# Converting Forgotten Realms monsters



## Shade (Dec 15, 2010)

Part Two. 

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


----------



## Shade (Dec 15, 2010)

*Spiny Sleeper*
CLIMATE/TERRAIN: Arctic oceans, rivers of the Great Glacier
FREQUENCY: Very rare
ORGANIZATION: School
ACTIVE TIME: Any
DIET: Scavenger 
INTELLIGENCE: Non- (0)
TREASURE: Nil
ALIGNMENT: Neutral
NO. APPEARING: 10-40
ARMOR CLASS: 10
MOVEMENT: Sw 15
HIT DICE: 1/2 hp
THAC0: 20 
NO. OF ATTACKS: Nil
DAMAGE/ATTACK: Nil
SPECIAL ATTACKS: Nil
SPECIAL DEFENSES: See below
MAGIC RESISTANCE: Nil
SIZE: T (1-2’ long)
MORALE: Unreliable (2)
XP VALUE: 35

Tiny silver spines cover the body of this plump fish, which has a white belly and long whiskers like a catfish. If a character (or creature) handles the sleeper carelessly (for instance it a character not wearing gloves or other protection fails a Dexterity check), a spine may pierce his flesh, injecting him with a powerful toxin. If the affected character (or creature) fails to save vs. poison, he immediately suffers the effects similar to a temporal stasis spell, and an ice-like glaze forms over his body. Neutralize poison or a similar spell negates the effect, as does certain herbal treatments known by some Ulutiun healers.




freyar said:


> Ok, Tiny, 1/4 HD like the black burner?  Basically your generic fish with poison.  I guess it should be an injury toxin, but it almost seems like it could be contact since the spines don't seem to do damage.




Agreed.  We should either increase the damage to 1 point, or switch it to contact poison.


----------



## freyar (Dec 15, 2010)

I think I prefer contact.  Doesn't seem like we do that a lot.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 16, 2010)

freyar said:


> I think I prefer contact.  Doesn't seem like we do that a lot.




Well the original's definitely injury, since the poison only works if a spine pierces the flesh.


----------



## Shade (Dec 16, 2010)

Cleon said:


> Well the original's definitely injury, since the poison only works if a spine pierces the flesh.




So your vote's for upping the damage to 1?


----------



## freyar (Dec 16, 2010)

What about adding a Ref save on contact?  As small as it is and as fine as the spines seem to be, I don't like having them do damage.


----------



## Shade (Dec 16, 2010)

Hmm...the fact that the original called for a Dexterity check to avoid contact definitely supports the Reflex save idea.

If we go the injury route, the fact that it can be avoided by wearing gloves makes me think it would function somewhat like a whip (which deals no damage to any creature with an armor bonus of +1 or higher or a natural armor bonus of +3 or higher).


----------



## Cleon (Dec 17, 2010)

Shade said:


> So your vote's for upping the damage to 1?




Yes.

Unless someone can come up with a precedent for an injury poison having effect on a "0 damage" attack I think we have to.



Shade said:


> Hmm...the fact that the original called for a Dexterity check to avoid contact definitely supports the Reflex save idea.




Dang it, I was going to suggest we use one of the "spiny defense" type SAs we came up with but didn't get around to it. It's certainly a Ref-save attack.



Shade said:


> If we go the injury route, the fact that it can be avoided by wearing gloves makes me think it would function somewhat like a whip (which deals no damage to any creature with an armor bonus of +1 or higher or a natural armor bonus of +3 or higher).




Adding an armor bonus restriction makes excellent sense.

Hmm, can you poison a Whip? It does Slashing damage but it's nonlethal. Injury poisons take effect when an attack does damage, but I can't find anything in the rules saying it has to be *lethal* damage.

How about we make the spines do nonlethal damage plus injury poison?


----------



## Shade (Dec 17, 2010)

Cleon said:


> How about we make the spines do nonlethal damage plus injury poison?





Works for me.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 17, 2010)

Shade said:


> Works for me.




Let's do that then.

Base the stats on a Bloatfish as the Spiny Sleeper is similarly Tiny, plump and 1-2 feet long?


----------



## freyar (Dec 18, 2010)

I've been outvoted! *sniff*  

Sounds like a plan on the stats, and we might as well go ahead and add that spiny defense SQ.


----------



## Shade (Dec 20, 2010)

Added to Homebrews.


----------



## freyar (Dec 20, 2010)

Ok, do we really want to base the poison on temporal stasis?  That's a pretty powerful effect for such low HD critters.  Then again, I guess it's not to hard to remove.


----------



## Shade (Dec 20, 2010)

I'd rather not.  Dex damage would probably suffice, leaving the victim immobile at 0.  At worst, I'd make the secondary damage paralysis.


----------



## freyar (Dec 21, 2010)

How about 1d4 Dex/paralysis for 1 or 2 minutes?  That's still pretty tough, though.


----------



## Shade (Dec 21, 2010)

> If the affected character (or creature) fails to save vs. poison, he immediately suffers the effects similar to a temporal stasis spell, *and an ice-like glaze forms over his body*. Neutralize poison or a similar spell negates the effect, as does certain herbal treatments known by some Ulutiun healers.




It sounds like we could go for cold damage as well.  Is there a precedent for freezing solid?


----------



## Cleon (Dec 21, 2010)

freyar said:


> Ok, do we really want to base the poison on temporal stasis?  That's a pretty powerful effect for such low HD critters.  Then again, I guess it's not to hard to remove.




Well we could base the effects on a similar but lower level spell instead, namely _sepia snake sigil_.

Maybe the "suspension" effects only last as long as the ice crust does, so the frozen victim returns to normal if they're attacked so the ice breaks? That'll still be useful as a defense but removes some of the more exploitable elements. Shorten the duration to a few rounds and bob's your uncle.

I don't like the "plain paralysis" approach because they'd risk drowning while frozen, which they wouldn't if it was a "suspension" effect.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 21, 2010)

Shade said:


> It sounds like we could go for cold damage as well.  Is there a precedent for freezing solid?




I wouldn't have it do any cold damage unless it's mentioned in the original text.


----------



## Shade (Dec 22, 2010)

Cleon said:


> Well we could base the effects on a similar but lower level spell instead, namely _sepia snake sigil_.
> 
> Maybe the "suspension" effects only last as long as the ice crust does, so the frozen victim returns to normal if they're attacked so the ice breaks? That'll still be useful as a defense but removes some of the more exploitable elements. Shorten the duration to a few rounds and bob's your uncle.




I like where this is headed, but would prefer warming a victim up to release them, rather than attacking them.  I see it more as a rimy crust than being encased in ice.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 22, 2010)

Shade said:


> I like where this is headed, but would prefer warming a victim up to release them, rather than attacking them.  I see it more as a rimy crust than being encased in ice.




I was thinking being warmed up would free them too, but I liked the "cracking the rime" idea because it means an enemy can't just wail away at a frozen victim while they're helpless, since the victim will be freed by the hard blows.


----------



## Shade (Dec 22, 2010)

Cleon said:


> I was thinking being warmed up would free them too, but I liked the "cracking the rime" idea because it means an enemy can't just wail away at a frozen victim while they're helpless, since the victim will be freed by the hard blows.




Yeah, why not.  They're low level, so anything to make it less perilous is a good thing.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 28, 2010)

Shade said:


> Yeah, why not.  They're low level, so anything to make it less perilous is a good thing.




So any sort of hit point damage cracks them free, except for cold damage, since it makes little sense for cold damage to "unfreeze" a victim?


----------



## Shade (Dec 28, 2010)

Sure.  Maybe fire damage frees them immediately, but hp damage causes them to recover 1 round later?


----------



## freyar (Dec 29, 2010)

This sounds like an excellent idea.  I'm trying to catch up on threads first, but let's get a draft ability in here -- I'll do it if I catch up before you get back.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 31, 2010)

freyar said:


> This sounds like an excellent idea.  I'm trying to catch up on threads first, but let's get a draft ability in here -- I'll do it if I catch up before you get back.




OK, it needs some more work (and I'd like a better name) but here's a first stab:

*Frozen Sleep Venom (Su):* A spiny sleeper's spines contain a supernatural venom. Any creature injured by a spine must succeed at a DC *X* Fortitude[*?*] save or be covered with an ice-like glaze which renders them immobile and unconscious for *Y* rounds. The victim reawakens, fully alert, if this glaze is broken. Cold damage will not break the glaze, but any other kind of energy damage or weapon damage will break the glaze and free the frozen victim. Any effect that opposes poison, like the _neutralize poison_ spell or a racial resistance or immunity to poison, will affect a spiny sleeper's venom as if it were a poison. The save DC is Constitution-based.


----------



## freyar (Dec 31, 2010)

Looks pretty good to me.  I'm happy enough with a Fort save (though could be convinced of Will), and I'd pick 1d4 rounds probably.


----------



## GrayLinnorm (Dec 31, 2010)

If its poison is supernatural, it should be a magical beast, not an animal.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 1, 2011)

GrayLinnorm said:


> If its poison is supernatural, it should be a magical beast, not an animal.




Good point, we'd better make them Magical Beasts.


----------



## Shade (Jan 4, 2011)

Yeah, good catch GrayLinnorm.

Updated.

1d3+1 rounds for the duration?


----------



## freyar (Jan 4, 2011)

That would work.  And make them CR 1/2?


----------



## Cleon (Jan 5, 2011)

Shade said:


> Yeah, good catch GrayLinnorm.
> 
> Updated.
> 
> 1d3+1 rounds for the duration?




The original doesn't mention a duration so I suppose it lasted as long as the spell _temporal stasis_, which is permanent until removed.

That might be a bit much though.

How about it lasts indefinitely in conditions of severe cold (below 0° F), but victims "thaw" in 1d3+1 rounds in higher temperatures?


----------



## Shade (Jan 5, 2011)

Cleon said:


> How about it lasts indefinitely in conditions of severe cold (below 0° F), but victims "thaw" in 1d3+1 rounds in higher temperatures?




