobolds" I'd be tempted to give them all adventurer classes rather than NPC classes.
> 
> ...




...those look about right.


----------



## GrayLinnorm (Jun 21, 2011)

I say move on.  This isn't _Monster Manual IV._


----------



## Cleon (Jun 22, 2011)

GrayLinnorm said:


> I say move on.  This isn't _Monster Manual IV._




Frankly, I can't be bothered unless we whip up a few special abilities for them or significantly changing their stats.

So I'm happy dropping it, assuming you don't fancy changing them to an "über kobold".


----------



## Shade (Jun 22, 2011)

Let's just skip 'em.  We've got plenty of other critters waiting.

Here's one...

*Fire Phantom*
[Note: This is a creature summoned using the "Fire Phantom" spell.]

"The physical appearance of a fire phantom is a fiery outline of a vaguely humanoid form, 7 feet tall. The phantom must remain within 30 feet of the caster; if it moves beyond this range the spell expired. Normal fires set by the fire phantom continue to burn after the phantom is gone.

The fire phantom (being of low Intelligence) follows all commands given by its summoner as long as the caster concentrates on controlling it. If the caster's concentration is broken, the phantom immediately attacks its summoner. [...] Any more powerful creature from the Elemental Plane of Fire can dismiss the fire phantom at will, or even turn it upon its summoner, regardless of other circumstances.

From _Wizard's Spell Compendium, Volume Two_.  

Here's the original Dragon Magazine version...

*Fire Phantom (Conjuration/Summoning)*
Level: 3 
Range: 3" 
Duration: 3 rnds/lvl 
AE: Special
Components: V,S,M 
CT: 1 round 
ST: None

Explanation/Description: This is a spell used to summon one of the weaker types of fire elementals: the fire phantom. The summoned creature has 2 +2 HD, AC 5, MV 12”, and can be hit by ordinary, nonmagical weaponry. The fire phantom attacks once per round for 1-8 hp damage, and can ignite any combustible materials upon contact. The physical appearance of a fire phantom is a fiery outline of a vaguely humanoid form, 7’ in height. The phantom must always remain within 30’ of the spell-caster; if it moves beyond this range the spell expires. Materials set aflame by the fire phantom continue to burn normally after the phantom is gone. The fire phantom (being of low intelligence) follows all commands given by its summoner as long as the magic-user concentrates on controlling it. If the spellcaster’s concentration is broken, the phantom immediately attacks the summoner. Otherwise, the fire phantom remains until it is destroyed or until the spell’s duration expires, whereupon it vanishes. Note that any more powerful creature from the Elemental Plane of Fire can dismiss the fire phantom at will, or even turn it upon its summoner, regardless of other circumstances.

The material component of this spell is a pint of oil which must be poured out and ignited during the casting of the spell.

Originally appeared in Dragon Magazine #123 (1987).


----------



## Cleon (Jun 23, 2011)

Shade said:


> Let's just skip 'em.  We've got plenty of other critters waiting.
> 
> Here's one...
> 
> ...




I'm not seeing that much difference from an SRD Small Elemental.

It's smarter (Int 5-7), slower (30 ft.) and has a single 1d8 attack rather than two 1d4 attacks.

This shouldn't take long.

How about increasing the Strength to a 12 or 14,


----------



## freyar (Jun 24, 2011)

Except it's 7 ft tall and clearly Medium.   I agree, though, upsize a Small elemental and adjust the ability scores a bit.  (Also, the Small and Medium elementals only have 1 slam.)


----------



## Shade (Jun 24, 2011)

freyar said:


> Except it's 7 ft tall and clearly Medium.   I agree, though, upsize a Small elemental and adjust the ability scores a bit.  (Also, the Small and Medium elementals only have 1 slam.)




That'll work, and adding the second slam will help differentiate them.  We'll also need an ability that denotes their strong ties to the Elemental Plane of Fire, so strong that other beings from that flame can dismiss them back to that realm.


----------



## Cleon (Jun 25, 2011)

freyar said:


> Except it's 7 ft tall and clearly Medium.   I agree, though, upsize a Small elemental and adjust the ability scores a bit.  (Also, the Small and Medium elementals only have 1 slam.)




Dang it, I wasn't paying attention to the Slams.

Let's see, the Fire Elementals vital statistics are:

Small Fire Elemental: 2HD, +3 NA, Str 10, Dex 13, Con 10, Int 4, Wis 11, Cha 11, One slam (1d4 plus 1d4 fire)
Medium Fire Elemental: 4HD, +3 NA, Str 12, Dex 17, Con 14, Int 4, Wis 11, Cha 11, One slam (1d6+1 plus 1d6 fire)

Something like this for the new guy?

*Fire Phantom:* Medium Elemental, 2HD, +3 NA, Str 11, Dex 15, Con 12, Int 6, Wis 11, Cha 11, One slam (1d8 plus 1d6 fire)


----------



## freyar (Jun 26, 2011)

Those abilities would work.  What do you think about adding another slam to differentiate them a little.


----------



## Cleon (Jun 26, 2011)

freyar said:


> Those abilities would work.  What do you think about adding another slam to differentiate them a little.




The original writeup is quite specific about it only getting one attack, so I'd rather leave it at that. It does more damage than the equivalent Fire Elemental, so I guess that'll do.


----------



## freyar (Jun 27, 2011)

Yes, I was pretty ambivalent about that extra slam.  Agreed with leaving it off.

What about this?

Subservient to Fire (Ex?): A fire phantom is so tied to the plane of fire, that it can be controlled or banished by other elementals of the fire subtype.  The other elemental attempts to turn the fire phantom as a cleric of its HD; the fire phantom resists as an undead with +2 turn resistance (?).  A successful turn attempt indicates that the elemental may banish the fire phantom to the plane of fire.  Alternately, the other elemental may attempt to command the fire phantom.  The elemental makes an opposed level check against the caster who summoned the fire phantom; if the check succeeds, the elemental controls the phantom, and otherwise the phantom is banished as normal.


----------



## Cleon (Jun 28, 2011)

freyar said:


> Yes, I was pretty ambivalent about that extra slam.  Agreed with leaving it off.
> 
> What about this?
> 
> Subservient to Fire (Ex?): A fire phantom is so tied to the plane of fire, that it can be controlled or banished by other elementals of the fire subtype.  The other elemental attempts to turn the fire phantom as a cleric of its HD; the fire phantom resists as an undead with +2 turn resistance (?).  A successful turn attempt indicates that the elemental may banish the fire phantom to the plane of fire.  Alternately, the other elemental may attempt to command the fire phantom.  The elemental makes an opposed level check against the caster who summoned the fire phantom; if the check succeeds, the elemental controls the phantom, and otherwise the phantom is banished as normal.




That seems a fair match to the original, but I'm not sure whether we should include it. Elementals in AD&D had a hierarchy with at least the implication that the higher rank ones could control the lower ones (although they only had rules for such in the case of elemental lords and the like).

I'm thinking it might be if the power means that if it encounters a Fire Elemental (with more HD than it?) that _*already*_ has a "control elemental" type power, it automatically fails to resist if the elemental tries to control it.


----------



## freyar (Jun 28, 2011)

What are the elementals that can control other elementals?  I'm blanking on that.  But I can see your reasoning in that case.


----------



## Cleon (Jun 28, 2011)

freyar said:


> What are the elementals that can control other elementals?  I'm blanking on that.  But I can see your reasoning in that case.




Mostly it's implied rather than stated, with mention that "On the elemental plane of air can be found certain intelligent air elementals which have special abilities beyond the above" and offhand remarks about elementals being ruled by a boss, chief or king. There's also the elemental princes of evil in the _*Fiend Folio*_, which are able to summon elementals of their own element (except for Cryonax, I believe that was because TSR didn't have cold elementals in an official hardback at the time).

That suggests that AD&D elementals have a hierarchical system, suggesting it's more an authority figure relationship than the supernatural control that, for example, a water weird can impose on a water elemental.

Such a hierarchy is not that surprising. _Lots_ of extraplanar monster types have a suspiciously neat hierarchical system in AD&D.


----------



## freyar (Jun 29, 2011)

Actually, when you said this:



			
				Cleon said:
			
		

> I'm thinking it might be if the power means that if it encounters a Fire Elemental (with more HD than it?) that already has a "control elemental" type power, it automatically fails to resist if the elemental tries to control it.




I just wondered if there are any 3.X elementals that can control elementals.


----------



## Cleon (Jun 29, 2011)

freyar said:


> Actually, when you said this:
> 
> I just wondered if there are any 3.X elementals that can control elementals.




Well there are chaps like the elementals lords/princes, who I believe have 3E stats in some _Dragon_ articles. They have the ability to control elementals, don't they?

Hmm, don't the more intelligent elementals actually worship the elemental princes (or the boss/king/god(s) of their element). Presumably, some of those 'religious' elementals have levels in cleric and an Elemental Domain. They can then use clerical turning to control others of their kind...

Apart from that, I can't think of any contenders that my vague memory says have any support by official 3E sources.


----------



## freyar (Jun 30, 2011)

Well, for this particular critter, I think I'd rather have them either be commanded by all elementals or just ignore this bit in the flavor text.  It seems like too much of a corner case otherwise.


----------



## Shade (Jun 30, 2011)

I'd like to keep the "always commanded by others" since they have so little else to differentiate them from fire elementals.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 2, 2011)

Shade said:


> I'd like to keep the "always commanded by others" since they have so little else to differentiate them from fire elementals.




I'd be fine adding some kind of "subservience to fire" SQ, although I'd like to limit to fire elementals that have more HD than the fire phantom.


----------



## freyar (Jul 4, 2011)

So, do we like this or want to go another route?

Subservient to Fire (Ex?): A fire phantom is so tied to the plane of fire, that it can be controlled or banished by other elementals of the fire subtype, as long as those elementals have more HD than the fire phantom. The other elemental attempts to turn the fire phantom as a cleric of its HD; the fire phantom resists as an undead with +2 turn resistance (?). A successful turn attempt indicates that the elemental may banish the fire phantom to the plane of fire. Alternately, the other elemental may attempt to command the fire phantom. The elemental makes an opposed level check against the caster who summoned the fire phantom; if the check succeeds, the elemental controls the phantom, and otherwise the phantom is banished as normal.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 5, 2011)

freyar said:


> So, do we like this or want to go another route?
> 
> Subservient to Fire (Ex?): A fire phantom is so tied to the plane of fire, that it can be controlled or banished by other elementals of the fire subtype, as long as those elementals have more HD than the fire phantom. The other elemental attempts to turn the fire phantom as a cleric of its HD; the fire phantom resists as an undead with +2 turn resistance (?). A successful turn attempt indicates that the elemental may banish the fire phantom to the plane of fire. Alternately, the other elemental may attempt to command the fire phantom. The elemental makes an opposed level check against the caster who summoned the fire phantom; if the check succeeds, the elemental controls the phantom, and otherwise the phantom is banished as normal.




I'd be OK with that, although if the elementals can control the fire phantom they ought to rebuke the phantoms rather than turn them.

Hmm, if Fire Elementals rebuke them, should we have Water Elementals turn them?


----------



## Shade (Jul 5, 2011)

Cleon said:


> I'd be OK with that, although if the elementals can control the fire phantom they ought to rebuke the phantoms rather than turn them.
> 
> Hmm, if Fire Elementals rebuke them, should we have Water Elementals turn them?




That all makes sense.

Also, why the level check mechanic?  Couldn't we simply use the command mechanic (greater version of rebuke) to control them?


----------



## Cleon (Jul 6, 2011)

Shade said:


> That all makes sense.
> 
> Also, why the level check mechanic?  Couldn't we simply use the command mechanic (greater version of rebuke) to control them?




Because the source material said "Any *more powerful* creature from the Elemental Plane of Fire can dismiss  the fire phantom at will, or even turn it upon its summoner", emphasis mine.


----------



## Shade (Jul 6, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Because the source material said "Any *more powerful* creature from the Elemental Plane of Fire can dismiss  the fire phantom at will, or even turn it upon its summoner", emphasis mine.




I'm not reading that as "more powerful than the caster", but rather "more powerful than the fire phantom."  Any creature with enough HD to be able to pull off a Command is going to be more powerful than the fire phantom.


----------



## freyar (Jul 6, 2011)

That's fine with me.  I'll also change turning to rebuking.  Not so sure about the water elementals, though.  Also, the original "turning" was banishment back to the plane of fire.  Want to drop that for the sake of unified mechanics?  

Subservient to Fire (Ex?): A fire phantom is so tied to the plane of fire, that it can be controlled by other elementals of the fire subtype, as long as those elementals have more HD than the fire phantom. The other elemental may rebuke or command the fire phantom as a cleric of its hit dice; the fire phantom resists as an undead with +2 turn resistance.


----------



## Shade (Jul 6, 2011)

freyar said:


> That's fine with me.  I'll also change turning to rebuking.  Not so sure about the water elementals, though.  Also, the original "turning" was banishment back to the plane of fire.  Want to drop that for the sake of unified mechanics?
> 
> Subservient to Fire (Ex?): A fire phantom is so tied to the plane of fire, that it can be controlled by other elementals of the fire subtype, as long as those elementals have more HD than the fire phantom. The other elemental may rebuke or command the fire phantom as a cleric of its hit dice; the fire phantom resists as an undead with +2 turn resistance.




I'm satisfied with this current incarnation.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 7, 2011)

freyar said:


> That's fine with me.  I'll also change turning to rebuking.  Not so sure about the water elementals, though.  Also, the original "turning" was banishment back to the plane of fire.  Want to drop that for the sake of unified mechanics?
> 
> Subservient to Fire (Ex?): A fire phantom is so tied to the plane of fire, that it can be controlled by other elementals of the fire subtype, as long as those elementals have more HD than the fire phantom. The other elemental may rebuke or command the fire phantom as a cleric of its hit dice; the fire phantom resists as an undead with +2 turn resistance.




Yes, we'd have to use a lovely exception-based approach to match the original's "banish or command" approach.

Hmm, maybe Fire Phantoms have an inherent ability to return to the Elemental Plane of Fire, and when if they flee when "turned" on the Prime Material they run away back home?


----------



## Cleon (Jul 7, 2011)

Shade said:


> I'm satisfied with this current incarnation.




I'm not so sure. I'm thinking we should consider a hybrid turn and command approach. Oh, and I guess it ought to be (Su).

* Subservient to Fire (Su):* A fire phantom is so tied to the plane of  fire, that it can be banished, rebuked or controlled by other elementals of the fire subtype, provided those elementals have more HD than the fire phantom. The other elemental may rebuke or command the fire phantom as a cleric of  its hit dice; the fire phantom resists as an undead with +2 turn  resistance. 	If a fire elemental rebukes a fire phantom outside its native plane, the fire phantom is banished home to the Elemental Plane of Fire.


----------



## freyar (Jul 8, 2011)

That addition would work for me, too.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 9, 2011)

freyar said:


> That addition would work for me, too.




Shall we use it, then?

Might as well put everything we've got so far together into a Working Draft...


----------



## Cleon (Jul 9, 2011)

*Fire Phantom Working Draft*

*Fire Phantom*
Medium Elemental (Fire, Extraplanar)
Hit Dice: 2d8+2 (11 hp)
Initiative: +7
Speed: 30 ft. (6 squares)
Armor Class: 15 (+3 Dex, +2 natural), touch 13, flat-footed 12
Base Attack/Grapple: +1/+1
Attack: Slam +3 melee (1d8 plus 1d4 fire)
Full Attack: Slam +3 melee (1d8 plus 1d4 fire)
Space/Reach: 5 ft./5 ft.
Special Attacks: Burn
Special Qualities: Darkvision 60 ft., elemental traits, immunity to fire, subservient to fire, vulnerability to cold
Saves: Fort +1, Ref +6, Will +0
Abilities: Str 11, Dex 17, Con 12, Int 6, Wis 11, Cha 11
Skills: Listen +2, Spot +3
Feats: Combat Reflexes, Improved Initiative (B), Weapon Finesse (B)
Environment: Elemental Plane of Fire
Organization: Solitary
Challenge Rating: 1
Treasure: None
Alignment: Usually neutral
Advancement: —
Level Adjustment: —

_A vaguely humanoid figure formed out of flames._

Fire phantoms are among the weakest of the elemental creatures on the Elemental Plane of Fire. They obey or flee from more powerful fire elementals. Fire phantoms can be summoned to the material plane using the spell _fire phantom_, but more powerful fire elementals can easily dismiss a summoned fire phantom back to its native plane due to their subservience to flame creatures.

A fire phantom is 7 feet tall and weighs about 2 pounds.

Fire phantoms speak Ignan.

COMBAT

Fire phantoms are unsophisticated combatants, they close with their opponents as quickly as possible and attack with blows of their flaming limbs.

*Burn (Ex):* A fire phantom's slam attack deals bludgeoning damage plus fire damage from the phantom's flaming body. Those hit by a fire phantom's slam attack also must succeed on a DC 12 Reflex save or catch on fire. The flame burns for 1d4 rounds. A burning creature can take a move action to put out the flame. The save DC is Constitution-based.

Creatures hitting a fire phantom with natural weapons or unarmed attacks take fire damage as though hit by the phantom's attack, and also catch on fire unless they succeed on a Reflex save.

*Subservient to Fire (Su):* A fire phantom is so tied to the plane  of  fire, that it can be banished, rebuked or controlled by other  elementals of the fire subtype, provided those elementals have more HD  than the fire phantom. The other elemental may rebuke or command the  fire phantom as a cleric of  its hit dice; the fire phantom resists as  an undead with +2 turn  resistance.     If a fire elemental rebukes a fire  phantom outside its native plane, the fire phantom is banished home to  the Elemental Plane of Fire.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 9, 2011)

So far it's basically a fire elemental with a couple of tweaks plus Subservient To Fire.

I'm thinking we should change the Small Fire Elemental's Dodge feat to something else, maybe Combat Reflexes or Weapon Focus (slam)?


----------



## freyar (Jul 10, 2011)

I'd go for Combat Reflexes.  Want to fiddle with ability scores any?


----------



## Cleon (Jul 10, 2011)

freyar said:


> I'd go for Combat Reflexes.  Want to fiddle with ability scores any?




I'll update it with Combat Reflexes.

We'd already modified the stats somewhat from the equivalent-sized Elemental.

I did suggest increasing the Strength to 13 or so. What about that?


----------



## Shade (Jul 13, 2011)

Cleon said:


> I did suggest increasing the Strength to 13 or so. What about that?




"Phantom", to me, suggests weaker and more agile, not stronger.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 14, 2011)

Shade said:


> "Phantom", to me, suggests weaker and more agile, not stronger.




Well we're compromising by making them weaker and less agile. 

I've just noticed the slam damage in the draft's attack and full attack lines don't match. I think I'll change them both to 1d8 plus 1d4 fire. 

Upon reflection, I prefer its fire damage burning as hot as a Small Elemental, since it's supposedly a weaker creature.


----------



## Shade (Jul 14, 2011)

Any particular reason you guys decided upon less agile?


----------



## freyar (Jul 15, 2011)

I think we were just picking scores in between the Small and Medium elementals.


----------



## Shade (Jul 15, 2011)

freyar said:


> I think we were just picking scores in between the Small and Medium elementals.




In that case, I once again propose we boost Dex.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 15, 2011)

Shade said:


> In that case, I once again propose we boost Dex.




So, what do you propose.

Swapping the Dex and NA bonuses? (+3 Dex, +2 NA, with Dexterity 17)


----------



## Shade (Jul 15, 2011)

Cleon said:


> So, what do you propose.
> 
> Swapping the Dex and NA bonuses? (+3 Dex, +2 NA, with Dexterity 17)




Works for me!