That's plausible.  

Updated.

CR 1/2?

Anything else left to tackle?


----------



## Cleon (Jan 7, 2011)

Shade said:


> That's plausible.
> 
> Updated.
> 
> CR 1/2?




Half a Challenge Rating's OK.



Shade said:


> Anything else left to tackle?




Didn't I suggest adding a Reflex save to Spiny Defense? e.g.:

* Spiny Defense (Ex):* Any creature that hits a spiny sleeper in melee with  a natural or handheld weapon (but not a reach weapon) must succeed at a DC 12 Reflex save or take 1 point of  nonlethal damage from its many spines and be exposed to its frozen  sleep venom (see above).  The spines deals no damage to any creature with an armor  bonus of +1 or higher or a natural armor bonus of +3 or higher. The save DC is Reflex based.

Apart from that possibility I think we're done with the Sleepers.


----------



## freyar (Jan 8, 2011)

I'll agree to that Ref save.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 9, 2011)

Shade said:


> That's plausible.
> 
> Updated.
> 
> ...




What's up with the "Hide +1 (+5)"?

Firstly, it doesn't have any ranks in Hide so there's no need to list it, secondly its unranked Hide should have a +10 modifier (8 from size plus 2 from Dex).

Also, it doesn't have any attacks, which makes its Weapon Finesse feat rather useless. Either change it - preferably to Ability Focus (Frozen Sleep Venom) - or give it a natural weapon.


----------



## freyar (Jan 10, 2011)

Good point on WF.  That must be a cut and paste (same with Hide).  Go for Ability Focus.


----------



## Shade (Jan 10, 2011)

Cleon said:


> * Spiny Defense (Ex):* Any creature that hits a spiny sleeper in melee with  a natural or handheld weapon (but not a reach weapon) must succeed at a DC 12 Reflex save or take 1 point of  nonlethal damage from its many spines and be exposed to its frozen  sleep venom (see above).  The spines deals no damage to any creature with an armor  bonus of +1 or higher or a natural armor bonus of +3 or higher. The save DC is Reflex based.




The save DC is Reflex based, eh?    I think it should be Will-based.  

Updated.

Moving on...

*Icetail*
CLIMATE/TERRAIN: Arctic oceans, rivers of the Great Glacier
FREQUENCY: Very rare
ORGANIZATION: School
ACTIVE TIME: Any
DIET: Scavenger 
INTELLIGENCE: Non- (0)
TREASURE: Nil
ALIGNMENT: Neutral
NO. APPEARING: 10-60
ARMOR CLASS: 10
MOVEMENT: 1, Sw 6
HIT DICE: 1/2 hp
THAC0: 20 
NO. OF ATTACKS: Nil
DAMAGE/ATTACK: Nil
SPECIAL ATTACKS: Nil
SPECIAL DEFENSES: See below
MAGIC RESISTANCE: Nil
SIZE: T (6 inches long)
MORALE: Unreliable (2)
XP VALUE: 15

To the casual observer, the icetail doesn’t look like a live fish at all, but a fish skeleton with a few shreds of bluish tissue hanging from its ribs. Closer inspection, however, reveals the creature to have an actual body, complete with head, fins, and tail, all as transparent as glass. The icefish is also cold to the touch—so cold, in fact, that if a character touches a still-living icefish with his bare flesh, he suffers 1 point of damage. A dead icefish acquires the temperature of the immediate environment. Icefish may be cooked and eaten (or eaten raw, though their uncooked flesh is extremely bitter), hut if they aren.t thoroughly cooked for at least six hours, the eater risks extreme indigestion (the eater must make a successful Constitution check or suffer stomach cramps for the next 24 hours, making all attack rolls and ability checks at a - 2 penalty; movement rates are also reduced by half).

Originally appeared in FR 14 - The Great Glacier (1992).


----------



## freyar (Jan 10, 2011)

Just modify the abilities of the last one a little, change the spiny defense to a cold defense, and give the flesh an ingested poison?


----------



## Cleon (Jan 11, 2011)

Shade said:


> The save DC is Reflex based, eh?    I think it should be Will-based.




No, no the Dexterity check should be Reflex-based. You know it makes sense. 



Shade said:


> Updated.




Just noticed the "though they must be handled with caution due to their *venemous* spines", which should be "venomous".


----------



## Cleon (Jan 11, 2011)

freyar said:


> Just modify the abilities of the last one a little, change the spiny defense to a cold defense, and give the flesh an ingested poison?




These are half the size of the previous fish, so how about reducing them to Diminutive size.

Instead of a Spiny Defense, I fancy giving them a Chill ability that's basically the reverse of a Salamander's Burn.

Agree about the ingested poison, presumably one that sickens for around a day (1d3 hours sickness for primary effect, 2d12 hours secondary?).

I'm also thinking they ought to be able to make a melee touch attack that does Cold damage.

The transparent flesh should give them a racial bonus to Hide checks.

Oh, and these are a clear candidate for the Cold subtype.

You know, these little fishies might work well as a Swarm...


----------



## Shade (Jan 11, 2011)

Cleon said:


> These are half the size of the previous fish, so how about reducing them to Diminutive size.




Agreed.



Cleon said:


> Instead of a Spiny Defense, I fancy giving them a Chill ability that's basically the reverse of a Salamander's Burn.




Thumbs up.



Cleon said:


> Agree about the ingested poison, presumably one that sickens for around a day (1d3 hours sickness for primary effect, 2d12 hours secondary?).




Solidarity.



Cleon said:


> I'm also thinking they ought to be able to make a melee touch attack that does Cold damage.




You have my support.



Cleon said:


> The transparent flesh should give them a racial bonus to Hide checks.




Probably.



Cleon said:


> Oh, and these are a clear candidate for the Cold subtype.




<nods agreement>



Cleon said:


> You know, these little fishies might work well as a Swarm...




Unanimous agreement.   Meeting adjourned.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 13, 2011)

Shade said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Thumbs up.
> 
> ...




I knew "upgrading" you via Greater Doppleganger would come in handy. 

Here's a rough draft based on what we've got so far. I've cut the Dex to 11 since the original had a very poor AC.

Notice the Icetail has a Land Speed. That's a bit odd for a fish. Maybe they crawl onto ice to forage or escape predators?

*Fish, Icetail*
Diminutive Magical Beast (Aquatic, Cold)
Hit Dice: 1/4d10 (1 hp)
Initiative: +0
Speed: 5 ft. (1 square), swim 20 ft.
Armor Class: 14 (+4 size), touch 14, flat-footed 14
Base Attack/Grapple: +0/-16
Attack: Freezing touch +4 melee touch (1d3 cold)
Full Attack: Freezing touch +4 melee touch (1d3 cold)
Space/Reach: 1 ft./0 ft.
Special Attacks: Freezing touch, poison
Special Qualities: Immunity to cold, low-light vision, vulnerability to fire
Saves: Fort +2, Ref +2, Will +1
Abilities: Str 2, Dex 11, Con 11, Int 1, Wis 12, Cha 2
Skills: Hide +20, Listen +3, Spot +3, Swim +4
Feats: 1
Environment: Cold aquatic
Organization: Solitary, pair, or school (10-60)
Challenge Rating: x
Treasure: None
Alignment: Always neutral
Advancement: —
Level Adjustment: —

_Description._

Stuff.

An icetail is between 6 inches and 1 foot long and weighs up to a pound.

COMBAT
Tactics.

* Freezing Touch (Su):* An icetail's touch attack generates a burst of extreme cold which does 1d3 cold damage. Creatures hitting an icetail with natural weapons or unarmed attacks take cold damage as though hit by the fish's attack.

*Poison (Ex):* Icetails have poisonous flesh, any creature that bites an icetail will be affected. DC *X*, primary damage sickened for 1d3 hours, secondary damage sickened for 2d12 hours. The save DC is Dexterity-based.

* Skills:* Icetails have a +8 racial bonus to Hide checks due to their transparent flesh. An icetail 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. 

*In the Realms*
Icetails are found primarily in the oceans and rivers of the Great Glacier.

Originally appeared in FR 14 - The Great Glacier (1992).


----------



## Cleon (Jan 13, 2011)

Shade said:


> Updated.




There are a couple of problems with the Spiny Sleeper.

Firstly, it's flat footed AC should be 13, not 14.

Secondly, we settled on CR 1/2 but it's still got an "x" after Challenge Rating.


----------



## Shade (Jan 13, 2011)

Fixed the spiny sleeper.  I noticed we'd forgot its darkvision once it became a magical beast.

Added Icetail to Homebrews.


----------



## freyar (Jan 14, 2011)

Icetails are looking good so far.  If we're giving them a land speed, we could also give them water dependent, just so they don't risk drowning after a couple minutes.  Then again, maybe they should only be crawling around for a couple of minutes.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 15, 2011)

Shade said:


> Fixed the spiny sleeper.  I noticed we'd forgot its darkvision once it became a magical beast.
> 
> Added Icetail to Homebrews.




I wouldn't have bothered with the darkvision, not all Magical Beasts have to have it.

Not much left for the Icetail.

What feat do you fancy - Swimby Attack?


----------



## Cleon (Jan 15, 2011)

freyar said:


> Icetails are looking good so far.  If we're giving them a land speed, we could also give them water dependent, just so they don't risk drowning after a couple minutes.  Then again, maybe they should only be crawling around for a couple of minutes.




I prefer Hold Breath, either 6 or 8 times Con, so they can only leave water for a few minutes like a mudskipper.


----------



## freyar (Jan 17, 2011)

Cleon said:


> I prefer Hold Breath, either 6 or 8 times Con, so they can only leave water for a few minutes like a mudskipper.



That works for me.

Don't think Swim-by Attack is a core feat.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 17, 2011)

freyar said:


> That works for me.
> 
> Don't think Swim-by Attack is a core feat.




It's not core, but isn't it OGL legal?

If there's a problem with using it, just swap for something else. Actually, the Icetail is such a slow swimmer Swimby isn't _that_ much use.

How about Endurance, to help it make its Con checks to survive out of water and otherwise face the harsh perils of the frozen realms?


----------



## Shade (Jan 18, 2011)

Endurance appeals, and I don't mind hold breath.  However, if we use hold breath, will we need to remove the Aquatic subtype?  Since it is technically a fish, that feels odd.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 18, 2011)

Shade said:


> Endurance appeals, and I don't mind hold breath.  However, if we use hold breath, will we need to remove the Aquatic subtype?  Since it is technically a fish, that feels odd.




The Aquatic subtype means it breathes water and uses the drowning rules  when out of the water. That's supported by examples such as:

*Water Dependent (Ex):* Sahuagin can survive out of the water for 1 hour per 2 points of Constitution (after that, refer to the drowning rules). 

Thus, the breath the Icetail's holding with its Hold Breath is water, and it determines how long it can stay in the air before it needs to check against drowning.


----------



## Shade (Jan 18, 2011)

Hmm...I suppose we should be explicit then.  Although why not use water dependent since it appears to be the norm for aquatic creatures on land?


----------



## freyar (Jan 20, 2011)

Stick with water dependent, I guess, but make it much shorter duration.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 20, 2011)

freyar said:


> Stick with water dependent, I guess, but make it much shorter duration.




I still prefer Hold Breath.

Water dependent seems more for Aquatic creatures that can breathe out of water for a while, but start to suffocate when they dry out. It's unlikely a Sahuagin can move around on dry land for 6 hours on one lung full (gill full?) of air.

Besides, all Aquatic creatures use the drowning rules out of the water, unless they have Amphibious or Water Dependency or something similar, so I could argue that holding their breath is the norm, not Water Dependency, since they should be allowed the same "holding the breath" grace period air-breathers get underwater. It's just Hold Breath multiplies it.


----------



## Shade (Jan 21, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Besides, all Aquatic creatures use the drowning rules out of the water, unless they have Amphibious or Water Dependency or something similar, so I could argue that holding their breath is the norm, not Water Dependency, since they should be allowed the same "holding the breath" grace period air-breathers get underwater. It's just Hold Breath multiplies it.




If you can show me where that's stated in the rules, I'll be more inclined to go that route.   All I can find is that amphibious creatures "cannot also breathe air unless it has the amphibious special quality."

I'll also accept an official creature with the Aquatic subtype that has Hold Breath as a sufficient precedent.


----------



## freyar (Jan 21, 2011)

Would it count that drowning and suffocation rules are the same and that you can drown in other substances than water?  I'm inclined to go with this, since it's a pretty reasonable interpretation.   EDIT: I wonder if it's in the official FAQ or errata somewhere.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 22, 2011)

Shade said:


> I'll also accept an official creature with the Aquatic subtype that has Hold Breath as a sufficient precedent.




Well I can't think of any official sources offhand, but there's at least *one creature* in the Enworld Creature Catalog that uses "Aquatic Hold Breath".


----------



## Cleon (Jan 22, 2011)

freyar said:


> Would it count that drowning and suffocation rules are the same and that you can drown in other substances than water?  I'm inclined to go with this, since it's a pretty reasonable interpretation.   EDIT: I wonder if it's in the official FAQ or errata somewhere.




Does this mean Shade's outvoted.


----------



## freyar (Jan 23, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Does this mean Shade's outvoted.



Possibly.


----------



## Shade (Jan 24, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Well I can't think of any official sources offhand, but there's at least *one creature* in the Enworld Creature Catalog that uses "Aquatic Hold Breath".




If we use that writeup's wording, I can begrudgingly go along with it.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 25, 2011)

Shade said:


> If we use that writeup's wording, I can begrudgingly go along with it.




So, something like this:

*Hold Breath (Ex):* An icetail can hold its breath by storing  water in its mouth and gills. It may do so for a number of rounds equal to 8 times  its Constitution score. If out of water beyond that time, it risks suffocating (refer to the drowning rules).  For a typical icetail, this is 88 rounds, or over 8 minutes.

I cut out the bit about biting and breath weapons, since the icetail doesn't have those attacks. Furthermore, if we use the assumption icetails come out on land to forage it'd need to use its mouth to feed.

Oh, and shall we cut the duration to 6 times Con?


----------



## freyar (Jan 25, 2011)

Begrudge away!   EDIT: 6xCon is fine for the duration.


----------



## Shade (Jan 26, 2011)

6x works.  Updated.

CR 1/4?


----------



## Cleon (Jan 28, 2011)

Shade said:


> 6x works.  Updated.
> 
> CR 1/4?




Challenge Rating 1/4 seems fine. Their frosty touch makes them more of a menace than rats.

There's one typo, a "hut" instead of "but" in the first paragraph: "Icetails may be cooked and eaten (or eaten raw, though their uncooked flesh is extremely bitter), hut if no thoroughly cooked for at least six hours".

Looks like they're done then, once the typo's fixed and the CR 1/4's put in.

Are we still doing a swarm version?


----------



## Shade (Jan 28, 2011)

Updated.



Cleon said:


> Are we still doing a swarm version?




If you'd like.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 29, 2011)

Shade said:


> Updated.
> 
> If you'd like.




How's this:

*Icetail Swarm*
Diminutive Magical Beast (Aquatic, Cold, Swarm)
Hit Dice: 5d10 (27 hp)
Initiative: +2
Speed: 5 ft. (1 square), swim 20 ft.
Armor Class: 14 (+4 size), touch 14, flat-footed 14
Base Attack/Grapple: +5/—
Attack: Swarm (1d6 plus 2d6 cold)
Full Attack: Swarm (1d6 plus 2d6 cold)
Space/Reach: 10 ft./0 ft.
Special Attacks: Distraction, freezing touch, hold breath, poison
Special Qualities: Darkvision 60 ft., immunity to cold and weapon damage, low-light vision, vulnerability to fire
Saves: Fort +4, Ref +4, Will +2
Abilities: Str 2, Dex 11, Con 11, Int 1, Wis 12, Cha 2
Skills: Hide +20, Listen +7, Spot +7, Swim +4
Feats: Alertness, Endurance
Environment: Cold aquatic
Organization: Solitary or kettle (2-4 swarms)
Challenge Rating: 3
Treasure: None
Alignment: Always neutral
Advancement: —
Level Adjustment: —

_This creature resembles a fish skeleton  with a few shreds of bluish tissue hanging from its ribs. Closer  inspection, however, reveals the creature's body, head, fins, and tail,  are all as transparent as glass._

Icetails get their name from the bitter cold of their bodies.  These  coldwater fish subsist on waste matter, plankton, or whatever other  organic matter they can scavenge. Icetails may be cooked and eaten (or  eaten raw, though their  uncooked flesh is extremely bitter), but if not thoroughly cooked for at  least six hours, the eater risks extreme indigestion.

Icetails normally only gather in swarms to mate and lay eggs.  Such swarms can be dangerous, since the icetails may attack intruders to protect their eggs and breeding partners. Icetail swarms are most common in glacial kettles (a hole ground out by a receding glacier and filled with meltwater; forming a shallow lake, swamp or bog which makes an excellent habitat for icetail spawn).

An icetail is between 6 inches and 1 foot long and weighs up to a pound.

COMBAT
Icetail swarms are nonaggressive, but will attack if injured or threatened.

*Distraction (Ex):* Any living creature that begins its turn with an icetail swarm in its space must succeed on a DC 12 Fortitude save or be nauseated for 1 round. The save DC is Constitution-based.

* Freezing Touch (Su):* An icetail swarm's attack generates a burst of  extreme cold which does 2d6 points of cold damage. Creatures hitting an  icetail with natural weapons or unarmed attacks take cold damage as  though hit by the fish's attack.

* Hold Breath (Ex):* An icetail swarm can hold its breath by storing water in its  mouth and gills. It may do so for a number of rounds equal to 6 times  its Constitution score. If out of water beyond that time, it risks  suffocating (refer to the drowning rules). For a typical icetail, this  is 66 rounds, or over 6 minutes.

* Poison (Ex):* Any creature that bites or otherwise consumes an icetail is  exposed to its poisonous flesh. Fort DC 10, primary damage sickened for  1d3 hours, secondary damage sickened for 2d12 hours. The save DC is  Dexterity-based.

* Skills:* Icetail swarms have a +8 racial bonus to Hide checks due to their  transparent flesh. An icetail 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. 

*In the Realms*
Icetails are found primarily in the oceans and rivers of the Great Glacier.


----------



## freyar (Jan 29, 2011)

That looks pretty good to me.

Anyone else find it odd that Diminutive creatures are not immune to weapon damage but Diminutive swarms are?  I guess the idea is that you can't hit an individual creature, but it's nonetheless weird.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 30, 2011)

freyar said:


> That looks pretty good to me.
> 
> Anyone else find it odd that Diminutive creatures are not immune to weapon damage but Diminutive swarms are?  I guess the idea is that you can't hit an individual creature, but it's nonetheless weird.




I assumed the idea was targeting one individual out of thousands wouldn't be of any significance to the swarm's combat abilities.

Any suggested changes? I'm not decided on a "wedding of icetails", so am open to alternatives.

How about the name of a *glacial feature*?

A moraine of icetails?

A cirque/circus of icetails?

A corrie/kettle of icetails?

I like "a kettle of icetails" - a *kettle* is a shallow pool or lake created by a retreating glacier. Such a body of water seems a likely place for icetails to collect in large numbers.


----------



## freyar (Feb 1, 2011)

"Kettle" sounds good to me.


----------



## Cleon (Feb 3, 2011)

freyar said:


> "Kettle" sounds good to me.




*Updated*.

They look about done then.

Should I change the DC of the poison? According to a strict interpretation of the rules it should increase to DC12, but that seems a bit funny. If a PC bites an icetail swarm they'd usually only bite one fish, surely?