----------



## Cleon (Jul 16, 2011)

Shade said:


> Works for me!




Updated *Working Draft*.

Anything you want to add to the stats and special abilities?


----------



## Shade (Jul 19, 2011)

I think that pretty much covers what it is.

CR 1 seems right.

Advancement looks OK, but I could even see going with "-".

Do we want to convert the fire phantom spell?


----------



## Cleon (Jul 21, 2011)

Shade said:


> I think that pretty much covers what it is.
> 
> CR 1 seems right.
> 
> Advancement looks OK, but I could even see going with "-".




Hmm, I guess Advancement -- would go with them being weaker than true fire elementals. Then there won't be and Advanced Fire Phantoms who are tougher than a Small Fire Elemental.

I'm OK with it, or with 3-6 HD (Medium), I'll leave it to you lot to decide on one.



Shade said:


> Do we want to convert the fire phantom spell?




Might as well. Since a Fire Phantom's roughly the same CR-wise as a Small Elemental, it's closest match is a _summon monster III_, which is helpfully the same level as the original _fire phantom_ spell. The main benefit seems to be a longer duration than a standard _summon monster_ spell.


----------



## Shade (Jul 21, 2011)

*Summon Fire Phantom*
Conjuration (Summoning) [see text]
Level: Brd 3, Clr 3, Drd 2, Rgr 2, Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V, S, F/DF
Casting Time: 1 round
Range: 30 ft.
Effect: One summoned creature
Duration: 3 rounds/level (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

This spell summons a fire phantom. It appears where you designate and acts immediately, on your turn. It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability. If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions.  The phantom must always remain within 30’ of the spellcaster; if it moves beyond this range the spell expires. 

A summoned monster cannot summon or otherwise conjure another creature, nor can it use any teleportation or planar travel abilities. Creatures cannot be summoned into an environment that cannot support them.

Since a fire phantom has the Fire subtype, when you use the summon fire phantom spell, it is a spell of that type.

Arcane Focus: A pint of oil which must be poured out and ignited during the casting of the spell.


Note:  I added Druid 2 and Ranger 2 since the Small elemental is also on the summon nature's ally II list.  We can drop this if you'd prefer.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 22, 2011)

Shade said:


> Note:  I added Druid 2 and Ranger 2 since the Small elemental is also on the summon nature's ally II list.  We can drop this if you'd prefer.




I don't mind Druid 2, but putting it on the Ranger list doesn't seem right.

Should we add a note to the spell description as to how their Subservience To Flame means Fire Elementals can easily dismiss a summoned Fire Phantom?


----------



## Shade (Jul 22, 2011)

Cleon said:


> I don't mind Druid 2, but putting it on the Ranger list doesn't seem right.




Even though they get Summon Nature's Ally at the same levels as druids?



Cleon said:


> Should we add a note to the spell description as to how their Subservience To Flame means Fire Elementals can easily dismiss a summoned Fire Phantom?




It can't hurt.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 24, 2011)

Shade said:


> Even though they get Summon Nature's Ally at the same levels as druids?




I'm just not fond of extensive spell lists for the Ranger, that's all.



Shade said:


> It can't hurt.




Might as well do it, then.


----------



## Shade (Jul 25, 2011)

Cleon said:


> I'm just not fond of extensive spell lists for the Ranger, that's all.




I can understand that reasoning, but this is essentially just a continuation of spells they already have, so I think it should go on their lists.

Any other opinions?


----------



## Cleon (Jul 25, 2011)

Shade said:


> I can understand that reasoning, but this is essentially just a continuation of spells they already have, so I think it should go on their lists.
> 
> Any other opinions?




Oh, I suppose it's no big deal. Throw it in the Ranger pile, if it pleases you so.

So, it's just the addition of a Subservience to Flame note.


----------



## Shade (Jul 25, 2011)

Do you want to update your working draft?  It hasn't made it to Homebrews yet.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 27, 2011)

Shade said:


> Do you want to update your working draft?  It hasn't made it to Homebrews yet.




Will do, I'll add some background and tactics.

What about the idea of changing it to Advancement --?

I'll leave the spell out until we finish working in it.

Updating *Working Draft*.


----------



## Shade (Jul 27, 2011)

Advancement "-" appeals.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 27, 2011)

Shade said:


> Advancement "-" appeals.




Same here.

Updating *Working Draft*.


----------



## Shade (Jul 27, 2011)

Throw the spell in there and we're essentially finished.

I'm tempted to expand the flavor a bit just to jazz 'em up.  Maybe they're not fully-formed fire elementals, or the form on the fringes of the Elemental Plane of Fire's borders where the elements are diluted?   Something to explain their "phantom" moniker.   In the description, perhaps they don't burn as brightly as normal flames, or are somewhat translucent?


----------



## Cleon (Aug 1, 2011)

Shade said:


> Throw the spell in there and we're essentially finished.




How's this for the spell, then?:

*Summon Fire Phantom*
Conjuration (Fire, Summoning)
Level: Brd 3, Clr 3, Drd 2, Rgr 2, Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V, S, F/DF
Casting Time: 1 round
Range: 30 ft.
Effect: One summoned creature
Duration: 3 rounds/level (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

This spell summons a fire phantom. It appears where you designate and  acts immediately, on your turn. It attacks your opponents to the best of  its ability. If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct  it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other  actions.  The phantom must always remain within 30’ of the spellcaster;  if it moves beyond this range the spell expires.

Fire phantoms are subservient toward more powerful fire elementals. A fire elemental can easily dismiss a summoned fire phantom back to the elemental plane of fire.

A  summoned monster cannot summon or otherwise conjure another creature,  nor can it use any teleportation or planar travel abilities. Creatures cannot be summoned into an environment that cannot support them.

Arcane Focus: A pint of oil which must be poured out and ignited during the casting of the spell.



Shade said:


> I'm tempted to expand the flavor a bit just to jazz 'em up.  Maybe they're not fully-formed fire elementals, or the form on the fringes of the Elemental Plane of Fire's borders where the elements are diluted?   Something to explain their "phantom" moniker.   In the description, perhaps they don't burn as brightly as normal flames, or are somewhat translucent?




Maybe their flames include strange, ghostly colours (green-blue?). I quite like the somewhat translucent bit, too.

_A vaguely humanoid figure formed out of fire. The bulk of its flames are green-blue and translucent, but hot streaks of red or orange occasionally burn through its body._

As for the "phantom" moniker, I'd rather leave it undecided, but don't mind fleshing out some "sages theories", e.g.:

There are conflicting explanations as to why they are called fire phantoms. It may be because their eldritch green-blue colour matches the natural atmospheric phenomena known as "ghostlights" or "corpse candles". Some scholars believe they are called phantoms because they're not fully formed fire elementals, having been born in areas of the elemental plane of fire where the fire energies are weak and diluted. A few sages theorize they are masses of elemental fire that have absorbed the psychic "impressions" or "residue" of fire elementals and thus animated. The latter theory would explain their subservience to the will of true fire elementals.


----------



## Shade (Aug 2, 2011)

I like it!  I blended the flavor with your working draft and added to Homebrews.   

Ready to move on?


----------



## freyar (Aug 3, 2011)

Nice!  Let's move on.


----------



## Cleon (Aug 5, 2011)

freyar said:


> Nice!  Let's move on.




Agreed.


----------



## Shade (Aug 5, 2011)

_Sand Warriors:_ AC 5; MV 15; HD 2; #AT 1; THAC0 18; Dmg 1d10; SW Take double damage from water-based attacks; SZ M.

*Sand Warriors (Conjuration/Enchantment)*
Sphere: Elemental Earth or Silt
Range: 30 yards
Components: S, M
Duration: 1 round per level
Casting Time: 1 round
Area of Effect: Special
Saving Throw: NA
Material Component: A cup of water

The conjurer can summon 1d4 warriors from beneath the sand to fight in his stead. The warriors are completely loyal and cannot be controlled or stolen, although they can be banished by dispel magic. They have an armor class of 5, 2 Hit Dice, and wield terrible swords of compressed, fine sand that cause 1-10 points of damage whenever they hit. THAC0 is 18, and movement is 150 feet. The sand warriors take double damage from water based attacks. 

To use this spell, a cup of water poured onto the sand where the warriors are to rise.

Originally appeared in Priest's Spell Compendium, Volume Two (1999).


----------



## Cleon (Aug 6, 2011)

Shade said:


> _Sand Warriors:_ AC 5; MV 15; HD 2; #AT 1; THAC0 18; Dmg 1d10; SW Take double damage from water-based attacks; SZ M.




Any preference for type?

Native Outsider? Elemental? They could be Extraplanar Earth Constructs for all we know, since they "are completely loyal and cannot be controlled or stolen, although they can be banished by dispel magic".


----------



## Shade (Aug 8, 2011)

My vote is for Elemental (Earth, Extraplanar).


----------



## Cleon (Aug 8, 2011)

Shade said:


> My vote is for Elemental (Earth, Extraplanar).




That's fine by me. Didn't have a preference for any of them.

So shall we take a similar approach to the Fire Phantom, but using an Earth Elemental as the foundation instead of Fire?


----------



## Shade (Aug 9, 2011)

Hmm...

I'm wondering if the following creature from Dungeon Magazine #110 (the Dark Sun issue) isn't an actual conversion of these creatures...

*Sandknight*
Small Elemental (Earth)
Hit Dice: 1d8+1 (5 hp)
Initiative: +1
Speed: 20 ft. (4 squares), burrow 20 ft.
Armor Class: 18 (+1 size, +1 Dex, +6 natural), touch 12, flat-footed 17
Base Attack/Grapple: +0/-1
Attack: Blood obsidian greatsword +4 melee (1d10+4)
Full Attack: Blood obsidian greatsword +4 melee (1d10+4)
Space/Reach: 5 ft./5 ft.
Special Attacks: -
Special Qualities: Darkvision 60 ft., elemental traits
Saves: Fort +3, Ref +1, Will +0
Abilities: Str 17, Dex 13, Con 12, Int 9, Wis 10, Cha 6
Skills: Listen +4
Feats: Dodge
Environment: Elemental Plane of Earth
Organization: Solitary or squad (2-8)
Challenge Rating: 1
Treasure: None
Alignment: Always neutral
Advancement: 2-3 HD (Small)
Level Adjustment: -

_Composed entirely of sand and pebbles, this humanoid-shaped creature wields a massive sword made of glittering obsidian._

Sandknights are the footsoldiers of the Elemental Plane of Earth, endlessly marching across its stony plains and through its underground tunnels. They make war on anyone they have a chance of defeating, heedless of the danger.

A sandknight is almost 4 feet tall and weighs about 50 pounds. Sandknights speak and understand Terran.

Combat
Sandknights are unsubtle fighters. They simply charge their foes and attack them with their swords.

A sandknight can be summoned using a summon monster II spell.

Using a Sandknight's Gear: If summoned to the Material Plane, sandknights give up their swords only if their caster improves their attitude to friendly (they start out indifferent, so it's a DC 15 Diplomacy or Intimidate check). The sword disappears when the summoning spell ends, even if the sandknight was defeated before then.


----------



## Cleon (Aug 10, 2011)

Shade said:


> Hmm...
> 
> I'm wondering if the following creature from Dungeon Magazine #110 (the Dark Sun issue) isn't an actual conversion of these creatures...
> 
> *Sandknight*




Well there are certainly similarities. The Sand Warriors greater size, speed and HD makes me think one's not a conversion of the other, though.

Anyhow, we could take the Sandknight and enlarge it a size category, but I would prefer a "Sandification" of the Fire Phantom based on an Earth Elemental rather than a Fire one.

It'll be easier just to rough it out and show what I had in mind...


----------



## Cleon (Aug 10, 2011)

*Sand Warrior Working Draft*

*Sand Warrior*
Medium Elemental (Earth, Extraplanar)
Hit Dice: 2d8+4 (13 hp)
Initiative: +0
Speed: 50 ft. (10 squares)
Armor Class: 15 (+5 natural), touch 10, flat-footed 15
Base Attack/Grapple: +1/+5
Attack: Sandsword +5 melee (1d10+6/19-20)
Full Attack: Sandsword +5 melee (1d10+6/19-20)
Space/Reach: 5 ft./5 ft.
Special Attacks: Sandsword
Special Qualities: Darkvision 60 ft., elemental traits, sandwalking, vulnerability to water
Saves: Fort +5, Ref +0, Will +0
Abilities: Str 19, Dex 10, Con 15, Int 6, Wis 11, Cha 8
Skills: Listen +3, Spot +2
Feats: Power Attack
Environment: Elemental Plane of Earth
Organization: Solitary
Challenge Rating: 1
Treasure: None
Alignment: Usually neutral
Advancement: —
Level Adjustment: —

_A humanoid figure holding a sword, both the creature and the blade it wields are formed from fine, compressed sand._

Background.

A sand warrior is 6 feet tall and weighs about 300 pounds.

Sand warriors speak Terran.

COMBAT
 A sand warrior usually wields its sandsword in both hands.

*Sandsword (Ex):* A sand warrior's sword is equivalent to a bastard sword. A sandsword is part of the sand warrior's body, it cannot be disarmed but may be sundered like an ordinary weapon. Damage to the sandsword does not harm the sand warrior. A sand warrior can absorb its sandsword as a free action and create a new one as a swift action. If a sand warrior is killed, its sandsword crumbles to loose sand, as does the rest of its body.

*Sandwalking (Ex):* A sand warrior can move across sand as if it were firm ground. It can even cross shifting dunes or quicksand without penalty.

*Vulnerability to Water (Ex):* Water breaks up the body of a  sand warrior. Minor contact (such as light rain or being splashed  with a  vial or cup of water) inflicts 1d3 points of damage per  strike, or 1d3  per round for an ongoing effect. Major contact (such as a heavy rain or  being drenched in a bucket of water) inflicts 2d6 points of damage.  Complete immersion (including being thrown into a volume of water or  being hit by a large jet of water, as from the geyser function of a  _decanter of endless water_) inflicts 4d6 points of damage. Spells with the water descriptor do double damage against a sand warrior.


----------



## Shade (Aug 10, 2011)

Yeah, I like it.  

Here's a vulnerability to water ability we've used several times before:

Vulnerability to Water (Ex): Firegaunts are particularly vulnerable to water, and contact with it (such as wading into a pool or being splashed with a vial or bucket of water) inflicts 2d6 points of damage per strike. Complete immersion (including being caught in the rain or being subjected to a high volume of water, as from the geyser function of a decanter of endless water) inflicts 6d6 points of damage per round.


----------



## Cleon (Aug 11, 2011)

Shade said:


> Yeah, I like it.
> 
> Here's a vulnerability to water ability we've used several times before:
> 
> Vulnerability to Water (Ex): Firegaunts are particularly vulnerable to water, and contact with it (such as wading into a pool or being splashed with a vial or bucket of water) inflicts 2d6 points of damage per strike. Complete immersion (including being caught in the rain or being subjected to a high volume of water, as from the geyser function of a decanter of endless water) inflicts 6d6 points of damage per round.




I'd go for something a little different, like this:

*Vulnerability to Water (Ex):* Water breaks up the body of a sand warrior. Minor contact (such as light rain or being splashed  with a vial or cup of water) inflicts 1d3 points of damage per  strike, or 1d3 per round for an ongoing effect. Major contact (such as a heavy rain or being drenched in a bucket of water) inflicts 2d6 points of damage. Complete immersion (including being thrown into a volume of water or being hit by a large jet of water, as from the geyser function of a  _decanter of endless water_) inflicts 4d6 points of damage. Spells with the water descriptor do double damage against a sand warrior.


----------



## freyar (Aug 12, 2011)

Well, that seems more realistic, but does it make too much extra work for the DM?


----------



## Cleon (Aug 14, 2011)

freyar said:


> Well, that seems more realistic, but does it make too much extra work for the DM?




If they didn't enjoy extra work they wouldn't be DMs. 

Let's see what Shade says.


----------



## Shade (Aug 15, 2011)

Well, I'm generally a fan of recycling similar abilities for consistency's sake, but your suggested revision doesn't stray too far, so I could live with it.


----------



## Cleon (Aug 16, 2011)

Shade said:


> Well, I'm generally a fan of recycling similar abilities for consistency's sake, but your suggested revision doesn't stray too far, so I could live with it.




I'll plug it into the *Working Draft* then.

Anything else for them mechanically?


----------



## Shade (Aug 16, 2011)

Probably not.  They're fairly basic creatures.


----------



## Cleon (Aug 17, 2011)

Shade said:


> Probably not.  They're fairly basic creatures.




That's what I was thinking, so we just need to flesh out the flavour a bit and we can call it a day.

How's this, borrowing some of the text from a Sandknight?

_A humanoid figure holding a sword, both the creature and the blade it wields are formed from fine, compressed sand._

Sand warriors are rank-and-file troops from the Elemental Plane of Earth. Endlessly marching through its underground maze of tunnels or across its stony fields, they make war on whoever or whatever their commanders direct them against,  heedless of any danger.

  A sand warrior can be summoned using the spells _summon monster II_ [*?*] or _sand warrior_.

Sand warriors speak Terran.

A sand warrior is 6 feet tall and weighs about 300 pounds.

COMBAT
Sand warriors are unsubtle fighters. They simply charge their foes and attack them with their sandswords, which they usually wield in both hands.


----------



## Shade (Aug 17, 2011)

Looking good.  Perhaps play up the sand aspect a bit more, noting that they despise water elementals (rather than the usual Air opposition of earth elementals).


----------



## Cleon (Aug 17, 2011)

Shade said:


> Looking good.  Perhaps play up the sand aspect a bit more, noting that they despise water elementals (rather than the usual Air opposition of earth elementals).




So adding something like "In their own plane, sand warriors normally fight other earth creatures or being from the planes of Fire or Air. They are rarely deployed against their neighbors from the Elemental Plane of Water, since Water-based attacks wash away their sandy flesh like a tide destroying a sandcastle."?


----------



## freyar (Aug 17, 2011)

I think Shade was saying they'd really go after water elementals, but what you have would work.


----------



## Shade (Aug 17, 2011)

Cleon said:


> So adding something like "In their own plane, sand warriors normally fight other earth creatures or being from the planes of Fire or Air. They are rarely deployed against their neighbors from the Elemental Plane of Water, since Water-based attacks wash away their sandy flesh like a tide destroying a sandcastle."?




I was thinking more of a beach aspect, where Earth meets Water there is a sandy beach, and these poor elementals are drawn into an endless battle they are ill-equipped to fight.


----------



## Cleon (Aug 18, 2011)

Shade said:


> I was thinking more of a beach aspect, where Earth meets Water there is a sandy beach, and these poor elementals are drawn into an endless battle they are ill-equipped to fight.




I was thinking they were creatures of the desert and elemental fire, since their vulnerability to water would encourage them to stay away from beaches.

However, they are of the sphere of Silt as well as Earth, and their summong spell's material component is a cup of water, so they do seem to have a connection to Water.

So I guess the "fighting on the beaches" does make sense. Maybe they're created on the beaches and those that aren't busy fighting off the tide of Water Elementals go on a long march to face the Forces of Fire?


----------



## Shade (Aug 18, 2011)

Cleon said:


> So I guess the "fighting on the beaches" does make sense. Maybe they're created on the beaches and those that aren't busy fighting off the tide of Water Elementals go on a long march to face the Forces of Fire?




Sure, that makes sense.