----------



## freyar (Feb 4, 2011)

Maybe raise the DC per RAW but then note a racial penalty to bring it back in line. 

Then again, can anyone bite a swarm?  They're immune to weapon damage.


----------



## Shade (Feb 4, 2011)

freyar said:


> Maybe raise the DC per RAW but then note a racial penalty to bring it back in line.
> 
> Then again, can anyone bite a swarm?  They're immune to weapon damage.




Good point!  It would have to be swallowed whole!


----------



## Cleon (Feb 4, 2011)

freyar said:


> Maybe raise the DC per RAW but then note a racial penalty to bring it back in line.
> 
> Then again, can anyone bite a swarm?  They're immune to weapon damage.




Immunity to weapon damage just means they don't feel it when you hit them, it doesn't mean you won't feel it when you bite them. 

So, what are we doing about the DC?


----------



## Shade (Feb 7, 2011)

Cleon said:


> So, what are we doing about the DC?




My vote's for this:



freyar said:


> Maybe raise the DC per RAW but then note a racial penalty to bring it back in line.


----------



## freyar (Feb 8, 2011)

Let's stick to that, then.


----------



## Cleon (Feb 9, 2011)

freyar said:


> Let's stick to that, then.




It seems a bit of a roundabout way to get back to the original DC, but if you prefer it I'll go along.


----------



## Shade (Feb 9, 2011)

Added to Homebrews.


----------



## freyar (Feb 10, 2011)

Cleon said:


> It seems a bit of a roundabout way to get back to the original DC, but if you prefer it I'll go along.



I think the point is to stick within the rules and spell out what we're doing.

Anyway, they look pretty well done.  Agreed?


----------



## Shade (Feb 10, 2011)

I think so!

Here's the last of the Fish of the Great Glacier:

*Crystal Nipper*
CLIMATE/TERRAIN: Arctic oceans, rivers of the Great Glacier
FREQUENCY: Very rare
ORGANIZATION: School
ACTIVE TIME: Any
DIET: Scavenger 
INTELLIGENCE: Non- (0)
TREASURE: Nil
ALIGNMENT: Neutral
NO. APPEARING: 10-40
ARMOR CLASS: 9
MOVEMENT: <missing>
HIT DICE: 1/2 hp
THAC0: 20 
NO. OF ATTACKS: Nil
DAMAGE/ATTACK: Nil
SPECIAL ATTACKS: See below
SPECIAL DEFENSES: Nil
MAGIC RESISTANCE: Nil
SIZE: T (1 inch long)
MORALE: Unreliable (2)
XP VALUE: 15

A distant cousin of the rot grub, the crystal nipper looks like a tiny eel made of blue crystal. It is instinctively drawn to warm bodies and attempts to burrow into any area of exposed flesh; a victim has the same risk of death as if attacked by a rot grub (death in 1-3 turns unless flame is applied to the wound, causing 1-6 points of damage, or cure disease is cast). The biggest danger from the nipper results from its ability to survive out of the water for short periods of time. At night, nippers sometimes surface and crawl onto the shore, advancing towards any nearby warm bodies (such as sleeping campers) at a movement rate of 1. Because of the nipper’s anesthetizing secretions, sleeping victims may not realize they have been attacked by a nipper until it.s too late. Fortunately, nippers can only survive out of water for an hour, so campers sleeping some distance away from a body of water where nippers are thought to exist are usually safe. Tiny blue worm corpses scattered near the shore of a river or lake is a sure sign of nippers in the area.

Originally appeared in FR 14 - The Great Glacier (1992).


----------



## Cleon (Feb 11, 2011)

freyar said:


> I think the point is to stick within the rules and spell out what we're doing.




I prefer to follow Humpty Dumpty's advice on grammar, you need to show those rules who's boss! 



freyar said:


> Anyway, they look pretty well done.  Agreed?




Yes.


----------



## Cleon (Feb 11, 2011)

Shade said:


> I think so!
> 
> Here's the last of the Fish of the Great Glacier:
> 
> *Crystal Nipper*




Mechanically it's basically an aquatic rot grub with Water Dependency and anaesthetic saliva.

Just modify a rot grub?


----------



## Shade (Feb 11, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Mechanically it's basically an aquatic rot grub with Water Dependency and anaesthetic saliva.
> 
> Just modify a rot grub?




Probably for the best.

Here's the 3.5 rot grub:
Dungeonscape Excerpts


----------



## Cleon (Feb 11, 2011)

Shade said:


> Probably for the best.
> 
> Here's the 3.5 rot grub:
> Dungeonscape Excerpts




Are we converting this into a Crystal Nipper Swarm and then reverse-engineering an individual Crystal Nipper?


----------



## Shade (Feb 11, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Are we converting this into a Crystal Nipper Swarm and then reverse-engineering an individual Crystal Nipper?




Personally, I see no need for an individual.


----------



## Cleon (Feb 12, 2011)

Shade said:


> Personally, I see no need for an individual.




Well opinions can differ, you know.

Speaking of individuals, an individual rot grub is a hazard under 3E, isn't it?

Should a single Nipper be a hazard or a monster?


----------



## Shade (Feb 14, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Well opinions can differ, you know.




But of course.  That was just my sole opinion.  



Cleon said:


> Speaking of individuals, an individual rot grub is a hazard under 3E, isn't it?




Dunno.  I coded up all the monsters, but hazards...not so much.  I don't have Dungeonscape handy at the moment.



Cleon said:


> Should a single Nipper be a hazard or a monster?




I'd say treat it however the individual rot grub is treated (if it is treated indivdually at all, that is.)


----------



## Cleon (Feb 15, 2011)

Shade said:


> Dunno.  I coded up all the monsters, but hazards...not so much.  I don't have Dungeonscape handy at the moment.
> 
> I'd say treat it however the individual rot grub is treated (if it is treated indivdually at all, that is.)




I don't have Dungeonscape handy either, but the Dungeonscape Excerpt refers to individual rot grubs as hazards.


----------



## Shade (Feb 15, 2011)

Cleon said:


> I don't have Dungeonscape handy either, but the Dungeonscape Excerpt refers to individual rot grubs as hazards.




So be it!   I'll have to dig out the hard copy to find the hazard writeup.


----------



## freyar (Feb 16, 2011)

Twiddles thumbs waiting for rot grubs...   Actually, how about looking at the ToH version?



			
				ToH said:
			
		

> ROT GRUB
> Hazard (CR 4)
> These diminutive vermin crawl off carrion and infest living hosts. They cause a fatal
> illness unless cured or killed. When first encountered, a DC 15 Spot check can be made to avoid them entirely. If this check is failed, the grubs have contacted the victim and penetrated the skin. Once this occurs, the victim may make a DC 15 Wisdom check. If successful, he notices strange burrowing below the surface of his skin. Each round thereafter, a DC 17 Fortitude save must be made. If failed, the victim sustains 2d6 points of Constitution damage. At Constitution 0, the victim dies. The grubs then look for a new host. During the first two rounds, the grubs can be killed by applying flame to or by cutting open the affected skin. The flame or cutting does 2d6 points of damage to the victim. If a DC 15 Heal check is successful, cutting damage can be reduced to 1d6. After the second round, only a remove disease spell can save the victim.


----------



## Cleon (Feb 16, 2011)

freyar said:


> Twiddles thumbs waiting for rot grubs...   Actually, how about looking at the ToH version?




I'd like to see the Dungeonscape version, but it makes sense to use the Tomb of Horrors ROT GRUB since I believe it's OGL.

I'll join you in thumb-twiddling.


----------



## Shade (Feb 17, 2011)

Stop your twiddling!

*Rot Grub (CR 4):*  There are few hazards that experienced dungeoneers fear more than a rot grub.  Resembling a large maggot with a maw full of tiny teeth, the Diminutive rot grub thrives on flesh, both living and dead.  Anyone about to enter a square containing a rot grub can attempt a DC 20 Spot check to notice the hazard.  Those who fail the check or choose to ignore the grub risk exposure.  Each round, the grub makes a single touch attack (at a +5 bonus) against one living target in its square.  If it succeeds, it hungrily burrows into the target’s flesh.  An infested creature takes 1d6 points of damage per round for each rot grub that is infesting it.  A successful DC 16 Fort save halves this damage.  After 2d4 rounds, the sated rot grubs crawl away.  A rot grub infestation can be removed with a successful DC 20 Heal check, though this check (whether successful or not) deals 1d6 points of damage to the infested target.  Alternatively, a rot grub infestation can be destroyed by remove disease or any other effect that halts or counters a disease.  Such spells destroy all the rot grubs inhabiting a target.

Medium or larger creatures that die from rot grub infestation spawn a new rot grub swarm within 2d4 days.  Burning or otherwise destroying the body prevents this.  Casting raise dead to restore a creature killed by a rot grub swarm does not destroy the rot grubs inside, but casting remove disease or a similar spell in the next round removes the grubs normally.  Ressurrection and true resurrection destroy the rot grubs when cast. 

Rot grubs are physically frail (AC 13), and any damage dealt to one kills it.  An unsuccessful melee attack with a natural weapon allows the rot grub a chance to burrow into the target.

Rot grubs move slowly when not inside a body, covering only 5 feet per minute.  Occasionally, rot grubs might be used as part of a trap, making them impossible to spot until the trap is sprung.


----------



## freyar (Feb 17, 2011)

Anyone find a copy of Dungeonscape?  EDIT: Oh, Shade found it!  Hmm, I think the ToH version is a bit more deadly.  

Well, I guess we have precedent for either hp or Con damage.  What do we prefer?


----------



## Shade (Feb 18, 2011)

freyar said:


> Well, I guess we have precedent for either hp or Con damage.  What do we prefer?




I have no strong preference.


----------



## Cleon (Feb 19, 2011)

freyar said:


> Anyone find a copy of Dungeonscape?  EDIT: Oh, Shade found it!  Hmm, I think the ToH version is a bit more deadly.
> 
> Well, I guess we have precedent for either hp or Con damage.  What do we prefer?




If we're following the lead of the AD&D Rot Grub I think Con damage is closer, since (a) the Rot Grub killed its victims in a few rounds regardless of how many hits they had, and (b) Rot Grubs (according to MC2*) do not harm corporeal Undead they infect - which is easy with the Con damage since 3E Undead are immune to ability damage.

*Note Ed Greenwood's _The Ecology of the Rot Grub_ in Dragon #122 says Rot Grubs _*do*_ harm corporeal Undead, but I think the official stat writeup in MC2 has higher authority on this point.

2d6 per round is way too much Con damage, though. Originally, a Rot Grub infestation killed in 1-3 turns. That suggest 1 Con per minute, maybe with an initial Fort save to take longer?

So, are we making these a Hazard or a Swarm, or doing both?

I prefer both!


----------



## Shade (Feb 21, 2011)

I'm content with low Con damage and both swarm and hazard.


----------



## Cleon (Feb 22, 2011)

Shade said:


> I'm content with low Con damage and both swarm and hazard.




OK, I'd start with the hazard. I'm thinking we'd be better off making it xdx Con per minute/round (save halves).

*Crystal Nipper (CR 4):* A distant cousin of the rot grub, a crystal nipper looks like a miniature eel made of blue crystal. Crystal nipper are Diminutive Aquatic Vermin with a swim speed of 5 ft.  They are able to crawl onto land at a speed of 5 feet per  minute, but can only spend an hour or so in the air, soon dying if they  cannot enter water or moist flesh. A crystal nipper is physically frail (AC 13), and any damage dealt to one  kills it.  An unsuccessful melee attack with a natural weapon allows the  crystal nipper a chance to burrow into the target.

Anyone about to enter a square containing  a crystal nipper can attempt a DC 20 Spot check to notice the nipper.  Those  who fail the check or ignore the creature risk exposure.  Each  round, the nipper makes a single touch attack (at a +5 bonus) against one  living target in its square.  If it succeeds, it hungrily burrows into  the target’s flesh. A crystal nippers bite has anesthetic saliva, a victim who failed the Spot check will not notice the nipper burrowing under their skin unless they succeed at a DC 15 Wisdom check.

An infested creature takes 1d3 points of Constitution damage per round (DC 16 Fort save for half). The damage continues until the infected creature dies or all the crystal nippers are removed or destroyed.  Applying flame to the entry wound left by the crystal nipper will kill the crystal nipper, but the fire must be applied within 2 rounds and does 1d6 fire damage to the infected victim. A crystal nipper infestation can be removed with a successful DC 20  Heal check, though this check (whether successful or not) deals 1d6  points of damage to the infested target.  Alternatively, a crystal nipper  infestation can be destroyed by _remove disease_ or any other effect that  halts or counters a disease.  Such spells destroy all the nippers inhabiting a target.

Medium or larger creatures that die from crystal nipper infestation spawn a crystal nipper swarm within 2d4 days.  Burning or otherwise destroying the  body prevents this.  Casting _raise dead_ to restore a creature killed by crystal nipper infestation does not destroy the crystal nippers inside, but casting  _remove disease_ or a similar spell in the next round removes the nippers normally. _ Resurrection _and_ true resurrection_ destroy the crystal nippers when cast.


----------



## Shade (Feb 23, 2011)

So far, so good!


----------



## Cleon (Feb 25, 2011)

Shade said:


> So far, so good!




Anything you'd like to add?


----------



## Shade (Feb 28, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Anything you'd like to add?




Not really.  These don't really inspire my imagination.


----------



## freyar (Mar 4, 2011)

I'm inclined to say the hazards are done, also.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 7, 2011)

freyar said:


> I'm inclined to say the hazards are done, also.




I'm happy if you are.

Shall we do the swarm then?


----------



## Shade (Mar 8, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Shall we do the swarm then?




Ready!


----------



## Cleon (Mar 8, 2011)

Shade said:


> Ready!




OK then.

Start with the Rot Grub swarm, I suppose.

It'll need a swim speed, the Aquatic subtype and some SQ to live out of water for a while - Water Dependency?


----------



## Shade (Mar 9, 2011)

Water dependency will work.


----------



## freyar (Mar 11, 2011)

Just for an hour, I guess.  

Is there really any other change?  Just cut the Con damage, I guess.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 12, 2011)

freyar said:


> Just for an hour, I guess.
> 
> Is there really any other change?  Just cut the Con damage, I guess.




That and changing the description & flavour should cover most of it, yes.


----------



## Shade (Mar 14, 2011)

Added to Homebrews.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 14, 2011)

Shade said:


> Added to Homebrews.




The Infestation should do Constitution damage like the hazard.

Space/Reach should be 10 ft./0 ft.

Environment: Cold Aquatic ?

Organization: Solitary or scourge (2-5)?

_2 or more 3E Rot Grub Swarms is a "scourge", so might as well keep that._


----------



## freyar (Mar 16, 2011)

Agreed with Cleon on everything.  But the question is how much to change the Con damage.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 18, 2011)

freyar said:


> Agreed with Cleon on everything.  But the question is how much to change the Con damage.




Well the Tomb of Horrors version of the Rot Grub does 2d6 Con damage (save negates). Our Crystal Nipper does 1d3 Con (save halves).

The Dungeonscape Rot Grub does 1d6 as a hazard and 3d6 as a swarm, so if we follow that lead the swarm should do 3d3 Con.

Round it down to 2d4 Con? 2d6 feels too nasty.


----------



## freyar (Mar 21, 2011)

2d4 seems fair to me.


----------



## Shade (Mar 22, 2011)

Updated.


----------



## freyar (Mar 22, 2011)

Are these now done?  I don't see anything obvious missing.


----------



## Shade (Mar 24, 2011)

freyar said:


> Are these now done?  I don't see anything obvious missing.




Nor I, but let's see if it passes the Cleon Test (TM).


----------



## Cleon (Mar 25, 2011)

Shade said:


> Nor I, but let's see if it passes the Cleon Test (TM).




I don't like this bit:

"An infested creature takes 2d4 points of Constitution damage per round,  plus an additional 2d4 points of Constitution damage for each failed  Reflex save against a crystal nipper swarm's attack. A successful DC 16  Fortitude save halves this damage."

That means if they fail the first Reflex save they take 4d4 Con damage per round, which is more than the 2d4 we were going for. If they fail three Reflex saves they'll take 8d4 Con damage per round, halved with a save - few living creatures would last very long with that amount of damage!

My initial thinking was something like "An infested creature takes 2d4 points of Constitution damage per round, a successful DC 16  Fortitude save halves this damage."

However, I like the idea of the damage increasing as they fail saves and get infested by more and more nippers.

How about the following (I corrected two mispelled "resurrection" and modified the "raise dead" bit a trifle):
*
Infestation (Ex):* Any living creature that takes damage from a crystal  nipper swarm might also be infested with crystal nippers each round. A  creature must make a successful DC 18 Reflex save to dodge the swarming  nippers or bat them aside. The crystal nipper infesting the creature  burrow into its flesh. _An infested creature takes 1d4 points of Constitution damage per round,  plus an additional 1d4 points of Constitution damage for each failed  Reflex save against a crystal nipper swarm's attack. A successful DC 16  Fortitude save halves this damage._  After 2d4 rounds, the sated crystal nippers crawl or swim away. A  crystal nipper infestation can be removed with a successful DC 20 Heal  check, though this check (whether successful or not) deals 1d6 points of  damage to the infested target. Alternatively, a crystal nipper  infestation can be destroyed by _remove disease _or any other effect that  halts or counters a disease. Such spells destroy all the crystal nippers  inhabiting a target.

Medium or larger creatures that die from crystal nipper infestation  spawn a new crystal nipper swarm within 2d4 days. Burning or otherwise  destroying the body prevents this. Casting _raise dead _to restore a  creature killed by a crystal nipper swarm _but this_ does not destroy the crystal  nippers _infestation_, casting _remove disease _or a similar spell in the  round afterward removes the nippers normally. _Resurrection_ and _true  resurrection_ destroy the crystal nipper when cast.

Oh, and should we add "The Reflex save is Dex-based, the Fort save is Con-based." or can we safely leave that unstated?


----------



## freyar (Mar 28, 2011)

Those changes work for me.  And I'd add in the save Dex and Con-based bit.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 31, 2011)

freyar said:


> Those changes work for me.  And I'd add in the save Dex and Con-based bit.




Good!

If we put that in are we finished with the nipper swarm?


----------



## freyar (Apr 5, 2011)

I'd say so.


----------



## Shade (Apr 5, 2011)

Updated.

That finishes off the Fish of the Great Glacier.  

Next...


*Gray Flatfish: *Int Non; AL N; MV Sw 3; HD 1 hp; #AT 1; Dmg nil; THAC0 20; SA victim has an 80 percent chance of being poisoned if he steps on or handles a flatfish (spines can puncture leather or equivalent); SZ T (1’ long); ML 2; XP 35.

The gray flatfish of the River Arkhen resemble granite stones about a half-inch thick and a foot in diameter. They lie perfectly still on the bottoms of shallow streams, eating any algae or refuse that happens to drift by. Travelers wading across streams may step on these fish by accident, as they’re virtually indistinguishable from stones. Pressure on the flatfish’s back causes dozens of inch-long spines to become erect; the tough spines can easily penetrate shoe leather. The spines inject poison that inflicts extreme, debilitating pain lasting as long as a week.

*Poison Effects Table*
Onset Time / Result of Failed Saving Throw*
Gray flatfish 2-8 rounds / Victim experiences intense pain throughout his body for next 2-8 days. During that time, he makes all attack rolls and ability checks at a -2 penalty.

*Victims of the Farrowdale mouse, copper opossum, and gray flatfish receive no modifiers to their saving throws. Cobra trout victims receive a -4 modifier.

Originally appeared in Elminster’s Ecologies (1994).


----------



## Mortis (Apr 6, 2011)

Although they're obviously living creatures, mechanically them seem (at least to me) more like a hazard.