----------



## Cleon (Aug 19, 2011)

Shade said:


> Sure, that makes sense.




Care to write something up?


----------



## freyar (Aug 24, 2011)

Something like this?

Sand warriors are born on the endless beach at the margins of the elemental planes of Earth and Water.  While a lucky few are called on to face the forces of Fire and Air, most of these hapless elementals are forced into war against encroaching water elementals, a battle they are ill-prepared to fight.


----------



## Cleon (Aug 24, 2011)

freyar said:


> Something like this?
> 
> Sand warriors are born on the endless beach at the margins of the elemental planes of Earth and Water.  While a lucky few are called on to face the forces of Fire and Air, most of these hapless elementals are forced into war against encroaching water elementals, a battle they are ill-prepared to fight.




Don't much like the "lucky few" and "most", I'd rather leave it unspecified (or vague) as to what proportion of Sand Warriors are send to face the forces of Water, Air or Fire.

How's this...

Sand warriors are born on the endless beaches where the Elemental Plane of Earth borders with the Plane of Water. Countless numbers of sand warriors rise from the dunes of these beaches. Some are immediately pressed into combat to defend those beaches against encroaching water elementals, a battle they are ill-prepared to fight. The others are sent on epic marches to fight their masters' enemies: fire elementals on glassy plains and firey deserts; air elementals on mountaintops swept by perpetual lightning and duststorms; or rival earth creatures in the endless maze of caves and tunnels within the Elemental Plane of Earth.


----------



## Shade (Aug 25, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Don't much like the "lucky few" and "most", I'd rather leave it unspecified (or vague) as to what proportion of Sand Warriors are send to face the forces of Water, Air or Fire.
> 
> How's this...
> 
> Sand warriors are born on the endless beaches where the Elemental Plane of Earth borders with the Plane of Water. Countless numbers of sand warriors rise from the dunes of these beaches. Some are immediately pressed into combat to defend those beaches against encroaching water elementals, a battle they are ill-prepared to fight. The others are sent on epic marches to fight their masters' enemies: fire elementals on glassy plains and firey deserts; air elementals on mountaintops swept by perpetual lightning and duststorms; or rival earth creatures in the endless maze of caves and tunnels within the Elemental Plane of Earth.




That's fine, although everything after the colon in the final sentence seems like overkill.


----------



## freyar (Aug 25, 2011)

Cut the last sentence or not, it looks fine to me.


----------



## Shade (Aug 26, 2011)

freyar said:


> Cut the last sentence or not, it looks fine to me.




Since I'm fairly confident Cleon's going to reply that he prefers to keep it, I'll just go with the flow and add the whole thing.  

Added to Homebrews.

Are we converting the sand warrior spell, or does summon monster II (and probably summon nature's ally I) suffice?


----------



## freyar (Aug 26, 2011)

Well, SM and SNA probably would cover it, except we converted fire phantom, right? I guess for consistency's sake, we should do the sand warrior spell.


----------



## Cleon (Aug 28, 2011)

Shade said:


> Since I'm fairly confident Cleon's going to reply that he prefers to keep it, I'll just go with the flow and add the whole thing.
> 
> Added to Homebrews.




Actually, I thought it was surplus to requirements, but left it in since I'd typed it out already.

Might as well leave it as is.



Shade said:


> Are we converting the sand warrior spell, or does summon monster II (and probably summon nature's ally I) suffice?




I'll vote for converting the spell.


----------



## freyar (Aug 30, 2011)

Do you both agree to essentially copying the fire phantom spell?


----------



## Cleon (Aug 31, 2011)

freyar said:


> Do you both agree to essentially copying the fire phantom spell?




Easy enough to do.

I realized there's a couple of errors in the previous spell. The oil is consumed, so it's a Material component, not a reusable Focus component.

Also, they're CR 1 creatures so a 3rd level summoning spell should summon more of them.

How's this:

_*Summon Sand Warrior*s_
Conjuration (Fire, Summoning)
Level: Brd 3, Clr 3, Drd 2, Rgr 2, Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V, S, M/DF
Casting Time: 1 round
Range: 30 ft.
Effect: 1d3+1 summoned creatures
Duration: 3 rounds/level (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

This spell summons 1d3+1 sand warriors. They rise from the ground where you designate and   act immediately, on your turn. The sand warriors attack your opponents to the best of their ability. If you can communicate with a sand warrior (they speak Terran), you can direct   it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other   actions.  The warriors must always remain within 30 feet of the spellcaster;   if any moves beyond this range the spell expires.

A summoned monster cannot summon or otherwise conjure another creature, nor can it use any teleportation or planar travel abilities. Creatures cannot be summoned into an environment that cannot support them.

*Arcane Material Component:* A pint of water which must be poured onto sand.

Here's a revised version of the _summon fire phantom_ spell.

_*Summon Fire Phantom*_
Conjuration (Fire, Summoning)
Level: Brd 3, Clr 3, Drd 2, Rgr 2, Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V, S, M/DF
Casting Time: 1 round
Range: 30 ft.
Effect: 1d3+1 summoned creatures
Duration: 3 rounds/level (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

This spell summons 1d3+1 fire phantoms. They appear where you designate and   act immediately, on your turn. They attack your opponents to the best of   its ability. If you can communicate with a fire phantom (they speak Ignan), you can direct   it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other   actions.  The phantoms must always remain within 30 feet of the spellcaster;   if any moves beyond this range the spell expires.

Fire phantoms are subservient toward more powerful fire elementals. A  fire elemental can easily dismiss a summoned fire phantom back to the  elemental plane of fire.

A summoned monster cannot summon or otherwise conjure another creature,  nor can it use any teleportation or planar travel abilities. Creatures  cannot be summoned into an environment that cannot support them.

* Arcane Material Component:* A pint of oil which must be poured out and ignited during the casting of the spell.


----------



## Shade (Sep 1, 2011)

Seems reasonable.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 2, 2011)

Shade said:


> Seems reasonable.




Shall we add those spells to the two creatures and declare them done, then?


----------



## Shade (Sep 2, 2011)

Updated fire phantom and sand warrior.


----------



## freyar (Sep 3, 2011)

Seems done!


----------



## Cleon (Sep 3, 2011)

freyar said:


> Seems done!




We need to change the sand warrior's summoning spell names so they match.



			
				Homebrew said:
			
		

> A sand warrior can be summoned using the spells summon monster II or sand warrior (see below).
> 
> *Summon Sand Warriors*
> Conjuration (Fire, Summoning)
> ...




While we're on that subject, shouldn't the fire phantom also be summonable be a _monster summoning II_?

e.g. "Fire phantoms can be summoned to the material plane using the spells _summon fire phantom_ (see below) or _monster summoning II_."


----------



## freyar (Sep 6, 2011)

You mean summon monster II, right?

I'm starting to think we should either drop the summon monsters, raise their level, or drop these spells.  SMII is lower level than these summon spells for several classes!

Also, summon sand warrior should have the earth descriptor, not fire.


----------



## Shade (Sep 7, 2011)

I vote we drop summon monster II and stick with just the unique spells for them.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 7, 2011)

freyar said:


> You mean summon monster II, right?
> 
> I'm starting to think we should either drop the summon monsters, raise their level, or drop these spells.  SMII is lower level than these summon spells for several classes!
> 
> Also, summon sand warrior should have the earth descriptor, not fire.




Summon monster, monster summoning, what's the difference. Apart from an edition or two. 

I would keep the _summon monster_ spell(s), but it does need increasing to _III_ if we're having them summon the same number of sand warriors / fire phantoms.


----------



## freyar (Sep 8, 2011)

I'm find with either dropping summon monster or bumping to SMIII.  Tell you what, 1 or 2 on the die means drop SM, 3 or 4 means increase the spell level.  Here we go...


----------



## Shade (Sep 8, 2011)

_The die-aye-ee-aye is on my side...yes it is._ 

Updated.

Ready to move on?


----------



## Cleon (Sep 10, 2011)

Shade said:


> _The die-aye-ee-aye is on my side...yes it is._
> 
> Updated.
> 
> Ready to move on?




The spell's name is _summon sand warriors_, plural.

Also, you'll need to change it from Conjuration (Fire, Summoning) to Conjuration (Earth, Summoning).


----------



## Shade (Sep 12, 2011)

Cleon said:


> The spell's name is _summon sand warriors_, plural.




Where am I missing the plural?



Cleon said:


> Also, you'll need to change it from Conjuration (Fire, Summoning) to Conjuration (Earth, Summoning).




Fixed.


----------



## freyar (Sep 13, 2011)

Next?


----------



## Cleon (Sep 13, 2011)

Shade said:


> Where am I missing the plural?




It was in "A sand warrior can be summoned using the spell summon sand warriors (see below)", but that _summon sand warrior_ seems to have gone the way of the Dodo.


----------



## Shade (Sep 16, 2011)

Just beyond the door stands the Clockwork Warrior, a giant black-iron construct with dwarf-like proportions that is broad enough so none can pass into the tunnel beyond. It hums with the sound of gears turning. Its ornate armor plating is scored with weapon damage and stained with what could only be dried blood. Inscribed across its chest (in partially effaced dwarven runes) is "Guardian of the Highforge Pick-Axe" -- proof that the party is on the right track.

*Clockwork Warrior:* AC 3; MV 4 (or less; see below); HD 16; hp 70; THAC0 5; #AT 1; Dmg 30 points (punch); SA + 1 attack bonus; SD recharge to full power, immune to charm, sleep, hold, poison, paralyzation, illusions, and spells that affect only organic beings, immune to nonmagical weapons, repaired by fire (see below), edged weapons used against it have cumulative 10% chance per strike of breaking; SW loses energy when detached from power source (see below), retreats momentarily from electrical attacks; SZ L (10' tall); ML fearless (20); AL N; XP 11,000. Str 23, Int 4 (actually mindless but programmed to operate as if semi-intelligent).

Creaking and whirring, the Clockwork Warrior takes a step toward the PCs and extends one finger. If they look closely, they see a keyhole set into the fingertip. If the Keeper's key is inserted into the keyhole, the Warrior steps aside. A PC who attempts to pick the lock suffers a -30% penalty to his or her Open Locks roll and has only three rounds to complete the task before the golem attacks, striking out against whoever is nearest. Any attack immediately provokes the golem to attack in response.

When it attacks, the Clockwork Warrior moves toward the nearest aggressor and punches. The second step it takes severs it from its winding sprocket in the floor, which goes on spinning free until the golem returns to power up again. Only magical weapons can damage this sprocket; it absorbs 30 damage before breaking. The creature must periodically return to its power source or lose power, eventually becoming immobile and unable to fight. After one turn its movement drops to three, then two, and so on. Its attack damage also drops 1d1O per turn during combat, but only if it attacked the previous turn (it won't waste energy swinging at empty air).

The Clockwork Warrior breaks off its attack if necessary to concentrate on anyone who tries to sneak past into the tunnel beyond. For purposes of smashing or lifting things, its strength is 23, and it gains a +1 attack bonus because of its long reach and the close quarters. Engaging the drive sprocket with the transmission hole in either of its feet completely recharges the creature in one round. It never runs down if allowed to fight while "plugged in."

The Clockwork Warrior is immune to all magic that affects organic beings and cannot be influenced in any way. Because of its heavy iron plating, it can only be damaged by weapons of +1 or better magical bonus, and each blow delivered to it by an edged weapon has a cumulative 10% chance of breaking that weapon. Electrical attacks cause the golem to back away from the spellcaster (though it will never leave the mine), but fire attacks repair 1 point of damage for each 8 points inflicted.

If only one nimble PCs attacks and no one tries to sneak past the Clockwork Warrior, it can be lured away from the tunnel entrance and forced to run out of power without grave injury to the party members (let them figure this out themselves!). As long as it is within the Warrior's movement ability to do so during the turn before it would run down, it breaks off all engagements and returns to its drive gear to recharge. The only way to stop it from doing so is to deal it more than 20 points damage during its retreat (which causes it to fight back) or to enter the tunnel it was set to guard (which causes its guardian function to override its self-preservation function). Remember that the PCs will have real trouble getting out past this mountain of metal if it runs down in the tunnel itself.

After any part of the Clockwork Warrior's body (such as an arm, chest region, or so on) receives 10 or more points of damage, the PCs can see that only the outer armor plating is made of iron. Inside, the golem's clockwork of gears, cogs, levers, and so on are fashioned of platinum and gold: The Keeper could imagine no better form for treasure to take than the machine-works he loves, so he has spent the past 60 years or so forging precious metals into components for the machinery the PCs will encounter.

Note: Most devices that operate the traps that await the PCs contain a number of removable gears (a convenient shorthand for treasure); these gears are each worth 8 gp if sold as metal or 80 gp if sold to the right buyer as a specialty item. Disassembling a device requires two minutes per gear, something for the PCs to consider since time is an issue. Hacking a device into easily transported bits reduces its gear-treasure to the lower value. The Clockwork Warrior contains 130 such gears.

---
[Later in the same adventure…]

*Small Clockwork Warriors (16):* AC 6; Mv 4 (or less); HD 4; hp 25; THAC0 15; #AT 1; Dmg 1d6+3 (pick-axe) or 10 points (punch); SD recharge to full power, immune to charm, sleep, hold, poison, paralyzation, illusions, and spells that affect only organic beings, immune to nonmagical weapons, repaired by fire, edged weapons used against it have cumulative 5% chance per strike of breaking; SW loses energy when detached from power source, retreats momentarily from electrical attacks; SZ M (4' tall); ML fearless (20); AL N; XP 650. Str 21, Int 3 (actually mindless but programmed to operate as if semi-intelligent).

These smaller versions fight as does the Clockwork Warrior but lack its +1 attack bonus and have only half the chance of weapons breaking upon their metallic exterior. It is impossible to distract all of them from returning to their winding sprockets. If they lose their pick-axes, they punch their targets with their steely fists. For purposes of smashing or lifting things, their Strength score is 21. Each golem contains 45 gears.

Originally appeared in TSR Jam (1999).


----------



## freyar (Sep 19, 2011)

Interesting.  A few questions:

1) Do the small ones and just treat the big one as an advanced version maybe with an underbar?  Or do the reverse?

2) It has an Int, but seems more or less mindless.  How do you all want to tackle that?


----------



## Cleon (Sep 20, 2011)

freyar said:


> Interesting.  A few questions:
> 
> 1) Do the small ones and just treat the big one as an advanced version maybe with an underbar?  Or do the reverse?




I'd go for two different statblocks under the same Name, like a Flamebrother Salamander and a normal Salamander.



freyar said:


> 2) It has an Int, but seems more or less mindless.  How do you all want to tackle that?




Well, I'd think it'd be OK making it Mindless, but not that it can remember long and complicated sets of instructions which may give it a facsimile of intelligence.

Well the big question is does it need skills & feats?


----------



## Shade (Sep 20, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Well the big question is does it need skills & feats?




That is the big question.   I say we make 'em mindless, and if we reach the point to start tacking on bonus feats or skill bonuses, it might be time to rethink an Int score.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 21, 2011)

Shade said:


> That is the big question.   I say we make 'em mindless, and if we reach the point to start tacking on bonus feats or skill bonuses, it might be time to rethink an Int score.




Agreed.

Statwise they look like they are pretty close to Iron Golems, but a bit weaker. They've got the same AC as an AD&D Iron Golem but 10 less HP and 2 less HD. Their "repaired by fire" is weaker.

What's up with the "30 points" damage of their punch? Was it originally 3-30? If it is a fixed damage, that gives them better average damage than an AD&D Iron Golem (22 average from 4d10 damage).


----------



## Shade (Sep 21, 2011)

Cleon said:


> What's up with the "30 points" damage of their punch? Was it originally 3-30? If it is a fixed damage, that gives them better average damage than an AD&D Iron Golem (22 average from 4d10 damage).




Good question.  I don't have the original source material...Echohawk provided it awhile back.  I'd suggest we assume "3-30" and work from there.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 21, 2011)

Shade said:


> Good question.  I don't have the original source material...Echohawk provided it awhile back.  I'd suggest we assume "3-30" and work from there.




Agreed.

So, take the SRD Iron Golem and lower the stats a little?


----------



## Shade (Sep 22, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Agreed.
> 
> So, take the SRD Iron Golem and lower the stats a little?




Sure, that seems like a reasonable plan of attack.


----------



## freyar (Sep 22, 2011)

Agreed. But how do we know it's not 5-30? Ah, whatever, I want to use d10s.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 24, 2011)

freyar said:


> Agreed. But how do we know it's not 5-30? Ah, whatever, I want to use d10s.




Well the smaller version had a "20 points" punch, which would fit 2-20 pretty neatly, so it's just a question of adding another d10.


----------



## freyar (Sep 27, 2011)

3d10 is just fine.

Take iron golem abilities and reduce physical scores by -2 across the board?


----------



## Cleon (Sep 29, 2011)

freyar said:


> 3d10 is just fine.
> 
> Take iron golem abilities and reduce physical scores by -2 across the board?




I'd reduce the Strength by more than that. 4d10 vs 3d10 is a big step, roughly equivalent to a size category.

That suggests -8 for Str 25, same as a Clay Golem, but I prefer -6 for Str 27, or _possibly_ -4 for Str 29 (like a Stone Golem).


----------



## freyar (Oct 3, 2011)

Well, we're also reducing the base damage.  How about -6 for Str, then.  But I don't know that Dex needs to drop as much.


----------



## Shade (Oct 3, 2011)

I'd prefer we not lower Dex at all.  These things must be somewhat agile with their "whirlwind attack".


----------



## Cleon (Oct 4, 2011)

Shade said:


> I'd prefer we not lower Dex at all.  These things must be somewhat agile with their "whirlwind attack".




What "whirlwind attack" would that be, pray? I don't see any such in their writeup.


----------



## freyar (Oct 6, 2011)

I don't see one either.  Maybe Shade got these confused with the mindflayer construct?


----------



## Shade (Oct 6, 2011)

freyar said:


> I don't see one either.  Maybe Shade got these confused with the mindflayer construct?




I most certainly did!


----------



## freyar (Oct 7, 2011)

You know, all the SRD golems are Dex 9.  Let's stick to that.

So Str 27, Dex 9, Con -, Int -, Wis 11, Cha 1?


----------



## Cleon (Oct 7, 2011)

freyar said:


> You know, all the SRD golems are Dex 9.  Let's stick to that.
> 
> So Str 27, Dex 9, Con -, Int -, Wis 11, Cha 1?




Works for me.

What about their natural armour? The original monster had the same AC as an AD&D Iron Golem, but a 3E Iron's NA +22 seems to generous.

Maybe NA +18, like a Stone Golem?