Mortis


----------



## Cleon (Apr 6, 2011)

Shade said:


> Updated.
> 
> That finishes off the Fish of the Great Glacier.




Huzzah!



Shade said:


> Next...
> 
> 
> *Gray Flatfish: *Int Non; AL N; MV Sw 3; HD 1 hp; #AT 1; Dmg nil; THAC0 20; SA victim has an 80 percent chance of being poisoned if he steps on or handles a flatfish (spines can puncture leather or equivalent); SZ T (1’ long); ML 2; XP 35.
> ...




These look mighty like a hazard to me.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 7, 2011)

Shade said:


> Updated.
> 
> That finishes off the Fish of the Great Glacier.




Hold your nippers! I've just noticed a few niggles with the Crystal Nipper Swarm.

Firstly, the stats include the following lines:

Immunities: Weapon damage
Weaknesses: Swarm vulnerabilities
Senses: Darkvision 60 ft.
Languages: &#8212

We've been using the SRD 3.5 format for our monsters, so do we want to reintegrate that information into Special Qualities and cut out the "Languages: &#8212" line?*Special Qualities:* Darkvision 60 ft., immunity to weapon damage, swarm traits, vermin traits​Secondly, it's got "Treasure: see text" but no mention of treasure in the text. The FR14 Crystal Nipper has Treasure: Nil, but then the AD&D version of the Rot Grub has the Nil Treasure too.

Do we want to adapt the Rot Grub Swarm's "Rot grubs leave inorganic treasures in their wake. They devour wood, leather, and other goods. They have normal treasure for their Challenge Rating" from *Dungeonscape*?*Treasure:* Standard (inorganic only)

Crystal nippers are distant cousins of the rot grub, found in cold aquatic environments. A swarm of crystal nippers will eat anything living or once-living in its path, leaving inorganic treasures in their wake. They devour wood, leather, and other goods as well as flesh.​Thirdly, there's a stray "rot grubs" in the Death hazard that should be "crystal nippers":*Death Hazard (Ex):* Upon destroying a crystal nipper swarm, 1d6 crystal nippers remain, spreading throughout the space inhabited by the swarm. These *rot grubs* behave as the hazard (see below). Destroying these remaining crystal nippers does not provide any additional experience points.​Apart from that I think we're good.


----------



## GrayLinnorm (Apr 7, 2011)

Mortis said:


> Although they're obviously living creatures, mechanically them seem (at least to me) more like a hazard.
> 
> Mortis



 No....just no.

Actually, they sound like the dragonfish, which is NOT a hazard.


----------



## Shade (Apr 7, 2011)

Fixed crystal nipper.

Let's try to make the gray flatfish creatures, as hazards are so uninspiring.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 8, 2011)

Shade said:


> Fixed crystal nipper.
> 
> Let's try to make the gray flatfish creatures, as hazards are so uninspiring.




If it bothers you, I have no objection to making them creatures. It just seems surplus to requirement.

How about basing it on the scorpionfish conversion we did?


----------



## Shade (Apr 8, 2011)

Cleon said:


> How about basing it on the scorpionfish conversion we did?




Let's give it a try and see where it leads.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 9, 2011)

*Gray Flatfish Working Draft*



Shade said:


> Let's give it a try and see where it leads.




Here's a Working Draft then, I'll start by posting the Scorpion Fish:

*Fish, Gray Flatfish*
Diminutive Animal (Aquatic)
*Hit Dice:* 1/4d8 (1 hp)
*Initiative:* -1
*Speed:* Swim 10 ft. (2 squares)
*Armor Class:* 13 (+4 size, -1 Dex), touch 13, flat-footed 13
*Base Attack/Grapple:* +0/-16
*Attack:* —
*Full Attack:* —
*Space/Reach:* 2-1/2 ft./0 ft.
*Special Attacks:* Poison
*Special Qualities:* Low-light vision, spiny defense
*Saves:* Fort +2, Ref +1, Will +1
*Abilities:* Str 2, Dex 9, Con 11, Int 1, Wis 12, Cha 2
*Skills:* Hide +12*, Listen +2, Move Silently +0, Spot +2, Swim +4
*Feats:* Ability Focus (poison)
*Environment:* Temperate aquatic?
*Organization:* Solitary or cluster (2-4)?
*Challenge Rating:* 1/2
*Treasure:* None
*Alignment:* Always neutral
*Advancement:* 1 HD (Tiny)
*Level Adjustment:* —

_This little, stout-bodied fish resembles a rock with fins. A row of spines runs down its back._

Scorpionfish are slow-moving bottom dwellers that most commonly live in reefs. Scorpionfish get their name from their venomous, slime-coated spines that cause excruciating pain to any creature they injure. 

 A scorpionfish's resemblance to a rock or piece of coral makes them extraordinarily hard to spot among the reefs where they prefer to live. They are usually red or brown in color.

Most types of scorpionfish are very small, typically 4 to 8 inches in length and an ounce or two in weight, the largest species can grow up to 18 inches long and 5 pounds in weight. 

*COMBAT*
 Scorpionfish are not aggressive. If they see an enemy they hide, freezing in place until the threat departs. Should this fail, they rely on their venomous spines to defend them.

*Poison (Ex):* Injury (spines), Fortitude DC X; initial  damage intense pain (-2  penalty on attack  rolls, skill checks, and ability checks) for 2d6  minutes; secondary  damage intense pain for 2d4 days. The save DC is   Constitution-based.

*Spiny Defense (Ex):* Any creature that hits a gray flatfish in melee with a natural or handheld weapon (but not a reach weapon) must succeed on a DC 11 Reflex save or take 1 point of piercing damage from its many spines and be exposed to its poison. The save DC is Dexterity-based.

*Skills:* A gray flatfish 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. 

*A gray flatfish has a +8 racial bonus to Hide checks when lying on mud.


----------



## freyar (Apr 11, 2011)

Should we vary the abilities any, just for differentiation?


----------



## Shade (Apr 12, 2011)

freyar said:


> Should we vary the abilities any, just for differentiation?




Sure.  The limited description suggests a lower Dex and higher Con score to me.   Since they aren't predators, possibly a lower Str as well.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 12, 2011)

Shade said:


> Sure.  The limited description suggests a lower Dex and higher Con score to me.   Since they aren't predators, possibly a lower Str as well.




The above's OK by me, but I'd be more concerned about working on the poison. That's were most of the practical differences between these little fishies will be.

We'd better lower the scorpionfish's Swim speed, too.


----------



## Shade (Apr 13, 2011)

Cleon said:


> The above's OK by me, but I'd be more concerned about working on the poison. That's were most of the practical differences between these little fishies will be.




But of course!  I just wanted to nail down the basics first.



Cleon said:


> We'd better lower the scorpionfish's Swim speed, too.




Agreed.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 13, 2011)

Shade said:


> But of course!  I just wanted to nail down the basics first.




OK, the current proposal would give us something like  Str 2, Dex 9, Con 15, Int 1, Wis 12, Cha 2, Swim 10 ft.

I'm having second thoughts about the high Con. The original flatfish only had 1 hit point.

Oh, and being a foot in diameter suggests it should be Tiny instead of Diminutive, since it's the size of an Advanced Scorpionfish.


----------



## Shade (Apr 13, 2011)

Cleon said:


> OK, the current proposal would give us something like  Str 2, Dex 9, Con 15, Int 1, Wis 12, Cha 2, Swim 10 ft.
> 
> I'm having second thoughts about the high Con. The original flatfish only had 1 hit point.




I'm fine with a lower Con.



Cleon said:


> Oh, and being a foot in diameter suggests it should be Tiny instead of Diminutive, since it's the size of an Advanced Scorpionfish.




It's the top end of Diminutive, where I'd like to keep it (much like we kept the sanctacaris at Large).


----------



## Cleon (Apr 14, 2011)

Shade said:


> I'm fine with a lower Con.




Con 11 then?



Shade said:


> It's the top end of Diminutive, where I'd like to keep it (much like we kept the sanctacaris at Large).




That's OK I guess. They're very thin, so presumably don't weigh much.


----------



## Shade (Apr 14, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Con 11 then?




Sure!  Shall we work on the poison?



> The spines inject poison that inflicts extreme, debilitating pain lasting as long as a week.




Use the ol' "extracted from symbol of pain" effect?


----------



## freyar (Apr 15, 2011)

I'd say so on the pain.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 15, 2011)

Currently we've got Str 2, Dex 9, Con 11, Int 1, Wis 12, Cha 2, Swim 10 ft.

Shall I update the Working Draft with that?



Shade said:


> Sure!  Shall we work on the poison?
> 
> Use the ol' "extracted from symbol of pain" effect?




The original text suggests less potent effects (-2 penalty) than last much, much longer (2d4 days):



			
				Elminster's Ecologies said:
			
		

> *Poison Effects Table*
> Onset Time / Result of Failed Saving Throw*
> Gray flatfish 2-8 rounds / Victim experiences intense pain throughout his body for next 2-8 days. During that time, he makes all attack rolls and ability checks at a -2 penalty.




Something like:

*Poison (Ex):* Injury (spines), Fortitude DC X; initial  damage intense pain (-2 penalty on attack  rolls, skill checks, and ability checks) for 2d6 minutes; secondary  damage intense pain for 2d4 days. The save DC is  Constitution-based.


----------



## Shade (Apr 15, 2011)

Works for me!


----------



## Cleon (Apr 16, 2011)

Shade said:


> Works for me!




Updated *Working Draft* with what we've got so far.


----------



## freyar (Apr 17, 2011)

Much else needed?


----------



## Cleon (Apr 17, 2011)

freyar said:


> Much else needed?




Just reworking the bits in red.


----------



## Shade (Apr 18, 2011)

The river in which they reside flows through the Dalelands, so I'd be tempted to go with "Temperate aquatic" or "Temperate and cold aquatic" for the Environment.

I'd imagine the org is a bit bigger than a scorpionfish.  Maybe go back to the usual fish term of "school" and make it 2-12?

_What at first appeared a granite stone reveals itself as a flat fish, as dozens of inch-long spines arise from its back._

Gray flatfish spend their time on the bottoms of shallow streams.  They feed upon algae and drifting refuse.

A gray flatfish grows to about a foot in length an weighs x pounds.

Combat

Gray flatfish are nonaggressive, but any pressure upon their back results in the raising of their spines, which inject a venom that causes extreme, debilitating pain.

*In the Realms*
Gray flatfish are primarily found in the River Arkhen running through Archendale.


----------



## freyar (Apr 19, 2011)

Well, Cleon can add the weight, but there doesn't seem to be anything else to do.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 21, 2011)

freyar said:


> Well, Cleon can add the weight, but there doesn't seem to be anything else to do.




Let's see, they're about the same size as a *Lemon Sole* (_Microstomus kitt_), which averages about 25-35 cm and 250-450 grams.

Call it a foot across and a pound weight.


----------



## Shade (Apr 22, 2011)

Added to Homebrews.

Anything left?


----------



## Cleon (Apr 23, 2011)

Shade said:


> Added to Homebrews.
> 
> Anything left?




Gray flatfish as familiars? 

Could we give them a more interesting collective name than a "school"?

Since they resemble flat stones, how about a "paving" or "cobble" of gray flatfish?


----------



## Shade (Apr 25, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Could we give them a more interesting collective name than a "school"?
> 
> Since they resemble flat stones, how about a "paving" or "cobble" of gray flatfish?




Well, they are fish...

But if you insist, I suppose cobble appeals.


Here's the next one...


*Cobra Trout:* Int Animal; AL CN; MV 1, Sw 12; HD 2 hp; #AT 1; Dmg 1; THAC0 20; SA poison; SZ T (2’ long); ML 5; XP 35.

The cobra trout, which lives in the Deeping Stream, is one of the few fresh water fish with a poisonous bite. Extremely territorial, the cobra trout lunges at any creature that comes within a few feet. This fish can exist on dry land for as long as an hour, using tiny fins to haul itself along the ground. Fortunately, its bright silver scales make it easy to recognize and avoid.

Poison Effects Table
Onset Result of Failed
Time Saving Throw *
Farrowdale mouse 1-4 rounds Victim doubled over in pain for the next 2-5 (1d4) hours; can take no actions during that time.
Copper opossum 1 round Victim suffers effects similar to those of a temporal stasis spell. Effects persist until victim benefits from dispel magic, neutralize poison, temporal reinstatement, or a comparable spell.
Gray flatfish 2-8 rounds Victim experiences intense pain throughout his body for next 2-8 days. During that time, he makes all attack rolls and ability checks at a -2 penalty.
Cobra trout 1-4 turns Death * A successful saving throw means no damage. 

Poison Effects Table
Onset Time: 1-4 turns 
Result of Failed Saving Throw:  Death

* A successful saving throw means no damage. 

Cobra trout victims receive a -4 modifier to their saving throws.

Originally appeared in Elminster’s Ecologies (1994).


----------



## freyar (Apr 26, 2011)

That's quite a nasty poison for what looks like a 1HD animal.  Convert to Con damage?  Maybe 1d6/1d6 Con if we want it to stay pretty deadly.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 26, 2011)

Shade said:


> Well, they are fish...
> 
> But if you insist, I suppose cobble appeals.




Feel free to use it then, if you like. 



Shade said:


> *Cobra Trout:* Int Animal; AL CN; MV 1, Sw 12; HD 2 hp; #AT 1; Dmg 1; THAC0 20; SA poison; SZ T (2’ long); ML 5; XP 35.




Why are they Chaotic Neutral? Shall we stick to true neutral like standard Animals.

Statwise I think we can modify a Tiny Viper Snake. Just make it Aquatic, give it half a Hit Dice instead of a Quarter, and add Water Dependent and we're most of the way there.

Probably lower the Dexterity too.

I'll start a Working Draft.

EDIT: That looks pretty good. I think we might want to boost the poison's save DC since the original had a -4 save. Give it AF (poison) and/or a racial bonus.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 26, 2011)

*Cobra Trout Working Draft*

*Cobra Trout*
Tiny Animal (Aquatic)
Hit Dice: ½d8 (2 hp) 
Initiative: +3
Speed: 5 ft. (1 squares), swim 30 ft. 
Armor Class: 14 (+2 size, +2 Dex), touch 14, flat-footed 12
Base Attack/Grapple: +0/-11 
Attack: Bite +4 melee (1d3-3 plus poison) 
Full Attack: Bite +4 melee (1d3-3 plus poison) 
Space/Reach: 2½ ft./0 ft. 
Special Attacks: Poison 
Special Qualities: Water dependent
Saves: Fort +2, Ref +4, Will +1 
Abilities: Str 4, Dex 15, Con 11, Int 1, Wis 12, Cha 2 
Skills: Climb +6, Hide +10*, Listen +5, Spot +5, Swim +10
Feats: Alertness, Weapon Finesse (B)
Environment: Temperate aquatic
Organization: Solitary 
Challenge Rating: 1/3
Advancement: — 
Level Adjustment: — 

_A slender fish shaped like a snake or eel, covered in bright silver scales_

Cobra trout are eel-like freshwater fish with a poisonous bite. Extremely territorial, the cobra trout lunges at any creature that comes  within a few feet. Fortunately, their bright scales make them easy to spot and avoid. Cobra trout are predatory, but only eat much smaller prey. They hunt in a similar fashion to a venomous aquatic snake. These fish can leave the water  for minutes at a time,  and often slither ashore to pursue land-bound prey.

A cobra trout is usually two to four feet long and weighs about a pound.

*COMBAT*
This narrow fish strikes like a snake,  inflicting a  weak bite  with a potent venom.

*Poison (Ex): *A cobra trout has a poisonous bite that deals initial and secondary damage of 1d6 Con (Fort DC 10). The save DC is Constitution-based.

*Water Dependent (Ex):* Cobra trout can survive out of the water for 5 minutes per point of Constitution (after that, refer to the drowning rules). 

*Skills:* Cobra trout have a +4  racial bonus on Climb  checks and use  either  their Strength modifier or Dexterity  modifier for Climb checks,   whichever is higher. A cobra trout 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.

*Cobra trout have a +4 racial bonus on Hide checks when in clear water, due to the reflections off their silvery scales.


----------



## freyar (Apr 26, 2011)

Maybe they were CN because poison is illegal?  Anyway, true neutral is much better. Where's your alignment line, anyway?  Looking good otherwise.


----------



## Cleon (May 1, 2011)

freyar said:


> Maybe they were CN because poison is illegal?  Anyway, true neutral is much better. Where's your alignment line, anyway?  Looking good otherwise.




It didn't have one because I copy & pasted the SRD Tiny Viper which is missing an alignment line, like most of the Animal appendix entries.

Anything else you'd like in the way of stats, or shall we whip up some flavour?


----------



## freyar (May 2, 2011)

That seems like all it should have.  Here's a little seasoning:

"The cobra fish is a narrow fish shaped like a snake or eel, covered in bright silver scales.  Like a snake, they strike at their prey, inflicting a weak bite with a potent venom.  They often leave the water for minutes at a time, searching for land-bound prey."

That could probably be improved.

By the way, shouldn't the bite damage have a -3 Str penalty on it?


----------



## Cleon (May 7, 2011)

freyar said:


> That seems like all it should have.  Here's a little seasoning:
> 
> "The cobra fish is a narrow fish shaped like a snake or eel, covered in bright silver scales.  Like a snake, they strike at their prey, inflicting a weak bite with a potent venom.  They often leave the water for minutes at a time, searching for land-bound prey."
> 
> That could probably be improved.




How's this for an improvement?:

A cobra fish is shaped like a snake or eel, covered in  bright silver scales. This narrow fish strikes like a snake,  inflicting a weak bite with a potent venom.  They can leave the water  for minutes at a time, and often slither ashore to search for land-bound prey.



freyar said:


> By the way, shouldn't the bite damage have a -3 Str penalty on it?




I suspect the Strength penalty is large enough it always does minimum (i.e. 1 point) damage.


----------



## freyar (May 8, 2011)

Right, but shouldn't we write it as 1d2-3 damage (or up to 1d4-3)?  Isn't the damage penalty supposed to be listed?


----------



## Shade (May 9, 2011)

freyar said:


> Right, but shouldn't we write it as 1d2-3 damage (or up to 1d4-3)?  Isn't the damage penalty supposed to be listed?




Indeed it should be.


----------



## Cleon (May 15, 2011)

Shade said:


> Indeed it should be.




I have no objection.

*Updated*.


----------



## Shade (May 16, 2011)

The proposed lenght and weight look fine.

Do we need to give it swallow whole, since you mention that in the flavor text?   It seems a bit of a waste for something that size...perhaps a modification to the flavor text would be better.


----------



## freyar (May 16, 2011)

Just drop the bit about swallowing prey whole?


----------



## Shade (May 18, 2011)

freyar said:


> Just drop the bit about swallowing prey whole?




That is my preference.


----------



## Cleon (May 18, 2011)

freyar said:


> Just drop the bit about swallowing prey whole?




That's OK by me. It's not in the original, I just thought it appropriate for a snake-like fish. 

None of the mundane snakes in the SRD Animal section have Swallow Whole, and they presumably eat prey in the same fashion as real-world snakes.

*Updated*.


----------



## Shade (May 19, 2011)

The latest revision looks good.  I'm ready to call it finished and move it to Homebrews if you all agree.


----------



## Cleon (May 20, 2011)

Shade said:


> The latest revision looks good.  I'm ready to call it finished and move it to Homebrews if you all agree.




Hold on, why on earth did I give it Hide +15? Must be a carry over from a previous beastie. It doesn't have any ranks or bonuses in Hide, so I should have left that skill out.