----------



## freyar (Oct 9, 2011)

Yes, that's generous enough.  Let's get a homebrew started and start in on the special abilities.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 10, 2011)

*Clockwork Warrior Golem Working Draft*

*Clockwork Warrior Golem*
Large Construct
Hit Dice: 16d10+30 (118 hp)
Initiative: -1
Speed: 10 ft. (2 squares)
Armor Class: 26 (-1 size, -1 Dex, +18 natural), touch 8, flat-footed 26
Base Attack/Grapple: +12/+24
Attack: Slam +19 melee (2d8+8)
Full Attack: 2 slams +19 melee (2d8+8)
Special Attacks: Reflexive sunder
Special Qualities: Clockwork powered, construct traits, darkvision 60 ft., damage resistance 5/adamantine, galvanized movement, repaired by fire
Saves: Fort +5, Ref +4, Will +5
Abilities: Str 27, Dex 9, Con -, Int -, Wis 11, Cha 1
Skills: —
Feats: —
Environment: Any
Organization: Solitary or gang (2-4)
Challenge Rating: 9
Treasure: None
Alignment: Always neutral
Advancement: 17-23 HD (Large); 24-42 HD (Huge)
Level Adjustment: —

*Clockwork Warrior Golem, Lesser*
Small Construct
 Hit Dice: 4d10+10 (32 hp)
 Initiative: -1
 Speed: 10 ft. (2 squares)
 Armor Class: 18 (+1 size, -1 Dex, +8 natural), touch 10, flat-footed 18
 Base Attack/Grapple: +3/+1
 Attack: Heavy pick +6 (1d6+3/×4) or slam +6 melee (1d10+2)
 Full Attack:  Heavy pick +6 (1d6+3/×4) or slam +6 melee (1d10+2)
 Special Attacks: Reflexive sunder
 Special Qualities: Clockwork powered, construct traits, darkvision 60 ft., damage resistance 5/magic, galvanized movement, repaired by fire
 Saves: Fort +1, Ref +0, Will +1
 Abilities: Str 15, Dex 9, Con -, Int -, Wis 11, Cha 1
 Skills: —
 Feats: —
 Environment: Any
 Organization: Solitary, gang (2-4), or team (5-20)
 Challenge Rating: 3
 Treasure: None
 Alignment: Always neutral
 Advancement: 5 HD (Small); 6-11 HD (Medium); 12 HD (Large)
 Level Adjustment: —

_A hulking black-iron __creature shaped like an armored warrior,   or rather like an empty suit of full plate. Its body is as thickly   proportioned as a dwarf, but at least twice as tall. A constant  humming  and clicking __like countless gears and levers sounds from its body._

Clockwork warrior golems are mechanical constructs that resemble iron   golems, but are much more complex and less powerful. The construct   consists of an ornate suit or black iron armor, inside which is the   golem's clockwork of wonderfully crafted gears, cogs and levers. Some  finely crafted clockwork warrior golems have clockwork parts made of  precious metal, but this is not a requirement of their design.

A clockwork warrior golem is powered by its clockwork. Normally this is   wound by an external power source, but the construct can disengage   itself from its power-supply and operate for a few rounds before its   clockwork's springs winds down. These creatures are mindless constructs,  following  their programmed instructions without questions or  imagination. Clockwork warriors are normally programmed to defend a  location,  usually the entrance to a sensitive area. Their guard post is  always  fitted with a power-supply. 

A clockwork warrior golem is 10 feet tall and weighs about 5,000 pounds. It cannot speak or make any vocal noise.

*COMBAT*

A clockwork warrior fights in whatever manner it was programmed to. It usually moves towards the nearest aggressor and punches with its iron  fists until it or its opponents are destroyed. The golem will  normally stay as  close to its power-supply as possible, although it may  have instructions  (such as to pursue robbers) that overrule its basic  programming to keep  itself powered.     

*Clockwork Powered (Ex):* Most of the time, a clockwork warrior golem is powered via a  winding-sprocket set in the wall or floor which fits into the golem's  back, chest, or one of its feet. Winding-sprockets are driven by some  kind of magical or mechanical engine, usually a waterwheel. A winding sprocket has AC 7, hardness 15 and 30 hit points, it can be broken with a DC 30 Str check.

A clockwork warrior golem can function continuously as long as it is  powered by a winding  sprocket. If a clockwork golem moves out of a  square containing a winding-socket it must disconnect itself from its  power source and switch to internal springs for power. These springs  only hold enough energy for a short period of activity. A clockwork  warrior golem will grow slower and weaker as its springs wind down, as  indicated in the following table:

*Rounds of spring-powered activity*
01-10 rounds - Moves and fights normally.
11-20 rounds - Cannot run, -4 Strength penalty.
21-30 rounds - Single action only, -12 Strength penalty.
31-40 rounds - Speed reduced to 5 ft., -20 Strength penalty.
41+ rounds - Helpless and immobile.

A clockwork warrior golem can rewind its springs by reconnecting itself    to a winding-sprocket. Engaging with the winding-sprocket usually  completely recharges the clockwork warrior in one round, but the rate  may vary   depending on the power-supply.

It is possible to rewind a clockwork golem using a giant key, but this requires enormous strength (DC 30 Strength check for 1 round's worth of winding). A creature with a Strength of 30 or more can "take 20" to rewind the clockwork at the rate of 1 round duration per 2 minutes of rewinding.

*Galvanized Movement (Ex):* If a clockwork golem takes electricity  damage  it must succeed on a Fortitude save (DC 15 or the DC of the  attack) or  be forced to move its base speed in a random  direction at  the start of its next turn. This movement is a move action  by the  golem, so it cannot take a full round action (such as charging or  a  full attack) in a round it performs galvanized movement. Reroll the  direction of the galvanic movement if it would enter an  obvious hazard  such as a pit or pool of acid. The construct's  programming causes it to  avoid spaces it registers as unsafe. The  construct may move through  areas threatened by attacks of opportunities  or traps that are not  included in its programming.

 *Reflexive Sunder (Ex):* The armor plates and  gears that make up a clockwork warrior constantly shift and  rotate  around each other in combat, creating a grinding sound like  scores of  millstones crushing gravel. Anyone who strikes the warrior with a melee  weapon must succeed at a DC 17 Reflex save or the armor plates crush the  weapon for 2d8+8  points of damage; if it is a natural weapon, the  attacker takes the  damage instead. The save DC is Dexterity-based.

*Repaired by Fire** (Ex):* If a clockwork warrior golem is hit by an attack that deals fire damage (whether magical or mundane) it heals 1 point of damage for every 4 points of fire damage the attack would normally deal.

*Construction*
Building a clockwork warrior golem requires 10,000 pounds of high   quality metals worked into intricate shapes, plus forging equipment,   fuel and other tools. These materials are used to create the golem's   body, plus the external power-supply and winding-sprocket that gives the   golem motive force, and have a total cost of at least 15,000 gold   pieces. Assembling these components requires a DC 25 Craft   (armorsmithing) check and a DC 30 Craft (trapmaking) check.

Additional winding-sprockets (200 gp) and power-supplies (4000 gp) can be constructed. If such backup power systems are created at  the  same time as the clockwork warrior golem itself, no additional  skill  checks are required. Creating backup systems at a later date  requires a  DC 15 Craft (trapmaking) check and DC 15 Craft (trapmaking)  check.

CL 13th; Craft Construct, _mass bull's strength_, _fabricate_, caster must be  at least 13th level; Price 75,000 gp; Cost 45,000 gp + 2,400 XP.

*Lesser Clockwork Warrior Golem*

A lesser clockwork warrior golem is 4 feet tall and weighs about 300 pounds.

*COMBAT*

*Clockwork Powered (Ex):* A lesser clockwork warrior's clockwork  loses power much more rapidly than a standard clockwork warrior, as  shown in the table below. Its internal springs are much smaller and  weaker, rewinding a lesser clockwork golem with a key requires a DC24  Strength check. 

*Rounds of spring-powered activity*
 01-03 rounds - Moves and fights normally.
04-06 rounds - Cannot run, -2 Strength penalty.
 07-09 rounds - Single action only, -4 Strength penalty.
 10-12 rounds - Speed reduced to 5 ft., -8 Strength penalty.
 13+ rounds - Helpless and immobile.

*Reflexive Sunder (Ex):* DC 11, 1d6+2 damage.

 *Construction*A lesser clockwork warrior golem requires 1000 pounds of metal plus other materials costing at least 2000 gold pieces. Assembly requires a DC 20 Craft (armorsmithing) check and a DC 25 Craft (trapmaking) check. Additional winding sprockets cost 200 gold pieces each and additional power-supplies 500 gold pieces each.

Both standard clockwork warriors and lesser clockwork warriors  use the     same winding-sprocket, so a lesser clockwork golem can be wound by a     standard clockwork warrior's power-supply. A lesser warrior's power  supply can rewind a standard clockwork warrior golem at the rate of 1  round of rewinding for 1 round of spring-powered activity.

CL 9th; Craft Construct, _bull's strength_, _fabricate_, caster must be  at least 9th level; Price 18,000 gp; Cost 10,000 gp + 640 XP.


----------



## freyar (Oct 11, 2011)

Seems like the greater one's DR might have some magic component, too, not sure about that.  And the resistance to magic reads a whole lot like "immunity to magic" that most golems have.  Definitely needs a winding down SQ, and I think it also needs an ability to auto-sunder weapons that hit it (Ref save to avoid damaging a weapon?).


----------



## Cleon (Oct 11, 2011)

freyar said:


> Seems like the greater one's DR might have some magic component, too, not sure about that.  And the resistance to magic reads a whole lot like "immunity to magic" that most golems have.  Definitely needs a winding down SQ, and I think it also needs an ability to auto-sunder weapons that hit it (Ref save to avoid damaging a weapon?).




Well AD&D Flesh Golems have immunity to magic weapons, which becomes DR 5/adamantine in 3E. These Clockwork Warriors are tougher than Fleshies, but didn't need +2 or better weapons to hit like AD&D Stone Golems, so I thought DR 5/adamantine was the best match.

The Lesser version is so much weaker it felt wrong to give it DR /adamantine, so I just dropped it to DR /magic.

As for the auto-sunder, we could modify one of these special qualities:
*Blunting Field (Su):* A serpent griffon golem's scales create a shimmering field of energy that discharge into any sharp point or edge that strike it. Any opponent that strikes the golem with a manufactured piercing or slashing weapon must make a DC 25 Fortitude save or the weapon takes 3d8+13 points of force damage. The save DC is Constitution-based.

 *Reflexive Disarm (Ex):* The armor plates and body-joints that make up a dwarf crusher golem constantly shift and rotate around each other in combat, creating a grinding sound like scores of millstones crushing gravel. Anyone who strikes a rock crusher with a melee attack must make a DC 16 Reflex save or the armor plates trap the weapon. The armor plates crush the victim's weapon for 3d8+9 points of damage; if it is a natural weapon, the attacker takes the damage instead. If the weapon can be disarmed, it is also trapped in the armor plates. To recover a trapped weapon, an opponent must make a successful Disarm attack against the golem (the golem gets a +23 modifier on its opposed attack roll). The save DC is Dexterity-based.​  I think Reflexive Disarm repurposed into Reflexive Sunder would be the best approach. Just leave the damage and drop the disarming.


----------



## Shade (Oct 11, 2011)

freyar said:


> And the resistance to magic reads a whole lot like "immunity to magic" that most golems have.




Agreed.  Make it so!


----------



## Cleon (Oct 12, 2011)

Shade said:


> Agreed.  Make it so!




Anyone care to present a draft, then?


----------



## freyar (Oct 13, 2011)

If you'll prepare the Reflexive Sunder. 

The Iron Golem has


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Immunity to Magic (Ex): An iron golem is immune to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance. In addition, certain spells and effects function differently against the creature, as noted below.
> 
> A magical attack that deals electricity damage slows an iron golem (as the slow spell) for 3 rounds, with no saving throw.
> 
> ...



which is pretty close to what we want.  The original clockwork warrior has


> The Clockwork Warrior is immune to all magic that affects organic beings and cannot be influenced in any way. ...  Electrical attacks cause the golem to back away from the spellcaster (though it will never leave the mine), but fire attacks repair 1 point of damage for each 8 points inflicted.



Maybe something like

Immunity to Magic (Ex): A clockwork warrior is immune to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance. In addition, certain spells and effects function differently against the creature, as noted below.

A magical attack that deals electricity damage causes the clockwork warrior to flee from the caster on its next turn, using a move action.

A magical attack that deals fire damage heals 1 point of damage for each 8 points of damage the attack would otherwise deal. If the amount of healing would cause the clockwork warrior to exceed its full normal hit points, it gains any excess as temporary hit points. For example, a clockwork warrior hit by a fireball gains back 2 hit points if the damage total is 18 points. A clockwork warrior gets no saving throw against fire effects.

A clockwork warrior is affected normally by rust attacks, such as that of a rust monster or a rusting grasp spell.



Hmmm, I might like swapping the fleeing bit back into the slow effect of the iron golem.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 14, 2011)

freyar said:


> If you'll prepare the Reflexive Sunder.
> 
> The Iron Golem has
> 
> which is pretty close to what we want.




Erm, no.

The Clockwork Warrior is affected normally by spells that affect objects - direct damage spells (apart from fire), disintegrate, et cetera. It's only spells that are tailored for living, thinking organisms, like _sleep_ or _cause disease_ that have no effect.

3E Constructs all come with that immunity to living-target spells as standard.

In other words, it doesn't have an Iron Golem's immunity to spells. Heck, it doesn't even have spell resistance, since the original has no MR percentage listed.


----------



## freyar (Oct 16, 2011)

Hmm, but it does have the odd bit about fire and electricity spells.  

Here's a question: do most object-affecting spells allow SR?


----------



## Cleon (Oct 17, 2011)

freyar said:


> Hmm, but it does have the odd bit about fire and electricity spells.




We haven't written that up, no.



freyar said:


> Here's a question: do most object-affecting spells allow SR?




Well _warp wood_ and _shatter_ allow spell resistance, not sure about the other object-specific spells. Certainly, there's a lot of spells that affect objects and creatures (like _disintegrate_ and most direct-damage spells) which can be blocked by SR.


----------



## Shade (Oct 19, 2011)

My two bits...

Despite the original writeup, the "greater" version has alot of HD, and is clearly healed by fire, so I'm content to just give 'em the standard immunity to magic with healed by fire.  We can work some sort of electricity response in as well (maybe negates DR like many golems vulnerabilities?).

I'd be fine just leaving it off for the "lesser" version, and maybe retain a "healed by fire" and/or "weakened/repelled by electricity" SQ.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 19, 2011)

Shade said:


> My two bits...
> 
> Despite the original writeup, the "greater" version has alot of HD, and is clearly healed by fire, so I'm content to just give 'em the standard immunity to magic with healed by fire.  We can work some sort of electricity response in as well (maybe negates DR like many golems vulnerabilities?).
> 
> I'd be fine just leaving it off for the "lesser" version, and maybe retain a "healed by fire" and/or "weakened/repelled by electricity" SQ.




Well we could split the difference and give the Greater version spell resistance rather than immunity, and leave the SR off for the Lesser version.


----------



## freyar (Oct 21, 2011)

I still prefer to leave in Immunity to Magic.  I don't see anything in the construct type that says it would not be affected by spells that affect living targets, just spells that are mind-affecting or allow a Fort save (not affecting objects).  There are spells that affect living targets but don't allow Fort saves, surely.  Word of Chaos, for example, affects living creatures but also must affect inevitables.

Negating DR for electricity damage would work for me well enough.  Or slowing.  Either is better than the vague backing away of the original monster.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 22, 2011)

freyar said:


> I still prefer to leave in Immunity to Magic.  I don't see anything in the construct type that says it would not be affected by spells that affect living targets, just spells that are mind-affecting or allow a Fort save (not affecting objects).  There are spells that affect living targets but don't allow Fort saves, surely.  Word of Chaos, for example, affects living creatures but also must affect inevitables.
> 
> Negating DR for electricity damage would work for me well enough.  Or slowing.  Either is better than the vague backing away of the original monster.




A Construct's immunity to mind-affecting powers, poison, sleep effects, paralysis, stunning, disease, death effects, and necromancy effects covers most of the "not affected by spells that only work on living creatures".

I'm still strongly against a standard Golem-type Immunity to Magic, there's nothing to support it in the original text and it makes them a lot tougher nut to crack, which I don't think was intended.


----------



## Shade (Oct 24, 2011)

I strongly dislike SR for 'em.  I'll let you two debate the merits of other approaches.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 25, 2011)

Shade said:


> I strongly dislike SR for 'em.  I'll let you two debate the merits of other approaches.




I'd rather not give them SR than give them Spell Immunity.

They'll need a 'Healed by Fire' Special Quality.

For the 'Repulsed by Electricity' SQ, how about if they're hit for electrical damage their "circuits go haywire" and they must succeed at a Fort save or be forced to move (costing a normal move action) in a random direction that turn?


----------



## Shade (Oct 25, 2011)

Cleon said:


> For the 'Repulsed by Electricity' SQ, how about if they're hit for electrical damage their "circuits go haywire" and they must succeed at a Fort save or be forced to move (costing a normal move action) in a random direction that turn?




That does sound fun...


----------



## Cleon (Oct 26, 2011)

Shade said:


> That does sound fun...




Care to work out a SQ then?


----------



## freyar (Oct 27, 2011)

No SR, no Immunity to Magic?  Add Healed by Fire?  Ok, that's fine.  

My price: why doesn't Cleon work out the random movement from electricity?


----------



## Cleon (Oct 27, 2011)

freyar said:


> No SR, no Immunity to Magic?  Add Healed by Fire?  Ok, that's fine.
> 
> My price: why doesn't Cleon work out the random movement from electricity?




Something like...

*"Some Name" Galvanized Movement? (Ex):* If a clockwork golem takes electricity damage it must succeed at a Fortitude save (DC X or the DC of the attack) or be forced to move Y feet in a random direction at the start of its next turn. This movement is a move action by the golem, so it cannot take a full round action (such as charging or a full attack) in a round it performs galvanized movement.

EDIT: I'm considering adding the following:

If the forced movement would cause the golem to walk into some obvious hazard, such as a wall of fire or a pit, the golem can stop on the edge of the hazard if it succeeds at a DC Z Reflex save.


----------



## Shade (Oct 27, 2011)

I'm content to allow its basic programming to avoid obvious hazards to its well-being.  (Note:  I wouldn't consider attacks of opportunity "obvious" in this case.)


----------



## Cleon (Oct 27, 2011)

Shade said:


> I'm content to allow its basic programming to avoid obvious hazards to its well-being.  (Note:  I wouldn't consider attacks of opportunity "obvious" in this case.)




Well I was unsure whether the golem should be able to stop its movement if the electrical attack causes a "uncontrollable movement spasm", but I also didn't want it to be an easy way of forcing the golem into a bottomless pit or the like.

I suppose we could make it so it takes some damage if it forces itself to stop during a galvanised movement - maybe it has to consciously "seize its transmission", which causes its gears to grind together and thus damage itself?

Oh, and I'd better change that wall of fire to something else - fire isn't hazardous to a clockwork golem, it's beneficial.

e.g.: 

If the galvanized movement would cause the golem to move into some obvious  hazard, such as a _wall of thorns_ or a pit, the golem can stop on the edge  of the hazard if it succeeds at a DC Z Reflex save. However, the clockwork golem must seize its internal gears to force itself to stop its galvanized movement, taking xdx points of damage.

Anyhow, regardless of that. What DC for the saves?


----------



## Shade (Oct 27, 2011)

I really dislike the saving throw to avoid a hazard...which will probably have a saving throw of its own.   It is fiddly if it has to save to avoid walking itself into a pit trap, for instance, and then save again to avoid falling in the pit.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 27, 2011)

Shade said:


> I really dislike the saving throw to avoid a hazard...which will probably have a saving throw of its own.   It is fiddly if it has to save to avoid walking itself into a pit trap, for instance, and then save again to avoid falling in the pit.




I have no objection to cutting it out entirely, but I got the impression you were content with it:



Shade said:


> I'm content to allow its basic programming to avoid  obvious hazards to its well-being.  (Note:  I wouldn't consider attacks  of opportunity "obvious" in this case.)




What would you like to do about it?


----------



## Shade (Oct 31, 2011)

Cleon said:


> What would you like to do about it?




Galvanized Movement (Ex): If a clockwork golem takes electricity damage it must succeed on a Fortitude save (DC X or the DC of the attack) or be forced to move its base speed in a random direction at the start of its next turn. This movement is a move action by the golem, so it cannot take a full round action (such as charging or a full attack) in a round it performs galvanized movement.   A clockwork golem's basic programming allows it to avoid obvious hazards to its well-being (i.e., pit traps, pools of acid, etc.)   Its programming does not prevent it from moving through threatened areas and drawing attacks of opportunity.


----------



## freyar (Oct 31, 2011)

Shall we still have it take damage when avoiding obvious hazards?  I kind of liked that idea, though I'd make it just a small amount of damage.


----------



## Shade (Oct 31, 2011)

freyar said:


> Shall we still have it take damage when avoiding obvious hazards?  I kind of liked that idea, though I'd make it just a small amount of damage.




I'm opposed, but if you both insist, at least don't require a separate saving throw to avoid it.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 1, 2011)

Shade said:


> I'm opposed, but if you both insist, at least don't require a separate saving throw to avoid it.




I have no objection to dropping the saving throw.

However, I'd either have it take damage when forced to stall galvanized movement, or not be able to avoid hazards during this uncontrolled movement.

If its basic programming allows it to stop itself without harm, then its programmers would likely set this construct to do that whenever it is forced to move by an electric shock.


----------



## Shade (Nov 2, 2011)

Cleon said:


> If its basic programming allows it to itself without harm, then its programmers would likely set this construct to do that whenever it is forced to move by an electric shock.




It looks like you're missing a word in there, but I think you're suggesting the "forced stall", correct?

I'll go for that.   Maybe 1d4 damage for a forced stall?


----------



## Cleon (Nov 2, 2011)

Shade said:


> It looks like you're missing a word in there, but I think you're suggesting the "forced stall", correct?
> 
> I'll go for that.   Maybe 1d4 damage for a forced stall?




Dang it, it lost a "stop" when I reedited it. Better correct the previous post.

Methinks the damage ought to be more than that. If it isn't a significant amount, it's no real sacrifice. I was thinking something like 2d12 or 3d12 damage, or thereabouts. Maybe/probably reduce that for the Lesser version.


----------



## Shade (Nov 3, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Dang it, it lost a "stop" when I reedited it. Better correct the previous post.
> 
> Methinks the damage ought to be more than that. If it isn't a significant amount, it's no real sacrifice. I was thinking something like 2d12 or 3d12 damage, or thereabouts. Maybe/probably reduce that for the Lesser version.




I was thinking of the lesser version.  I could see maybe 2d8 for the greater, but I don't think it should be significant.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 3, 2011)

Shade said:


> I was thinking of the lesser version.  I could see maybe 2d8 for the greater, but I don't think it should be significant.




I think it has to have a significant enough opportunity cost to give them a reason _*not*_ to use it.


----------



## Shade (Nov 3, 2011)

Cleon said:


> I think it has to have a significant enough opportunity cost to give them a reason _*not*_ to use it.




I wasn't thinking it was a choice.  I figured the construct's programming would automatically attempt to avoid hazards, and thus suffer a slight burning of the gears.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 6, 2011)

Shade said:


> I wasn't thinking it was a choice.  I figured the construct's programming would automatically attempt to avoid hazards, and thus suffer a slight burning of the gears.




Well, _*every*_ action this Construct does is automatic in that sense, since it's a mindless creature that simply follows its programming. The choices in question are performed by the programmer, not the Clockwork Warrior itself.

It doesn't answer the issue that if the burning of the gears is too "slight" it would probably be more advantageous if it always blocked Galvanized Movement. It will thereby remain in whatever tactically advantageous position its programmer chooses, and not be forced to roam hither and thither.


----------



## Shade (Nov 7, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Well, _*every*_ action this Construct does is automatic in that sense, since it's a mindless creature that simply follows its programming. The choices in question are performed by the programmer, not the Clockwork Warrior itself.
> 
> It doesn't answer the issue that if the burning of the gears is too "slight" it would probably be more advantageous if it always blocked Galvanized Movement. It will thereby remain in whatever tactically advantageous position its programmer chooses, and not be forced to roam hither and thither.




That is why I once again return to my original stance:   No choice but to move, but its programming prevents it from moving through obvious detrimental areas.   No damage, no choice, no need to save.  It simply moves randomly away into "safe" spaces (albeit possibly through areas threatened by AoOs).


----------



## Cleon (Nov 7, 2011)

Shade said:


> That is why I once again return to my original stance:   No choice but to move, but its programming prevents it from moving through obvious detrimental areas.   No damage, no choice, no need to save.  It simply moves randomly away into "safe" spaces (albeit possibly through areas threatened by AoOs).




So something like "Reroll the direction of the galvanic movement if it would enter an obvious hazard such as a pit or pool of acid. The construct's programming causes it to avoid spaces it registers as unsafe. The construct may move through areas threatened by attacks of opportunities or traps that are not included in its programming."?

I could live with that.


----------



## Shade (Nov 7, 2011)

Cleon said:


> So something like "Reroll the direction of the galvanic movement if it would enter an obvious hazard such as a pit or pool of acid. The construct's programming causes it to avoid spaces it registers as unsafe. The construct may move through areas threatened by attacks of opportunities or traps that are not included in its programming."?
> 
> I could live with that.




Looks good!


----------



## Cleon (Nov 8, 2011)

Shade said:


> Looks good!




Amalgamating the changes we get:
*
 Galvanized Movement (Ex):* If a clockwork golem takes electricity damage  it must succeed on a Fortitude save (DC X or the DC of the attack) or  be forced to move its base speed in a random  direction at the start of its next turn. This movement is a move action  by the golem, so it cannot take a full round action (such as charging or  a full attack) in a round it performs galvanized movement. Reroll the direction of the galvanic movement if it would enter an  obvious hazard such as a pit or pool of acid. The construct's  programming causes it to avoid spaces it registers as unsafe. The  construct may move through areas threatened by attacks of opportunities  or traps that are not included in its programming.

Is that enough for you?


----------



## Shade (Nov 8, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Amalgamating the changes we get:
> *
> Galvanized Movement (Ex):* If a clockwork golem takes electricity damage  it must succeed on a Fortitude save (DC X or the DC of the attack) or  be forced to move its base speed in a random  direction at the start of its next turn. This movement is a move action  by the golem, so it cannot take a full round action (such as charging or  a full attack) in a round it performs galvanized movement. Reroll the direction of the galvanic movement if it would enter an  obvious hazard such as a pit or pool of acid. The construct's  programming causes it to avoid spaces it registers as unsafe. The  construct may move through areas threatened by attacks of opportunities  or traps that are not included in its programming.
> 
> Is that enough for you?




Fantastic!


----------



## Cleon (Nov 8, 2011)

Shade said:


> Fantastic!




Is it so shockingly good it moves you to consider this special ability finished?

In other words, shall I add it to the Working Draft, wherever the heck that is.


----------



## freyar (Nov 8, 2011)

Yes, go ahead!


----------



## Shade (Nov 9, 2011)

Agreed.  Please do so.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 9, 2011)

freyar said:


> Yes, go ahead!




You're not Shade!

I'll add it to the *Working Draft* regardless. Then if Shade doesn't like it I can blame you. 

I put a 15 for the base DC, but I'm willing to change it (although it's unlikely to meet an electrical attack that doesn't already have a DC).

Okay, we've got the "Winding Down" and "Healed by Fire" SQs still to do.

Oh, and I promised you a Reflexive Sunder, so here it is:

 *Reflexive Sunder (Ex):* The armor plates and gears that make up a clockwork warrior constantly shift and  rotate around each other in combat, creating a grinding sound like  scores of millstones crushing gravel. Anyone who strikes the warrior with a melee weapon must succeed at a DC X Reflex save or the armor plates crush the weapon for YdY+Z  points of damage; if it is a natural weapon, the attacker takes the  damage instead. The save DC is Dexterity-based.


----------



## Shade (Nov 9, 2011)

Cleon said:


> You're not Shade!
> 
> I'll add it to the *Working Draft* regardless. Then if Shade doesn't like it I can blame you.




Shade is pleased.  



Cleon said:


> I put a 15 for the base DC, but I'm willing to change it (although it's unlikely to meet an electrical attack that doesn't already have a DC).




That'll do.



Cleon said:


> *Reflexive Sunder (Ex):* The armor plates and gears that make up a clockwork warrior constantly shift and  rotate around each other in combat, creating a grinding sound like  scores of millstones crushing gravel. Anyone who strikes the warrior with a melee weapon must succeed at a DC X Reflex save or the armor plates crush the weapon for YdY+Z  points of damage; if it is a natural weapon, the attacker takes the  damage instead. The save DC is Dexterity-based.




Looks good.  Damage equal to slam attack plus Str and 1/2?


----------



## Cleon (Nov 9, 2011)

Shade said:


> Shade is pleased.




Spoilsport. I was looking forward to blaming freyar. 



Shade said:


> Looks good.  Damage equal to slam attack plus Str and 1/2?




The Dwarf Crusher I used a basis had its Reflexive Disarm do the same damage as its slam, which means 2d8+8. That would be enough for me.

Does the Greater version have a hardness-defeating Reflexive Sunder as if it were adamantine, since it has an adamantine Damage Reduction?

I'd say not, since the Reflexive Sunder is already pretty nasty.


----------



## Shade (Nov 9, 2011)

Cleon said:


> The Dwarf Crusher I used a basis had its Reflexive Disarm do the same damage as its slam, which means 2d8+8. That would be enough for me.




Sounds good.  I do love consistency.  



Cleon said:


> Does the Greater version have a hardness-defeating Reflexive Sunder as if it were adamantine, since it has an adamantine Damage Reduction?
> 
> I'd say not, since the Reflexive Sunder is already pretty nasty.




Agreed.  Unless it were made of adamantine...


----------



## Cleon (Nov 10, 2011)

Shade said:


> Sounds good.  I do love consistency.




Updated *Working Draft* according to your boringly conventional standpoint. 

Okay then, what about the "Winding Down".

It looks like the original can move and fight for up to 40 rounds before it completely loses power.

I suggest something like this.

01-10 rounds - Fights normally.
11-20 rounds - Cannot run, -X Strength penalty. [-4 Str?]
21-30 rounds - Single action only, -Y Strength penalty. [-12 Str?]
31-40 rounds - Speed 5 ft, -Z Strength penalty. [-20 Str?]

The Lesser version will need a lower strength penalty. Probably -2/-4/-8.

EDIT: Oh, and I'll add a Repaired by Fire SQ. It currently uses the original's 1:8 healing ratio, but I wouldn't mind reducing that ratio. The SRD Iron Golem heals at 1:3 but the AD&D Iron Golem heals at 1 per "hit die of damage" (I guess that means 1:3.5 for _fireballs_, 1:4.5 for _delayed blast fireballs_ and so on). That suggests the Clockwork Warrior's version is weaker, but I'm still thinking 1:4 or 1:6.

However, it works for mundane fire attacks, not just magical fire, which makes them easy to repair - just build a bonfire under your golem.


----------



## Shade (Nov 10, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Okay then, what about the "Winding Down".
> 
> It looks like the original can move and fight for up to 40 rounds before it completely loses power.
> 
> ...




That all seems reasonable.



Cleon said:


> EDIT: Oh, and I'll add a Repaired by Fire SQ. It currently uses the original's 1:8 healing ratio, but I wouldn't mind reducing that ratio. The SRD Iron Golem heals at 1:3 but the AD&D Iron Golem heals at 1 per "hit die of damage" (I guess that means 1:3.5 for _fireballs_, 1:4.5 for _delayed blast fireballs_ and so on). That suggests the Clockwork Warrior's version is weaker, but I'm still thinking 1:4 or 1:6.
> 
> However, it works for mundane fire attacks, not just magical fire, which makes them easy to repair - just build a bonfire under your golem.




How about 1:6 for the lesser, and 1:4 for the greater?


----------



## Cleon (Nov 11, 2011)

Shade said:


> That all seems reasonable.




Good! All it needs is the ugly details. 

How's this:

*Clockwork Powered (Ex):* Most of the time, a clockwork warrior golem is powered via a winding-sprocket set in the  wall or floor which fits into the golem's back, chest, or one  of its feet. Winding-sprockets are driven by some kind  of magical or mechanical engine, usually a waterwheel. A sprocket is AC X, hardness Y and takes Z hit points to  destroy.

A clockwork warrior golem can function continuously as long as it is powered by a winding  sprocket. If a clockwork golem moves out of a square containing a winding-socket it must disconnect itself from its power source and switch to internal springs for power. These springs only hold enough energy for a short period of activity. A clockwork warrior golem will grow slower and weaker as its springs wind down, as indicated in the following table:

*Rounds of spring-powered activity*
01-10 rounds - Moves and fights normally.
11-20 rounds - Cannot run, -4 Strength penalty.
21-30 rounds - Single action only, -12 Strength penalty.
31-40 rounds - Speed reduced to 5 ft., -20 Strength penalty.
41+ rounds - Helpless and immobile.

A clockwork warrior golem can rewind its springs by reconnecting itself to a winding-sprocket. This typically requires 1 round of rewinding to regain 1 round of spring-powered activity, but the rate may vary depending on the power-supply.

It is possible to rewind a clockwork golem using a giant key, but this requires enormous strength (Str Z+).



Shade said:


> How about 1:6 for the lesser, and 1:4 for the greater?




I'd prefer have it be the same for both, preferably 1:4.

Also, if you insist on a different rate for the Lesser/Greater version I'd rather the greater version has the 1:6 ratio, since.

A) Being so much bigger, it'll need more heat to warm up enough to reforge its components.
B) The Lesser version may be facing much lower level PCs who might only be able to do a few HPs of fire damage (via _flaming hand_ or alchemist's fire, for example), in which case the effect would not be very noticeable.


----------



## freyar (Nov 13, 2011)

On the other hand, the greater one is made with more powerful magic.   Ehh, just go with 1:4 for both.

I like the winding down, but I'm worried that fights won't last long enough for it to come into play.  Well, that is the original timing, so I guess it's not supposed to come up much.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 13, 2011)

freyar said:


> On the other hand, the greater one is made with more powerful magic.   Ehh, just go with 1:4 for both.




I'll change the *Working Draft*.



freyar said:


> I like the winding down, but I'm worried that fights won't last long enough for it to come into play.  Well, that is the original timing, so I guess it's not supposed to come up much.




Well we could make it in steps of 5 rounds instead of 10, I suppose.

Maybe give the lesser version 3 round steps. Being smaller it could have a lower "battery life".


----------



## Shade (Nov 15, 2011)

I'm fine with 1:4 for both, and don't have a strong preference on the number of rounds for winding down.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 15, 2011)

Shade said:


> I'm fine with 1:4 for both, and don't have a strong preference on the number of rounds for winding down.




I'd leaning towards reducing the duration as previously described, but am OK with the current 10 round steps.

Let's wait to see which Freyar prefers.


----------



## freyar (Nov 16, 2011)

Let's leave the big ones with the original duration but reduce the smaller ones to 3 round increments.  That works.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 16, 2011)

freyar said:


> Let's leave the big ones with the original duration but reduce the smaller ones to 3 round increments.  That works.




Well I'm not sure about having such a big difference, but I'll stick it in and see what it looks like.

Updating *Working Draft*.

We need to decide on a Strength to rewind it with a key. I suggest Golem's Strength +3 (e.g. Str 18 for Lesser, Str 30 for Greater).


----------



## Shade (Nov 16, 2011)

Cleon said:


> We need to decide on a Strength to rewind it with a key. I suggest Golem's Strength +3 (e.g. Str 18 for Lesser, Str 30 for Greater).





That makes good sense.  However, I'd suggest a Str check rather than require a flat score, but based off those amounts.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 17, 2011)

Shade said:


> That makes good sense.  However, I'd suggest a Str check rather than require a flat score, but based off those amounts.




I prefer a flat score myself. If you set it to an average roll (e.g. DC 20-21 for the +10 bonus of Str 30) then it's possible for a weedy "average joe" to wind up these giant death machines, which doesn't feel right.

I suppose if you use "take 20" DCs (DC 30 for Greater, DC 24 for Lesser) it could work, but it's take a long time (2 minutes per round-worth of rewinding).

That is workable, although it's effectively similar to a flat score.


----------



## Shade (Nov 17, 2011)

Cleon said:


> I prefer a flat score myself. If you set it to an average roll (e.g. DC 20-21 for the +10 bonus of Str 30) then it's possible for a weedy "average joe" to wind up these giant death machines, which doesn't feel right.
> 
> I suppose if you use "take 20" DCs (DC 30 for Greater, DC 24 for Lesser) it could work, but it's take a long time (2 minutes per round-worth of rewinding).
> 
> That is workable, although it's effectively similar to a flat score.




"Effectively similar" is more appealing that using legacy mechanics.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 17, 2011)

Shade said:


> "Effectively similar" is more appealing that using legacy mechanics.




Yes, I was starting to like the "take 20" model.

Shall I update it with DC 30/24?


----------



## Shade (Nov 17, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Yes, I was starting to like the "take 20" model.
> 
> Shall I update it with DC 30/24?




Sounds good.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 18, 2011)

Shade said:


> Sounds good.




Updating *Working Draft*.

We still need stats for the sprocket.


----------



## freyar (Nov 22, 2011)

30 hp comes from the original description.  It's supposedly only damaged by magic weapons, which would argue for a pretty decent hardness, I guess.  Hardness 5?   AC is probably not much more than 10, since it's inanimate, though.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 22, 2011)

freyar said:


> 30 hp comes from the original description.  It's supposedly only damaged by magic weapons, which would argue for a pretty decent hardness, I guess.  Hardness 5?   AC is probably not much more than 10, since it's inanimate, though.




It ought to be hardness 10 or 12, since it's probably toughened steel of some sort. I was tempted to give it DR X/adamantine, but that seemed extraneous.


----------



## freyar (Nov 23, 2011)

The general rule is hardness or DR but not both.  Anyway, looking over the SRD hardness table, anywhere from hardness 10 to 15 seems ok to me.  Is AC 10 ok?  Maybe even lower...  Give it maybe 30 hp, like a solid inch of iron?


----------



## Cleon (Nov 26, 2011)

freyar said:


> The general rule is hardness or DR but not both.




I did say giving it DR seemed extraneous. 



freyar said:


> Anyway, looking over the SRD hardness table, anywhere from hardness 10 to 15 seems ok to me.  Is AC 10 ok?  Maybe even lower...  Give it maybe 30 hp, like a solid inch of iron?




So, would hardness 12 suit you?

If I remember the rules rightly, an object's AC is entirely down to its size, with a -5 for having no Dexterity and a -2 penalty: AC 3 for Medium, 4 for Small, 5 for Tiny, 7 for Diminutive and AC 11 for Fine.

I suppose we could give it an armour bonus to justify giving it AC 10.

30 hit points feels a bit too low, although I suppose it could represent "enough damage to jam the mechanism" rather than "enough damage to destroy it". 

Still, I'm leaning more towards 60 hp like an Iron Door.


----------



## Shade (Nov 28, 2011)

AC 10, hardness 12, and 30 hp for the "enough to jam it" appeal.


----------



## freyar (Nov 29, 2011)

Hmm, how big is the sprocket anyway?  I'm not sure it should get an armor bonus, since that's really incorporated in the hardness.  What if we just base AC on size as usual (maybe the sprocket is Tiny) and bump the hardness if you want it to be tougher.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 30, 2011)

freyar said:


> Hmm, how big is the sprocket anyway?  I'm not sure it should get an armor bonus, since that's really incorporated in the hardness.  What if we just base AC on size as usual (maybe the sprocket is Tiny) and bump the hardness if you want it to be tougher.




It doesn't say how big it is, so we can make it whatever size we want.

I don't think it has to be that big. From a mechanical viewpoint, it need be no bigger than the gearing that connects an engine to the gearbox of a small lorry (for the greater version) or a motorbike (for the lesser version). A few inches across would be plenty to prevent distortions from the stress for the Greater Version. Of course, the sprocket might of of much lower quality materials and manufacturing than a modern machine, which would suggest it may be bigger and cruder than that.

It might be better to view it from a different direction: the sprocket is small enough to fit into the sole of the golem's foot. Now, a clockwork warrior is about twice as tall as a human, and probably has big feet (since it's heavy, so would want a wide footprint to keep its ground pressure down). So, I'd guesstimate the Large sized version could fit a cog six inches to a foot across into its heel. However, I'd rather the business end be a cog about three inches across, just small enough to fit into a Lesser Warrior with oversized feet.


----------



## freyar (Dec 1, 2011)

You seem to be arguing roughly for Diminutive, and I'm good with that.  Therefore, how is AC 7 and hardness maybe slightly more, like 13 or 14?


----------



## Shade (Dec 1, 2011)

freyar said:


> You seem to be arguing roughly for Diminutive, and I'm good with that.  Therefore, how is AC 7 and hardness maybe slightly more, like 13 or 14?




Works for me.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 1, 2011)

freyar said:


> You seem to be arguing roughly for Diminutive, and I'm good with that.  Therefore, how is AC 7 and hardness maybe slightly more, like 13 or 14?




If it goes from Tiny to Diminutive, surely its AC10 should increase by 2, not decrease by 3!

Plus, why should its hardness increase because it's smaller - wouldn't it stay the same (because it's made of the same stuff), or arguably be slightly lower (because it's thinner and thus more fragile).


----------



## freyar (Dec 2, 2011)

No, no, the AC 10 was just pulling a number out of thin air.  I most recently suggested basing the AC purely on size, which would reduce the AC, but assuming that its "magical enhancement to hardness" is a bit more to counteract the reduced AC.

Hardness is based on material only, though.  The hp might go down due to it being smaller.  But again, we're just freehanding this, since we can assume it's magically enhanced iron.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 3, 2011)

freyar said:


> No, no, the AC 10 was just pulling a number out of thin air.  I most recently suggested basing the AC purely on size, which would reduce the AC, but assuming that its "magical enhancement to hardness" is a bit more to counteract the reduced AC.




Yes, standard objects have AC entirely based on size, a Diminutive object having AC 7. (10 +4 size -5 Dex -2 object penalty).

I suppose we ought to stick to that. Even the SRD Lich's phylactery has the standard AC for an object, and I doubt this spindle would be any tougher to hit.



freyar said:


> Hardness is based on material only, though.  The hp might go down due to it being smaller.  But again, we're just freehanding this, since we can assume it's magically enhanced iron.




Quite.

I'm starting to toy with hardness 15, based on the greater version having DR/adamantine, but would accept hardness 12.

It'll need a Break DC too, I'm thinking DC 30.


----------



## freyar (Dec 5, 2011)

AC 7, hardness 15, 30 hp, break DC 30 are fine.  I might go a little lower on the break DC, but the SRD examples are all over the place.  So I'm ok with 30.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 5, 2011)

freyar said:


> AC 7, hardness 15, 30 hp, break DC 30 are fine.  I might go a little lower on the break DC, but the SRD examples are all over the place.  So I'm ok with 30.




It just seems right to have the break DC at least as high as the DC needed to wind up the Golem...


----------



## Shade (Dec 6, 2011)

Cleon said:


> It just seems right to have the break DC at least as high as the DC needed to wind up the Golem...




In fact, it seems it should be tougher.  But the same is acceptable.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 6, 2011)

Shade said:


> In fact, it seems it should be tougher.  But the same is acceptable.




That was my thinking, but it's already tougher to break than the SRD's 2-inch thick Iron Door (Break DC 28). We could go up to around DC 32 to 35, but any more than that would be really stretching it.


----------



## Shade (Dec 7, 2011)

Cleon said:


> That was my thinking, but it's already tougher to break than the SRD's 2-inch thick Iron Door (Break DC 28). We could go up to around DC 32 to 35, but any more than that would be really stretching it.




Let's just stick with 30.  It's a nice, round number.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 7, 2011)

Shade said:


> Let's just stick with 30.  It's a nice, round number.




I consider that acceptable...


----------



## freyar (Dec 8, 2011)

Same here.  We're only looking for a DC hard enough to "jam" it, right?

Clockwork Powered (Ex): Most of the time, a clockwork warrior golem is powered via a winding-sprocket set in the wall or floor which fits into the golem's back, chest, or one of its feet. Winding-sprockets are driven by some kind of magical or mechanical engine, usually a waterwheel. A sprocket is AC 7, hardness 15 and takes 30 hit points or a DC 30 Str check to destroy.

A clockwork warrior golem can function continuously as long as it is powered by a winding sprocket. If a clockwork golem moves out of a square containing a winding-socket it must disconnect itself from its power source and switch to internal springs for power. These springs only hold enough energy for a short period of activity. A clockwork warrior golem will grow slower and weaker as its springs wind down, as indicated in the following table:

Rounds of spring-powered activity
01-10 rounds - Moves and fights normally.
11-20 rounds - Cannot run, -4 Strength penalty.
21-30 rounds - Single action only, -12 Strength penalty.
31-40 rounds - Speed reduced to 5 ft., -20 Strength penalty.
41+ rounds - Helpless and immobile.

A clockwork warrior golem can rewind its springs by reconnecting itself to a winding-sprocket. This typically requires 1 round of rewinding to regain 1 round of spring-powered activity, but the rate may vary depending on the power-supply.

It is possible to rewind a clockwork golem using a giant key, but this requires enormous strength (DC 30 Strength check for 1 round's worth of winding). A creature with a Strength of 30 or more can "take 20" to rewind the clockwork at the rate of 1 round duration per 2 minutes of rewinding.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 9, 2011)

freyar said:


> Same here.  We're only looking for a DC hard enough to "jam" it, right?




Yes, it only needs enough damage to stop it turning. Thus, I an considering changing "destroy" to "break", at least for the Strength check.

e.g. "A winding sprocket has AC 7, hardness 15 and 30 hit points, it can be broken with a DC 30 Str check."


----------



## freyar (Dec 9, 2011)

Yes, I'd agree with that.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 10, 2011)

freyar said:


> Yes, I'd agree with that.




Updating *Working Draft*.

What did we decide for Resistance To Spells? I thought we settled on cutting it, leaving them with standard Construct resistances plus Galvanized Movement and Repaired By Fire.


----------



## freyar (Dec 12, 2011)

That's right.

Whew, who'd have thought this monster would take so long?


----------



## Shade (Dec 12, 2011)

freyar said:


> That's right.
> 
> Whew, who'd have thought this monster would take so long?




Not I.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 12, 2011)

freyar said:


> That's right.




 Updating *Working Draft*.



freyar said:


> Whew, who'd have thought this monster would take so long?




You can never tell with the quietly ticking ones...

OK, we've only got Challenge Rating, Flavour Text, and Construction to work out.


----------



## freyar (Dec 12, 2011)

The greater ones seem slightly worse than normal stone golems, so maybe CR 10.  CR 3 is probably ok for the lesser ones.

For construction, I'm thinking more in the way of materials and Craft DCs, less in the way of magic.  What do you think?


----------



## Shade (Dec 12, 2011)

freyar said:


> For construction, I'm thinking more in the way of materials and Craft DCs, less in the way of magic.  What do you think?




Agreed.  These seem a nice project for the (non-SRD) artificer class.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 13, 2011)

freyar said:


> The greater ones seem slightly worse than normal stone golems, so maybe CR 10.  CR 3 is probably ok for the lesser ones.




These fellows don't have immunity to magic or _slow_, which are both quite powerful. They look more like a CR 9 to me.



freyar said:


> For construction, I'm thinking more in the way of materials and Craft DCs, less in the way of magic.  What do you think?




Well if we still have a few spell prereqs that would be acceptable, I suppose. We also need to include costs for a winding sprocket and its power-train, in case it needs multiple power outlets.


----------



## freyar (Dec 13, 2011)

Reflexive sunder is pretty mean, too, though.  I guess I could go for CR 9.

Yes, just not many spell prereqs.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 14, 2011)

freyar said:


> Reflexive sunder is pretty mean, too, though.  I guess I could go for CR 9.




Hmm, yes it could make quite a difference to melee attackers.

Anyhow, I'm not dead set on the Challenge Rating yet. CR 10 might be a better fit.



freyar said:


> Yes, just not many spell prereqs.




Such as?


----------



## freyar (Dec 14, 2011)

Maybe just the usual limited wish.  Wait, you're the one who wants spells involved.

I'd mostly just want X gp of fancy metals, etc.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 17, 2011)

freyar said:


> Maybe just the usual limited wish.  Wait, you're the one who wants spells involved.




I was thinking _limited wish_ and _bull's strength_ could be enough.



freyar said:


> I'd mostly just want X gp of fancy metals, etc.




I wasn't thinking it needs fancy metals, so much as lots of high-quality metal and relatively tricky Craft rolls. Not sure what Craft skill covers clockwork, though...


----------



## freyar (Dec 19, 2011)

Trapmaking?  Armorsmithing or Weaponsmithing maybe.

I can go with limited wish and bull's strength.  Caster level 12 and maybe corresponding craft checks around 30ish?


----------



## Cleon (Dec 19, 2011)

freyar said:


> Trapmaking?  Armorsmithing or Weaponsmithing maybe.
> 
> I can go with limited wish and bull's strength.  Caster level 12 and maybe corresponding craft checks around 30ish?




Craft (trapmaking) seems the closest. It's basically an insanely complicated mechanical trap.

Since it'll resemble an animated suit or full plate, Armorsmithing would seem to fit better than Weaponsmithing.

So, we're talking high-DC Craft (trapmaking) plus Craft (armorsmithing) checks.

I'm tempted to make the trapmaking DC higher, since the mechanical innards are probably the most complicated elements.

That jars with the sample Constructions I can think of, which use the same DCs, but I don't mind being jarring.


----------



## freyar (Dec 20, 2011)

Craft (trapmaking) DC 30 and Craft (armorsmithing) DC 25 work for you?


----------



## Cleon (Dec 21, 2011)

freyar said:


> Craft (trapmaking) DC 30 and Craft (armorsmithing) DC 25 work for you?




Sure!


----------



## Shade (Dec 21, 2011)

freyar said:


> Craft (trapmaking) DC 30 and Craft (armorsmithing) DC 25 work for you?




Works for me.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 21, 2011)

Shade said:


> Works for me.




So what sort of cost do you think?

I'd like a separate cost for adding additional winding-sprockets.


----------



## freyar (Dec 22, 2011)

Shield guardians and stone golems bracket it power wise.  Maybe around 85000 gp cost?


----------



## Cleon (Dec 22, 2011)

freyar said:


> Shield guardians and stone golems bracket it power wise.  Maybe around 85000 gp cost?




Shield Guardians cost 120,000 gold pieces, which is barking compared to the 90,000 gp of the more powerful Stone Golem.

I was thinking of something like a 75,000 gp price, with materials costing 15,000 gp (so cost equals 45,000 gp + 2,400 XP).


----------



## freyar (Dec 24, 2011)

Hmm, I must have been looking at the greater stone golem.  Yeah, I agree this shouldn't cost more than a stone golem.  45,000 gp cost makes sense to me.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 24, 2011)

freyar said:


> Hmm, I must have been looking at the greater stone golem.  Yeah, I agree this shouldn't cost more than a stone golem.  45,000 gp cost makes sense to me.




Care to rough something out, then?


----------



## freyar (Dec 25, 2011)

Construction

A clockwork warrior golem’s body is build from XXX pounds of high quality metals worked into intricate shapes.  Assembling the body requires a DC 25 Craft (armorsmithing) check and a DC 30 Craft (trapmaking) check.

CL 13th; Craft Construct, bull's strength, limited wish, caster must be at least 13th level; Price 90,000 gp; Cost 45,000 gp + 2,400 XP.

Would you like to write up the lesser version?  I increased the CL to 13th just to avoid the "too low level to use limited wish easily" problem.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 27, 2011)

freyar said:


> Construction
> 
> A clockwork warrior golem’s body is build from XXX pounds of high quality metals worked into intricate shapes.  Assembling the body requires a DC 25 Craft (armorsmithing) check and a DC 30 Craft (trapmaking) check.
> 
> ...




You did not allow for materials cost, which I suggested at 15,000 gp, or mention additional winding-sprockets.

*Construction*
Building a clockwork warrior golem requires 10,000 pounds of high quality metals worked into intricate shapes, plus forging equipment, fuel and other tools. These materials are used to create the golem's body, plus the external power-supply and winding-sprocket that gives the golem motive force, and have a total cost of at least 15,000 gold pieces. Assembling these components requires a DC 25 Craft (armorsmithing) check and a DC 30 Craft (trapmaking) check.

Additional winding-sprockets (200 gp) and power-supplies (4000 gp) can be constructed. If such backup power systems are created at the same time as the clockwork warrior golem itself, no additional skill checks are required. Creating backup systems at a later date requires a DC 15 Craft (trapmaking) check and DC 15 Craft (trapmaking) check.

CL 13th; Craft Construct, _bull's strength_, _limited wish_, caster must be  at least 13th level; Price 75,000 gp; Cost 45,000 gp + 2,400 XP.

*Lesser Clockwork Warrior
*A lesser clockwork warrior golem requires 1000 pounds of metal plus other materials costing at least 2000 gold pieces. Assembly requires a DC 20 Craft (armorsmithing) check and a DC 25 Craft (trapmaking) check. Additional winding sprockets cost 200 gold pieces each and additional power-supplies 500 gold pieces each.

Both standard clockwork warriors and lesser clockwork warriors  use the  same winding-sprocket, so a lesser clockwork golem can be wound by a  standard clockwork warrior's power-supply, although a lesser warrior's  power supply is too weak to wind a standard clockwork warrior golems.

CL 13th; Craft Construct, _bull's strength_, _limited wish_, caster must be  at least 13th level; Price 18,000 gp; Cost 10,000 gp + 640 XP.


----------



## freyar (Dec 31, 2011)

I think I just didn't do the math right on the construction, since it's been a while.

I can't say I like CL 13 and limited wish for the lesser ones, since they're so much lower level.  Any chance we could come up with a lower level substitute spell?


----------



## Cleon (Dec 31, 2011)

freyar said:


> I think I just didn't do the math right on the construction, since it's been a while.
> 
> I can't say I like CL 13 and limited wish for the lesser ones, since they're so much lower level.  Any chance we could come up with a lower level substitute spell?




How about _fabricate_?

Hmm, that seems such a good fit I'm tempted to add _fabricate_ to the regular version.


----------



## freyar (Jan 2, 2012)

Geez, why don't more constructs have that?  Let's use fabricate.  I think I'd prefer to leave the regular version just with limited wish and bull's strength, but I won't mind if you insist on fabricate there too.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 2, 2012)

freyar said:


> Geez, why don't more constructs have that?  Let's use fabricate.  I think I'd prefer to leave the regular version just with limited wish and bull's strength, but I won't mind if you insist on fabricate there too.




I'd like to give them both _fabricate_, since it can distinguish them from "non-clockwork" golems. If you don't want to have three spells for the regular version, we could give it the 6th level spell _mass bull's strength_ instead of _bull's strength_.


----------



## freyar (Jan 2, 2012)

Fabricate for both is ok.  You mean Mass Bull's Strength to replace both Bull's Strength and Limited Wish?  That's ok I guess.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 2, 2012)

freyar said:


> Fabricate for both is ok.  You mean Mass Bull's Strength to replace both Bull's Strength and Limited Wish?  That's ok I guess.




Yes. _fabricate_ and _mass bull's strength_ for the regular version, _fabricate_ and _bull's strength_ for the lesser version.


----------



## Shade (Jan 3, 2012)

Cleon said:


> Yes. _fabricate_ and _mass bull's strength_ for the regular version, _fabricate_ and _bull's strength_ for the lesser version.




Sounds good!


----------



## freyar (Jan 3, 2012)

Good.  Are we set on CR 9 with CR 3 for the lesser version?


----------



## Cleon (Jan 3, 2012)

Shade said:


> Sounds good!




So...

*Construction*
Building a clockwork warrior golem requires 10,000 pounds of high  quality metals worked into intricate shapes, plus forging equipment,  fuel and other tools. These materials are used to create the golem's  body, plus the external power-supply and winding-sprocket that gives the  golem motive force, and have a total cost of at least 15,000 gold  pieces. Assembling these components requires a DC 25 Craft  (armorsmithing) check and a DC 30 Craft (trapmaking) check.

Additional winding-sprockets (200 gp) and power-supplies (4000  gp) can be constructed. If such backup power systems are created at the  same time as the clockwork warrior golem itself, no additional skill  checks are required. Creating backup systems at a later date requires a  DC 15 Craft (trapmaking) check and DC 15 Craft (trapmaking) check.

CL 13th; Craft Construct, _mass bull's strength_, _fabricate_, caster must be  at least 13th level; Price 75,000 gp; Cost 45,000 gp + 2,400 XP.

*Lesser Clockwork Warrior
*A lesser clockwork warrior golem requires 1000 pounds of metal plus other materials costing at least 2000 gold pieces. Assembly requires a DC 20 Craft (armorsmithing) check and a DC 25 Craft (trapmaking) check. Additional winding sprockets cost 200 gold pieces each and additional power-supplies 500 gold pieces each.

Both standard clockwork warriors and lesser clockwork warriors  use the   same winding-sprocket, so a lesser clockwork golem can be wound by a   standard clockwork warrior's power-supply, although a lesser warrior's   power supply is too weak to wind a standard clockwork warrior golems.

CL 13th; Craft Construct, _bull's strength_, _fabricate_, caster must be  at least 13th level; Price 18,000 gp; Cost 10,000 gp + 640 XP.

...If the above costs and DCs look OK to you I can plug it straight into the *Working Draft*, although we were talking about lowering the CL for the lesser version.


----------



## freyar (Jan 4, 2012)

Let's reduce the CL to 9th for the lesser ones.  Then I'll be happy with it.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 4, 2012)

freyar said:


> Let's reduce the CL to 9th for the lesser ones.  Then I'll be happy with it.




Updating the *Working Draft*, with CL 9th for the Lessers.


----------



## Shade (Jan 5, 2012)

I think CR 9 for greater and CR 3 for lesser fit.


----------



## freyar (Jan 5, 2012)

Anyone want to handle description and flavor?

Combat:  Clockwork warrior golems are programmed to defend one location, typically near their power supply.  They attack intruders viciously, but it is difficult to draw them away.  

Should we put in more conditions about how to draw them out?


----------



## Cleon (Jan 6, 2012)

Shade said:


> I think CR 9 for greater and CR 3 for lesser fit.




That's a good match to what's already in the *Working Draft*.

I'll update it.



freyar said:


> Anyone want to handle description and flavor?
> 
> Combat:  Clockwork warrior golems are programmed to defend one location, typically near their power supply.  They attack intruders viciously, but it is difficult to draw them away.
> 
> Should we put in more conditions about how to draw them out?




Not me, I'm about ready to call it a day.


----------



## freyar (Jan 7, 2012)

I'll wait.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 7, 2012)

freyar said:


> I'll wait.




Go on then. Patience is a virtue.


----------



## freyar (Jan 8, 2012)

Clockwork warrior golems are programmed to defend one location near their power supply, usually the entrance to a sensitive area. They attack intruders viciously, blocking the entrance and moving away only if an intruder somehow gets past them.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 8, 2012)

freyar said:


> Clockwork warrior golems are programmed to defend one location near their power supply, usually the entrance to a sensitive area. They attack intruders viciously, blocking the entrance and moving away only if an intruder somehow gets past them.




Hmm. I've reread the original text and noticed a couple of points we might want to consider.

Firstly "Engaging the drive sprocket with the transmission hole in either of its feet completely recharges the creature *in one round*."

I'm thinking we should include that, since it would drastically weaken it at the current "round for round" rewind rate. We could change it to:
A clockwork warrior golem can rewind its springs by reconnecting itself   to a winding-sprocket. Engaging with the winding-sprocket usually completely recharges the clockwork warrior in one round, but the rate may vary   depending on the power-supply.

Both standard clockwork warriors and lesser clockwork warriors  use the    same winding-sprocket, so a lesser clockwork golem can be wound by a    standard clockwork warrior's power-supply. A lesser warrior's power supply can rewind a standard clockwork warrior golem at the rate of 1 round of rewinding for 1 round of spring-powered activity.​Secondly:

"Inside, the golem’s clockwork of gears, cogs, levers, and so on are fashioned of platinum and gold: The Keeper could imagine no better form for treasure to take than the machine-works he loves, so he has spent the past 60 years or so forging precious metals into components for the machinery the PCs will encounter.
...these gears are each worth 8 gp if sold as metal or 80 gp if sold to the right buyer as a specialty item
...The Clockwork Warrior contains 130 such gears.
...Each [Small Clockwork Warrior] golem contains 45 gears."

I read that as saying the warrior's gears didn't have to be made of treasure, the Keeper just liked the idea. If we do give them gears as treasure I think we should make them worth about 1/20th or 1/10th the total cost - 750 or 1500 gp for a regular warrior, 100 or 200 gp for the lesser.

_A hulking black-iron __creature shaped like an armored warrior,  or rather like an empty suit of full plate. Its body is as thickly  proportioned as a dwarf, but at least twice as tall. A constant  humming and clicking __like countless gears and levers sounds from its body._

Clockwork warrior golems are mechanical constructs that resemble iron  golems, but are much more complex and less powerful. The construct  consists of an ornate suit or black iron armor, inside which is the  golem's clockwork of wonderfully crafted gears, cogs and levers. Some finely crafted clockwork warrior golems have clockwork parts made of precious metal, but this is not a requirement of their design.

A clockwork warrior golem is powered by its clockwork. Normally this is  wound by an external power source, but the construct can disengage  itself from its power-supply and operate for a few rounds before its  clockwork's springs winds down. These creatures are mindless constructs, following  their programmed instructions without questions or imagination. Clockwork warriors are normally programmed to defend a location,  usually the entrance to a sensitive area. Their guard post is always  fitted with a power-supply. 

A clockwork warrior golem is 10 feet tall and weighs about 5,000 pounds. It cannot speak or make any vocal noise.

COMBAT

A clockwork warrior fights in whatever manner it was programmed to, they usually move toward the nearest aggressor and punch with their iron fists until they or their opponents are destroyed. The golem will normally stay as  close to its power-supply as possible, although it may have instructions  (such as to pursue robbers) that overrule its basic programming to keep  itself powered.


----------



## freyar (Jan 9, 2012)

That's fine, but let's remove the run-on sentence in the tactics as so:

A clockwork warrior fights in whatever manner it was programmed to. They usually move toward the nearest aggressor and punch with their iron fists until they or their opponents are destroyed.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 10, 2012)

freyar said:


> That's fine, but let's remove the run-on sentence in the tactics as so:
> 
> A clockwork warrior fights in whatever manner it was programmed to. They usually move toward the nearest aggressor and punch with their iron fists until they or their opponents are destroyed.




Updating *Working Draft*.

I changed the "run-on" bit so it was a single golem rather than plural, to match the rest of the paragraph.


----------



## freyar (Jan 14, 2012)

All done?


----------



## Cleon (Jan 14, 2012)

freyar said:


> All done?




Well, it's done apart from the Lesser version still having the regular version's saves. It should be Fort +1, Ref +0, Will +1.


----------



## freyar (Jan 16, 2012)

Let's get that fixed and move on....


----------



## Cleon (Jan 17, 2012)

freyar said:


> Let's get that fixed and move on....




 Updating *Working Draft*.

What would you like to move on to?

EDIT: Oh, and I'd better add a height and weight for the lesser version.

It says they're 4 feet tall, which scales down to 320 pounds relative to the regular version's 10 ft and 5,000 pounds.

I'll call it 300 pounds.


----------



## freyar (Jan 18, 2012)

Looks good.

As for what's next, I have no real opinion.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 18, 2012)

freyar said:


> Looks good.
> 
> As for what's next, I have no real opinion.




Guess you'll need some fake opinion, then. 

Well we've got stuff to be getting on with in other threads, so we could always leave this one to lie fallow for a while.


----------



## Shade (Jan 19, 2012)

Transferred to Homebrews.

I've got a few in the queue for this thread.   I'll post one soon.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 20, 2012)

Shade said:


> Transferred to Homebrews.
> 
> I've got a few in the queue for this thread.   I'll post one soon.




No worries, I don't mind waiting.


----------



## Shade (Feb 9, 2012)

*Water Leaper*

CLIMATE/TERRAIN: Temperate lakes
FREQUENCY: Very rare
ORGANIZATION: Pack
ACTIVITY CYCLE: Day
DIET: Carnivore
INTELLIGENCE: Semi- (2-4)
TREASURE: Nil
ALIGNMENT: Neutral (evil)
NO. APPEARING: 4d6
ARMOR CLASS: 8
MOVEMENT: Sw 12
HIT DICE: 1 - 1
THAC0: 20
NO. OF ATTACKS: 1
DAMAGE/ATTACK: 1d4
SPECIAL ATTACKS: Shriek, Leap
SPECIAL DEFENSES: Nil
MAGIC RESISTANCE: Nil
SIZE: S (3' long)
MORALE: Average (10)
XP VALUE: 65

Water leapers, known as llamhigyn y dwr (pronounced "thlamheegin er door") in their native Wales, look something like a large toad with a fishlike tail instead of back legs and a pair of flying-fish style fin-wings instead of front legs. Their broad mouths are full of very sharp teeth. They will attack almost anything and regularly destroy the nets and lines of local fishermen. They also attack swimmers and livestock drinking at the lake's edge.
Water leapers can jump out of the water and glide up to 30 feet using their winglike fins. They have been known to try to knock fishermen out of their boats by deliberately leaping at them. They can also emit a piercing shriek which can startle an unwary fisherman or animal, making their attack easier.

Combat: Water leapers attack with their teeth. Up to 12 of the creatures can attack a human-sized victim at the same time. Their leap attack is treated as a normal melee attack, but instead of causing damage, a successful hit forces the victim to roll a successful Dexterity ability check or fall down. Characters sitting in a boat have a +2 bonus to this check, and characters standing up in boats have a -2 penalty. If the boat is a small one, there is a good chance that the character will fall overboard. The water leaper's shriek causes every creature within 30 yards to roll a successful saving throw vs. Spells or be unable to take any action for the next round. A water leaper may not take any other action in a round when it shrieks.

Habitat/Society: Water leapers live in small schools in the lakes of Wales. These schools operate like a wolf pack, showing a rudimentary organization in the hunt. For instance, they will spread out so as to attack a target from all sides at once, and one member may stand a little way off and shriek just as the others are leaping to the attack.

Ecology: Water leapers can live on lake fish, but their appetites are so voracious that they quickly deplete the fish stocks in any lake they inhabit. They seem to prefer the meat of sheep, cattle, and humans who wade into the shallows at the lake's edge and will even try to knock victims into the water from bridges and boats. Water leapers have no natural enemies apart from enraged fishermen and deadlier water monsters such as lake worms and water horses.

Originally appeared in HR3 - Celts Campaign Sourcebook (1992).


Echohawk posted a picture here:  http://www.enworld.org/forum/attach...d1320347447-paging-echohawk-water-leaper.jpeg


----------



## Cleon (Feb 10, 2012)

Shade said:


> *Water Leaper*




I've already got a Homebrew of this on my hard-drive from many years ago, inspired by the monsters' appearances in several Chaosium products (RuneQuest's _The Big Rubble_ and the Pendragon RPG, to be precise - although I knew of the HR3 version).

Hmm, looking it up again I've also got a RuneQuest 3rd Edition conversion I did as well, plus notes that Vincent N. Darlage Inzeladun website has a 3.0 D&D conversion of the Celts Campaign Sourcebook monster. Looks like *that conversion's* still about on old.enworld.org archives.

I might post my Homebrew once we've finished this conversion. It's at least years old, so uses 3.0 rules. Maybe I should update it to 3.5.


----------



## Shade (Feb 10, 2012)

Sounds good.

So...should it be a swarm, or have the "swarmfighting" ability we've used before?e


----------



## Cleon (Feb 10, 2012)

Shade said:


> Sounds good.
> 
> So...should it be a swarm, or have the "swarmfighting" ability we've used before?e




Swarmfighting seems a better match.


----------



## Shade (Feb 13, 2012)

Sounds good.

Suggested ability scores?


----------



## Cleon (Feb 13, 2012)

Shade said:


> Sounds good.
> 
> Suggested ability scores?




I'm thinking halfway between a Lizard and a Monitor Lizard, but leaning towards the Lizard...

*Lizard:* Tiny, 1/4 HD, Str 3, Dex 15, Con 10, Int 1, Wis 12, Cha 2, 1d4 bite
*Monitor:* Medium, 3 HD, Str 17, Dex 15, Con 17, Int 1, Wis 12, Cha 2, +3 NA, 1d8 bite
*Average:* Small, 1 HD, Str 17, Dex 15, Con 13-14, Int 1, Wis 12, Cha 2, +1 NA, bite 1d6

I'd lower the Con and bite towards the Lizard and cut the Dex a step (since they're ungainly fliers and almost helplessly clumsy on land), resulting in:

*Water Leaper:* Small, 1 HD, Str 10, Dex 13, Con 11, Int 1, Wis 12, Cha 2, bite 1d4


----------



## Shade (Feb 13, 2012)

Seems reasonable.

Here's the swarmfighting ability...

Swarmfighting (Ex): Dragon beetles can coordinate melee attacks against a single target and are adept at fighting side by side in close quarters. When a dragon beetle engages a Small or larger creature in melee, and at least one other dragon beetle occupies the target's space, it gains a +1 morale bonus on the attack roll. This bonus increases by +1 for each additional dragon beetle beyond the first that occupies the target's space.


----------



## Cleon (Feb 13, 2012)

Shade said:


> Seems reasonable.
> 
> Here's the swarmfighting ability...
> 
> Swarmfighting (Ex): Dragon beetles can coordinate melee attacks against a single target and are adept at fighting side by side in close quarters. When a dragon beetle engages a Small or larger creature in melee, and at least one other dragon beetle occupies the target's space, it gains a +1 morale bonus on the attack roll. This bonus increases by +1 for each additional dragon beetle beyond the first that occupies the target's space.




That's the one I was thinking of.

Do we stick to standard spacing rules for them, or let them crowd in closer. It says "Up to 12 of the creatures can attack a human-sized victim at the same time" - normally eight Small creatures can simultaneously attack a Medium creature, not a dozen.


----------



## Shade (Feb 14, 2012)

Cleon said:


> That's the one I was thinking of.
> 
> Do we stick to standard spacing rules for them, or let them crowd in closer. It says "Up to 12 of the creatures can attack a human-sized victim at the same time" - normally eight Small creatures can simultaneously attack a Medium creature, not a dozen.




I'm not greatly bothered either way.


----------



## Cleon (Feb 14, 2012)

Shade said:


> I'm not greatly bothered either way.




Let's leave them with standard spacing, at least for the time being.

I think we've got enough to start a Working Draft now...


----------



## Cleon (Feb 14, 2012)

*Water Leaper Working Draft*

*Water Leaper*
Small Magical Beast (Aquatic)
*Hit Dice:* 1d10 (5 hp)
*Initiative:* +1
*Speed:* Swim 30 ft. (6 squares)
*Armor Class:* 12 (+1 size, +1 Dex), touch 12, flat-footed 11
*Base Attack/Grapple:* +1/-3
*Attack:* Bite +4 melee (1d4)
*Full Attack:* Bite +4 melee (1d4)
*Space/Reach:* 5 ft./5 ft.
*Special Attacks:* Shriek, swarmfighting, water leap
*Special Qualities:* Darkvision 60 ft., water dependent
*Saves:* Fort +2, Ref +3, Will +1
*Abilities:* Str 10, Dex 13, Con 11, Int 1, Wis 12, Cha 2
*Skills:* Hide +9, Jump +10, Listen +3, Spot +3
*Feats:* Weapon Finesse (B), Weapon Focus (Bite), Improved Bull Rush (B)
*Environment:* Temperate aquatic
*Organization:* Pack (4-24)
*Challenge Rating:* 1/2
*Treasure:* None
*Alignment:* Always neutral evil
*Advancement:* —
*Level Adjustment:* —

_A grotesque creature resembling a legless, winged toad with a long   tail. The beast has a broad mouth filled with sharp teeth, slimy skin,   and a body covered in warts. Its flattened tail is like an eel or   lizard, and ends in a barbed fork. The wings are shaped like a bat's,   but have a transparent membrane and fan of rays like a fish's fins._

Water leapers, known as _llamhigyn y dwr_ in their native land, are  named after their propensity for leaping out  of the water to attack  passers-by. These half-fish, half-frog creatures  are much loathed for  their destructive habits. They prefer to live in  lakes, but are also  found in  slow-flowing rivers and freshwater swampland such as bogs,  fens or  marshes.

_Llamhigyn y dwr_ prefer to eat land  animals, but  mostly have to satisfy themselves with fish. Their  favorite meats are  human, sheep and cattle.  Water leapers are  malicious creatures who  often attack livestock, fishing folk and  swimmers. They regularly  destroy nets and  fish traps, as much out of  spite as to eat any fish caught in them.

A  large school of water leapers will attack almost anything, and its  appetite is so voracious they can  quickly decimate their lake or  river's fish stocks. They prey on  animals who come to the water to  drink. No normal animal eats water  leapers, their only enemies are more  powerful water monsters and hostile  humanoids.

A water leaper is some 3 feet in length from nose to tail and weighs about 20 pounds.

*COMBAT*

A single water leaper poses little threat to a human-sized victim, but a   school of water leapers attacks like a wolf pack. One member of the   pack stands aside and uses its  shriek attack every round, while the  others make bite attacks. They  typically concentrate their attack on a  single victim.

Water  leapers can use their Water Leap special attack to attack an  opponent  within 60 ft. of the water. However, water leapers prefer to  fight in  the water. They have  many tricks to get a victim into the  water, such as pulling on a fishing  line, making a bull rush attack  against an opponent on a boat or  bridge, or using a shriek special  attack near the bank of a river or  lake and hoping the startled prey  will fall in.

*Swarmfighting (Ex):* Water leapers can coordinate melee attacks against a  single target and are adept at fighting side by side in close quarters.  When a water leaper engages a Small or larger creature in melee, and  at least one other water leaper occupies the target's space, it gains a  +1 morale bonus on the attack roll. This bonus increases by +1 for each  additional water leaper beyond the first that occupies the target's  space.     

* Shriek (Su):* Water leapers can emit a horrible shriek   as a  standard action. All  creatures within 30 feet of a shrieking  water leaper  must make a  successful Fortitude save at the start of  their next initiative count or be stunned for 1  round. Only one saving  throw per round is required, no matter how many water leapers are   shrieking, at the highest DC   within range of each victim. A typical  water leaper's shriek is DC 11. Each round that the shrieking continues,  victims must make another   successful Fortitude save at the beginning  of their initiative to be able to   act. This is a sonic  effect. The  save DC is Constitution-based.     

*Water Dependent (Ex):* Water leapers can survive out of the water for 1 hour per 2 points of Constitution (after that, refer to the drowning rules). 

*Water Leap (Ex):* If a water leaper jumps out of water it can fly  for 1 round at a speed of 30 feet (poor maneuverability). It can make a  charge attack as part of a water leap. A water leaper can also use its  wings as airbrakes, negating falling damage from a fall of any height.

*Skills:* A water leaper has a +4 racial bonus on Hide checks and a +10 racial  bonus on Jump checks. A water leaper 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.


----------



## freyar (Feb 15, 2012)

Looks good so far.  We do have a Leap attack somewhere, just have to jog my memory...


----------



## Mortis (Feb 15, 2012)

> Water leapers can jump out of the water and glide up to 30 feet using their winglike fins. They have been known to try to knock fishermen out of their boats by deliberately leaping at them.





> Their leap attack is treated as a normal melee attack, but instead of causing damage, a successful hit forces the victim to roll a successful Dexterity ability check or fall down.



Looking at these statements, I'm inclined to suggest an individual/group ability similar to a combination of the flyby attack and improved bull rush feats.

Regards
Mortis


----------



## Cleon (Feb 15, 2012)

freyar said:


> Looks good so far.  We do have a Leap attack somewhere, just have to jog my memory...




Thri-kreen have a leap special quality, but that's just a racial bonus to Jump.

We gave the Jumping Spider a "Lunge" special attack:
*Lunge (Ex):* If a giant jumping spider charges a creature and incorporates a jump as the final part of the charge, it gains a +4 circumstance bonus to its attack roll. Additionally, for every 10 points by which the Jump check exceeds 20, the jumping spider's charge attack deals an additional +1d6 points of damage. For example, a Jump check result of 34 deals +1d6 points of damage, and a Jump check result of 41 deals +2d6 points of damage.​Don't we have a conversion of the Jaculi somewhere? They have a similar special attack...

Hmm, the closest I could find was my *Dart Snake* homebrew, but that's not a good match.

Which reminds me, if I have an idle day or two I could do another Lumbercritter.


----------



## Shade (Feb 16, 2012)

Ooh yeah, the jaculi!   It's in _Serpent Kingdoms_.

Here are the relevant abilities...

Flying Gore (Ex): A jaculi can hurl itself down on an opponent like an arrow from a point 30 feet or more above. This flying gore attack (+10 melee) deals 1d8+6 points of piercing damage from the jaculi's horns and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

Spring (Ex): A jaculi can gather its coils and then launch itself in a jump. The jump DCs for both long jumps and high jumps are halved, and no running start is required. Furthermore, when jumping down, the jaculi takes damage as if it had dropped 70 fewer feet than it actually did.


----------



## Cleon (Feb 17, 2012)

Shade said:


> Ooh yeah, the jaculi!   It's in _Serpent Kingdoms_.
> 
> Here are the relevant abilities...
> 
> ...




Neither of those seem right. How about this:

*Water Leap (Ex):* If a water leaper jumps out of water it can fly for 1 round at a speed of X feet (poor maneuverability). It can make a charge attack as part of a water leap. A water leaper can also use its wings as airbrakes, negating falling damage from a fall of any height.


----------



## Shade (Feb 21, 2012)

That seems serviceable enough.


----------



## Cleon (Feb 22, 2012)

Shade said:


> That seems serviceable enough.




I'll add it to the *Working Draft*.

What speed would you like for the flying? I'm thinking 30 feet.


----------



## Shade (Feb 23, 2012)

Cleon said:


> I'll add it to the *Working Draft*.
> 
> What speed would you like for the flying? I'm thinking 30 feet.




That will probably suffice.


----------



## Cleon (Feb 23, 2012)

Shade said:


> That will probably suffice.




Updating *Working Draft*.

Come to think of it, shouldn't they be Aquatic (being fish-frog things) and either have Amphibious or Water Dependent?

I prefer Aquatic & Water Dependent.


----------



## freyar (Feb 27, 2012)

The Water Leap is good, so you can now drop the Leap SA from the working draft.

I also like Aquatic and Water Dependent. 

Mortis suggested that the Water Leap should include bull rushing as an option.  How about we give them Imp Bull Rush as a bonus feat?

Moving to the Shriek.  Stunned sounds like the original, but it might be too powerful at 1HD.  Maybe stunned for 1 round with a Fort save to negate & can't be affected by the same leaper for 24 hours regardless of the save?  Otherwise, I'd probably argue that we should reduce to dazed.


----------



## Cleon (Feb 28, 2012)

freyar said:


> The Water Leap is good, so you can now drop the Leap SA from the working draft.
> 
> I also like Aquatic and Water Dependent.
> 
> Mortis suggested that the Water Leap should include bull rushing as an option.  How about we give them Imp Bull Rush as a bonus feat?




That all sounds good.

 Updating *Working Draft*.



freyar said:


> Moving to the Shriek.  Stunned sounds like the original, but it might be too powerful at 1HD.  Maybe stunned for 1 round with a Fort save to negate & can't be affected by the same leaper for 24 hours regardless of the save?  Otherwise, I'd probably argue that we should reduce to dazed.




Stunned for 1 round (Fort negates) is fine by me, but if you both don't like that I'd be willing to consider staggered or one of the fear conditions (e.g. panicked or frightened). Dazed seems too weak.

The original tactics suggest the victims only need to make a single saving throw in any round they're hit by a Shriek, no matter how many Leapers are shrieking, otherwise the Leapers would shriek en masse while a couple of their number chew their opponents to death.


----------



## Shade (Mar 1, 2012)

I'm fine with stunned for 1 round.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 2, 2012)

Shade said:


> I'm fine with stunned for 1 round.




What about the "only 1 save per round"?

How's this?:
*
Stunning Shriek (Su):* A water leaper can produce a horrible shriek as a standard action. All living creatures within 30 ft. must succeed at a DC X Fort save or be stunned for 1 round. If a creature is shrieked at by multiple water leapers over the course of 1 round, they only need to make a single saving throw, which is compared to the DC of every stunning shriek that affects them in that round. The saving throw is Charisma-based.


----------



## freyar (Mar 4, 2012)

First off, this should be called out as a sonic effect.  Second, I'd suggest probably making this Ex and Con-based.  And, finally, that's an odd mechanic.  Why not say that a victim cannot be affected by another shriek for a round after a successful save?

Stunning Shriek (Ex?): A water leaper can produce a horrible shriek as a standard action. All living creatures within 30 ft. must succeed at a DC X Fort save or be stunned for 1 round.  In addition, a creature cannot be affected by any water leaper's stunning shriek for one? round after a successful save.  This is a sonic effect, and the saving throw is Constitution-based.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 4, 2012)

freyar said:


> First off, this should be called out as a sonic effect.




Making it sonic suits me.

Switching the base stat to Constitution would mean it wouldn't need a curiously high Charisma to power the Shriek.

Not that I mind it having a curiously high Cha score to support a special attack. That's what the SRD Krenshar does, after all.

Giving the Leaper a Charisma 10 would suit me as much as switching the Shriek to Con-based.

Let's see what Shade thinks.



freyar said:


> Second, I'd suggest probably making this Ex and Con-based.  And,  finally, that's an odd mechanic.  Why not say that a victim cannot be  affected by another shriek for a round after a successful save?




Basically, I wanted to ensure that if a victim gets hit with shrieks with different DCs (say, a Water Leaper with Ability Focus (stunning shriek)) they need to save versus the highest-DC shriek.

Admittedly, that's rather an edge case since all the Water Leapers in an encounter are likely to have the same shriek DC.

That said, the "cannot be affected for 1 round after a successful save" approach is an acceptable compromise.

Let's see what Shade thinks. Again.

Oh, and I'm not fond of (Ex) instead of (Su). It is a Magical Beast, after all, so we might as well give it something magical.


----------



## Shade (Mar 5, 2012)

Sorry guys, I've been super busy at work.

Let's see...I prefer sonic, Su, Con-based, one save and 24-hour immunity thereafter, and simply using the highest DC of the group (I know we've done that before).


----------



## Cleon (Mar 6, 2012)

Shade said:


> Sorry guys, I've been super busy at work.
> 
> Let's see...I prefer sonic, Su, Con-based, one save and 24-hour immunity thereafter, and simply using the highest DC of the group (I know we've done that before).




I'm strongly in favour of 1-round immunity, one save, and highest DC in the group.


----------



## freyar (Mar 8, 2012)

Seems like we can agree on sonic, Su, probably Con-based (a sonic thing strikes me as more Con-based since it has a Fort save, as opposed to the krenshar's scare).  

I'm a bit confused about the corner case if we base the DC on the group, though.  What if the different shriekers have different inits, and the higher-DC leaper has a lower init score.  How do you know if it's going to shriek at the time the victim has to make the save (when the lower-DC leapers shriek earlier in the round)?


----------



## Cleon (Mar 8, 2012)

freyar said:


> Seems like we can agree on sonic, Su, probably Con-based (a sonic thing strikes me as more Con-based since it has a Fort save, as opposed to the krenshar's scare).
> 
> I'm a bit confused about the corner case if we base the DC on the group, though.  What if the different shriekers have different inits, and the higher-DC leaper has a lower init score.  How do you know if it's going to shriek at the time the victim has to make the save (when the lower-DC leapers shriek earlier in the round)?




That's why I originally proposed the "roll one save and use the result for all the saves that round" mechanism.


----------



## Shade (Mar 9, 2012)

Cleon said:


> That's why I originally proposed the "roll one save and use the result for all the saves that round" mechanism.




How about the more simplistic "Use the highest DC of water leaper currently shrieking"?

Realistically, once you factor in initiative order, it should really just be "save vs. first water leaper that shrieks" in a given round.   Unless you want to have them maintain the shrieking through concentration.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 9, 2012)

Shade said:


> How about the more simplistic "Use the highest DC of water leaper currently shrieking"?
> 
> Realistically, once you factor in initiative order, it should really just be "save vs. first water leaper that shrieks" in a given round.   Unless you want to have them maintain the shrieking through concentration.




It seemed simple enough to save vs the first leaper and remember the save result for any subsequent leapers in that round.

If you use a "currently shrieking" approach the leapers could stagger their initiative by using delayed actions, thereby forcing their opponents to make multiple separate saves. I'd prefer the "1 round immunity on a successful save" approach to that.

Who'd have thought this simple SA would lead to so much debate?


----------



## freyar (Mar 9, 2012)

It's all because of the nonstandard "make a save and keep it" mechanic.   That's why I came up with the 1 round immunity.  Shade mentioned a group-based DC we did before --- anyone think they can find that?


----------



## Cleon (Mar 10, 2012)

freyar said:


> It's all because of the nonstandard "make a save and keep it" mechanic.   That's why I came up with the 1 round immunity.  Shade mentioned a group-based DC we did before --- anyone think they can find that?




Any clues as to what kind of creature had it?


----------



## Shade (Mar 13, 2012)

Cleon said:


> Any clues as to what kind of creature had it?




Here's one...

Screech (Su): Ba'atun can emit a loud, piercing and chilling screech as a free action. All creatures within 60 feet of the ba’atun must make a successful Will save (DC 17) or be struck by fear and be cowering for one full round. Each round that the screeching lasts, victims must make another successful saving throw at the beginning of initiative to be able to act. Only one saving throw per round is required (at the highest DC within range of each character), no matter how many ba'atun there are. This is a sonic, mind-affecting fear effect. The save DC is Charisma-based.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 13, 2012)

Shade said:


> Here's one...
> 
> Screech (Su): Ba'atun can emit a loud, piercing and chilling screech as a free action. All creatures within 60 feet of the ba’atun must make a successful Will save (DC 17) or be struck by fear and be cowering for one full round. Each round that the screeching lasts, victims must make another successful saving throw at the beginning of initiative to be able to act. Only one saving throw per round is required (at the highest DC within range of each character), no matter how many ba'atun there are. This is a sonic, mind-affecting fear effect. The save DC is Charisma-based.




So, do you just want to repurpose that Special Attack?


----------



## Shade (Mar 15, 2012)

Cleon said:


> So, do you just want to repurpose that Special Attack?




That works for me.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 15, 2012)

Shade said:


> That works for me.




Feel free to go ahead and repurpose it then.


----------



## freyar (Mar 16, 2012)

So in that case, the save is after the critters start screeching at the highest initiative score?  That seems to solve things.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 17, 2012)

freyar said:


> So in that case, the save is after the critters start screeching at the highest initiative score?  That seems to solve things.




It looks like it's the same mechanism as I originally wanted, except the wording is different.

Thus, I consider it acceptable.


----------



## freyar (Mar 19, 2012)

So, something like this (adding some clarification)?

Stunning Shriek (Ex?): Water leapers can emit a horrible shriek as a standard action. At the start of the next initiative count, all creatures within 30 feet of a shrieking water leaper must make a successful Fort save or be stunned for 1 round. Each round that the shrieking lasts, victims must make another successful saving throw at the beginning of initiative or be stunned. Only one saving throw per round is required (at the highest DC within range of each character), no matter how many shrieking water leapers there are. This is a sonic effect. The save DC is Constitution-based.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 20, 2012)

freyar said:


> So, something like this (adding some clarification)?
> 
> Stunning Shriek (Ex?): Water leapers can emit a horrible shriek as a standard action. At the start of the next initiative count, all creatures within 30 feet of a shrieking water leaper must make a successful Fort save or be stunned for 1 round. Each round that the shrieking lasts, victims must make another successful saving throw at the beginning of initiative or be stunned. Only one saving throw per round is required (at the highest DC within range of each character), no matter how many shrieking water leapers there are. This is a sonic effect. The save DC is Constitution-based.




It doesn't need "At the start of the next initiative count" and the "no matter how many shrieking water leapers there are" looks like it needs work.

Oh, and I still say it should be (Su)!

* Shriek (Su!):* Water leapers can emit a horrible shriek as a  standard action. All  creatures within 30 feet of a water leaper must make a  successful Fortitude save (DC 11) or be stunned for 1 round. Each round that the screeching lasts, victims must make another  successful saving throw at the beginning of initiative to be able to  act. Only one saving throw per round is required (at the highest DC  within range of each character), no matter how many water leapers are shrieking. This is a sonic  effect. The save DC is Constitution-based.


----------



## freyar (Mar 22, 2012)

It does need the "At the start of the next initiative count," or the DM doesn't know what DC to set the save at unless all the water leapers are garden-variety!  That's been the problem, the whole time!  If there's a super-tough water leaper acting late in the initiative count, the DM should be allowed to change his or her mind about whether that leaper is going to shriek.

As for Ex vs Su, I'm not too bothered.  I think I just copy-pasted that bit.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 23, 2012)

freyar said:


> It does need the "At the start of the next initiative count," or the DM doesn't know what DC to set the save at unless all the water leapers are garden-variety!  That's been the problem, the whole time!  If there's a super-tough water leaper acting late in the initiative count, the DM should be allowed to change his or her mind about whether that leaper is going to shriek.




But the "start of the next initiative count" bit uses the standard Water Leaper DC and makes no mention of a "super-tough leaper".

I'd be OK with it like this...

* Shriek (Su):* Water leapers can emit a horrible shriek  as a  standard action. All  creatures within 30 feet of a shrieking water leaper  must make a  successful Fortitude save at the start of their next initiative count or be stunned for 1  round. Only one saving throw per round is required, no matter how many water leapers are  shrieking, at the highest DC   within range of each victim. A typical water leaper's shriek is DC 11. Each round that the shrieking continues, victims must make another   successful Fortitude save at the beginning of their initiative to be able to   act. This is a sonic  effect. The save DC is Constitution-based.


----------



## freyar (Mar 23, 2012)

I believe that will work (finally)!

Now, that wasn't so hard, was it?


----------



## Cleon (Mar 24, 2012)

freyar said:


> I believe that will work (finally)!
> 
> Now, that wasn't so hard, was it?




It was a Herculean effort that deserved your boundless admiration, but I'm too modest to make a fuss about it. 

 Updating *Working Draft*.

Skills and Feats. I'm thinking:

*Skills:* Hide +9, Jump +10, Listen +3, Spot +3
*Feats:* Weapon Finesse (B), Weapon Focus (Bite), Improved Bull Rush (B)
*Skill Boni**:* A water leaper has a +4 racial bonus on Hide checks and a +10 racial bonus on Jump checks. A water leaper 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.


----------



## freyar (Mar 27, 2012)

I'll agree to all that.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 28, 2012)

freyar said:


> I'll agree to all that.




 Updating *Working Draft*.


----------



## Shade (Apr 2, 2012)

freyar said:


> I believe that will work (finally)!
> 
> Now, that wasn't so hard, was it?






Cleon said:


> It was a Herculean effort that deserved your boundless admiration, but I'm too modest to make a fuss about it.




Hmm...perhaps it should be a Will save?   And Dexterity-based?

<ducks>


----------



## Cleon (Apr 3, 2012)

Shade said:


> Hmm...perhaps it should be a Will save?   And Dexterity-based?




Don't think ducking would stop me reaching through the internet and getting you. I have a platoon of Undead Dragon Slayer  False Keraptis Draedan and I know how to use them!

Worse, I'll make you stat them up first!


----------



## Shade (Apr 5, 2012)

Cleon said:


> Don't think ducking would stop me reaching through the internet and getting you. I have a platoon of Undead Dragon Slayer  False Keraptis Draedan and I know how to use them!
> 
> Worse, I'll make you stat them up first!




<sobs uncontrollably>


----------



## Cleon (Apr 6, 2012)

Shade said:


> <sobs uncontrollably>




Pats Shade consolingly.

Don't worry, once we have some descriptive text and tactics we need never speak of it again.


----------



## freyar (Apr 7, 2012)

Description: A harmless-looking frog.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 8, 2012)

freyar said:


> Description: A harmless-looking frog.




What about the wings, or the tail, or the teeth?


----------



## freyar (Apr 9, 2012)

Ahh, that's what I get for not going back to the original. 

By the way, I kind of like the tactics as written. Non-traditional, but I think they're comprehensible.

Description:
This looks like a harmless enough frog-sized tadpole with wing-like fins sprouting from its pectoral area.  As it begins to croak, its lips pull back, revealing a mouthful of long, sharp teeth.


----------



## Shade (Apr 10, 2012)

freyar said:


> Description:
> This looks like a harmless enough frog-sized tadpole with wing-like fins sprouting from its pectoral area.  As it begins to croak, its lips pull back, revealing a mouthful of long, sharp teeth.




Looks good!


----------



## Cleon (Apr 11, 2012)

freyar said:


> Ahh, that's what I get for not going back to the original.
> 
> By the way, I kind of like the tactics as written. Non-traditional, but I think they're comprehensible.
> 
> ...




Frog-sized? They're a yard long. That's a pretty big frog!

I've never heard of llamhigyn y dwr being described as "harmless" in appearance. "Ugly", "slimy" and "loathsome" seem more popular descriptions.

Also, their wings are usually described as resembling a bat's, or occasionally a bird's. I can't recall any versions apart from the AD&D HR3 one that compares them to flying fish's fins.


----------



## Shade (Apr 12, 2012)

Yeah, reading it over again, Cleon's revisions seem apt.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 13, 2012)

Shade said:


> Yeah, reading it over again, Cleon's revisions seem apt.




How's this scrap o' poesy I wrote up on the train yesterday:

_A grotesque creature resembling a legless, winged toad with a long tail. The beast has a broad mouth filled with sharp teeth, slimy skin, and a body covered in warts. Its flattened tail is like an eel or lizard, and ends in a barbed fork. The wings are shaped like a bat's, but have a transparent membrane and fan of rays like a fish's fins._


----------



## freyar (Apr 16, 2012)

I clearly just had the wrong mental picture of these. 

Are we agreed with leaving tactics as "Shriek! Leap!! Bite Bite Shriek Bite!!!"?


----------



## Shade (Apr 16, 2012)

freyar said:


> I clearly just had the wrong mental picture of these.
> 
> Are we agreed with leaving tactics as "Shriek! Leap!! Bite Bite Shriek Bite!!!"?




As long as that is translated into a more traditional sentence structure.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 17, 2012)

Shade said:


> As long as that is translated into a more traditional sentence structure.




Still refusing to recognize the brilliance of exception-based syntax, I see. 

How's this...

_A grotesque creature resembling a legless, winged toad with a long  tail. The beast has a broad mouth filled with sharp teeth, slimy skin,  and a body covered in warts. Its flattened tail is like an eel or  lizard, and ends in a barbed fork. The wings are shaped like a bat's,  but have a transparent membrane and fan of rays like a fish's fins._

Water leapers, known as _llamhigyn y dwr_ in their native land, are named after their propensity for leaping out  of the water to attack passers-by. These half-fish, half-frog creatures  are much loathed for their destructive habits. They prefer to live in  lakes, but are also found in  slow-flowing rivers and freshwater swampland such as bogs, fens or  marshes.

_Llamhigyn y dwr_ prefer to eat land animals, but  mostly have to satisfy themselves with fish. Their favorite meats are  human, sheep and cattle.  Water leapers are malicious creatures who  often attack livestock, fishing folk and swimmers. They regularly  destroy nets and  fish traps, as much out of spite as to eat any fish caught in them.

A  large school of water leapers will attack almost anything, and its appetite is so voracious they can  quickly decimate their lake or river's fish stocks. They prey on  animals who come to the water to drink. No normal animal eats water  leapers, their only enemies are more powerful water monsters and hostile  humanoids.

A water leaper is some 3 feet in length from nose to tail and weighs about 20 pounds.

*COMBAT*

A single water leaper poses little threat to a human-sized victim, but a  school of water leapers attacks like a wolf pack. One member of the  pack stands aside and uses its  shriek attack every round, while the others make bite attacks. They  typically concentrate their attack on a single victim.

Water  leapers can use their Water Leap special attack to attack an opponent  within 60 ft. of the water. However, water leapers prefer to fight in  the water. They have  many tricks to get a victim into the water, such as pulling on a fishing  line, making a bull rush attack against an opponent on a boat or  bridge, or using a shriek special attack near the bank of a river or  lake and hoping the startled prey will fall in.


----------



## freyar (Apr 18, 2012)

Darn it, there was nothing wrong with that syntax!   Oh, well, I guess this will do.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 18, 2012)

freyar said:


> Darn it, there was nothing wrong with that syntax!   Oh, well, I guess this will do.




  Updating *Working Draft*.

Looks like they're finished.

Leapers Away!


----------



## Shade (Apr 19, 2012)

Transferred to Homebrews.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 20, 2012)

Shade said:


> Transferred to Homebrews.




Next?


----------



## Shade (Apr 20, 2012)

Cleon said:


> Next?




I'm trying to give a few of the threads a rest until freyar can catch up.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 21, 2012)

Shade said:


> I'm trying to give a few of the threads a rest until freyar can catch up.




No objection to that. I was having trouble keeping up with them all myself!


----------