What about giving it some benefit from its "silvery scales" -  maybe they help it hide in water? They're also supposedly easy  to see when on land. Maybe add something like this:*Silvery Scales (Ex):* When in clear, brightly lit water the  reflections off its silvery scales give a cobra fish a +4 circumstance  bonus on Hide checks. Contrariwise, a cobra fish has a -4 circumstance  penalty on Hide checks if it is adjacent to a dark or non-shiny  background (i.e. when crawling across dry land).​Thinking it over, I'm tempted to give it some or all of a snakes' racial bonuses to skills. Maybe at reduced numbers?



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Snakes have a +4 racial bonus on Hide, Listen, and Spot checks and a +8 racial bonus on Balance and Climb checks. A snake can always choose to take 10 on a Climb check, even if rushed or threatened. Snakes use either their Strength modifier or Dexterity modifier for Climb checks, whichever is higher. A snake 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.




How's this?Cobra fish have a +4  racial bonus on Balance and Climb checks. Cobra fish use  either their Strength modifier or Dexterity modifier for Climb checks,  whichever is higher. A cobra fish 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.​That works out to:

*Skills:* Balance +6, Climb +6, Hide +10*, Listen +5, Spot +5, Swim +10


----------



## freyar (May 23, 2011)

Why not just give it a Hide bonus when in water?  I don't fancy the penalty so much for being on land; we can just reduce the ranks to reflect (hah!) its lack of hiding ability.

Also, despite being snake-like, it's still a fish.  I'm not sold on the Balance or especially Climb bonuses.


----------



## Shade (May 24, 2011)

freyar said:


> Why not just give it a Hide bonus when in water?  I don't fancy the penalty so much for being on land; we can just reduce the ranks to reflect (hah!) its lack of hiding ability.
> 
> Also, despite being snake-like, it's still a fish.  I'm not sold on the Balance or especially Climb bonuses.




Agreed with all this.

I'm always fine with including Hide and Jump ranks in stat lines, even when lacking racial bonuses, if the creature gets size or speed adjustments.


----------



## Cleon (May 28, 2011)

Shade said:


> Agreed with all this.
> 
> I'm always fine with including Hide and Jump ranks in stat lines, even when lacking racial bonuses, if the creature gets size or speed adjustments.




I'm okay with a "Hide in water" bonus instead.

How about +4, so it gets Hide +10* (+14 in water)?

As for Climb and Balance, I don't mind dropping the Balance but think we should keep the Climb (since it may need it to clamber up steep stream banks or over slippery rocks).

Revising...
Cobra trout have a +4  racial bonus on Climb  checks and use  either their Strength modifier or Dexterity  modifier for Climb checks,  whichever is higher. A cobra trout 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.

*Cobra trout have a +4 racial bonus on Hide checks when in clear water, due to the reflections off their silvery scales.​That works out to:

*Skills:* Climb +6, Hide +10*, Listen +5, Spot +5, Swim +10


----------



## freyar (May 30, 2011)

Fair compromise.


----------



## Cleon (May 31, 2011)

freyar said:


> Fair compromise.




*Updated*.

Is it done then?

That 5 ft. land speed looks awful slow for something that's supposed to catch prey on land, but it follows the speed of the original.


----------



## Shade (May 31, 2011)

Cleon said:


> *Updated*.
> 
> Is it done then?




Aye!  Moved to Homebrews.



Cleon said:


> That 5 ft. land speed looks awful slow for something that's supposed to catch prey on land, but it follows the speed of the original.




I suppose it catches them unawares.


----------



## Cleon (May 31, 2011)

Shade said:


> Aye!  Moved to Homebrews.




Hold on, "temperate marshes" can't be right for the environment? It should be "Temperate aquatic" like the Gray Flatfish?

I'll *Update* it.



Shade said:


> I suppose it catches them unawares.




Nah, it preys on the little known Vanity Frog. It attracts their attention with its flashing scales and when the frog comes closer to admire its reflection in the cobra trout's mirror-like body it gets bitten.


----------



## Shade (May 31, 2011)

Fixed the Homebrews version as well.

Here's another from the same article as the last two, and well-timed to follow one of our other conversions...

*Copper Opossum*
The copper opossum, a native of the Cormyr foothills, is as shy as the Farrowdale mouse is aggressive.  It spends most of the day eating weeds and seedlings, rolling itself into a tight ball whenever it feels threatened. If handled, the opossum kicks with its hind legs, piercing its oppressor with tiny spikes located just above its feet. The spikes secrete poison that causes paralysis. Incidentally, the opossum’s fur contains actual copper; if processed by a knowledgeable craftsman, the fur of a mature copper opossum yields 2-5 pounds of metal.

For the Farrowdale mouse and the copper opossum, use the normal mouse and opossum statistics (award 15 experience points for the Farrowdale mouse, 35 for the copper opossum). If either creature makes a successful attack, the victim is poisoned.

Poison Effects Table
Onset Time/ Result of Failed Saving Throw *
1 round / Victim suffers effects similar to those of a temporal stasis spell. Effects persist until victim benefits from dispel magic, neutralize poison, temporal reinstatement, or a comparable spell.

*Victims of the Farrowdale mouse, copper opossum, and gray flatfish receive no modifiers to their saving throws. Cobra trout victims receive a -4 modifier.


----------



## Cleon (Jun 1, 2011)

Shade said:


> Fixed the Homebrews version as well.
> 
> Here's another from the same article as the last two, and well-timed to follow one of our other conversions...
> 
> *Copper Opossum*




Looks like we just add a poison bite to the Opossum conversion we did.

Speaking of which, I *agreed with xavier* that a regular Opossum shouldn't have filth fever and could do with a slower ground speed. What do you think of tweaking our conversion?

Oh, as for the Copper Opossum's temporal stasis effect, it reminds me of the Great Glacier's Spiny Sleeper's venom. Is there anything we can use from our conversion of that creature?

*Frozen Sleep Venom (Su):* A spiny sleeper's spines contain a supernatural venom. Any creature injured by a spine must succeed on a DC 12 Fortitude save or be covered with an ice-like glaze which renders them immobile and unconscious until removed from conditions of severe cold (below 0° F), after which victims "thaw" in 1d3+1 rounds. The victim reawakens, fully alert, if this glaze is broken. Cold damage will not break the glaze, but any other kind of energy damage or weapon damage will break the glaze and free the frozen victim. Any effect that opposes poison, like the neutralize poison spell or a racial resistance or immunity to poison, will affect a spiny sleeper's venom as if it were a poison. The save DC is Constitution-based.

Hmm, doesn't look like there's much we can use. Better work it up from scratch. I'd rather have it last for a set duration than indefinitely, and add a "awakens when injured" mechanic instead of the victim being indestructible à la _temporal stasis_.

Here's a first draft.

*Copper Stasis Venom (Su):* A copper opossum's jaws carry a supernatural venom. Any  creature injured by its bite attack must succeed on a DC X Fortitude save or be placed in a state of suspended animation for X days. An envenomed victim is unconscious and immobile, but has no need of food, water or air while in stasis. If a creature in stasis takes damage from any source they will awaken, fully  alert, if they succeed at a DC Y Fortitude save. The stasis can also be broken by a _dispel magic_ or similar effect (effective caster level Z). Any effect that opposes poison, like  the _neutralize poison_ spell or a racial resistance or immunity to  poison, will affect a spiny sleeper's venom as if it were a poison. The  save DC is Constitution-based.


----------



## GrayLinnorm (Jun 1, 2011)

The temporal stasis venom should make it a magical beast.


----------



## Shade (Jun 1, 2011)

GrayLinnorm said:


> The temporal stasis venom should make it a magical beast.




Agreed wholeheartedly!


----------



## Cleon (Jun 3, 2011)

Shade said:


> Agreed wholeheartedly!




Obviously, but that won't affect the stats much.


----------



## freyar (Jun 6, 2011)

I agree with Magical Beast and the temporal stasis venom, but it's not a venomous bite.  The venom is delivered by "tiny spikes located just above its feet."


----------



## Shade (Jun 6, 2011)

freyar said:


> I agree with Magical Beast and the temporal stasis venom, but it's not a venomous bite.  The venom is delivered by "tiny spikes located just above its feet."




Indeed!


----------



## freyar (Jun 7, 2011)

Shade said:


> Indeed!



Does it also sound to you like it's really a rake attack that delivers the poison?


----------



## Cleon (Jun 7, 2011)

freyar said:


> Does it also sound to you like it's really a rake attack that delivers the poison?




How did I miss that?

It's got venomous spurs like a Platypus!

A claw attack seems the closest match among the standard natural weapons.


----------



## freyar (Jun 9, 2011)

I could go for a claw, but to me it sounds like a rake, since it only uses that attack when handled, ie, grappled.


----------



## Cleon (Jun 10, 2011)

freyar said:


> I could go for a claw, but to me it sounds like a rake, since it only uses that attack when handled, ie, grappled.




Just because it uses its poison spikes when handled doesn't mean it can't use them at other times. It's shy and avoids threats, so I think it's more likely to be a behavioural limitation than a physiological one. (i.e. it _could_ kick out more actively/aggressively, but it's not in the nature of the creature).

That said, I have no objection in principle to a rake attack.

*Rake (Ex):* If a copper opossum is in a grapple it gains an additional claws attack with its hind legs (attack bonus +4 melee, damage 1d3-4 plus copper stasis venom).

*Copper Stasis Venom (Su):* A copper opossum has spines just above its hind feet that secrete a  supernatural venom. Any  creature injured by its rake attack must  succeed on a DC X Fortitude save or be placed in a state of suspended  animation for X days. An envenomed victim is unconscious and immobile,  but has no need of food, water or air while in stasis. If a creature in  stasis takes damage from any source they will awaken, fully  alert, if  they succeed at a DC Y Fortitude save. The stasis can also be broken by a  _dispel magic_ or similar effect (effective caster level Z). Any effect that opposes poison, like  the _neutralize poison_  spell or a racial resistance or immunity to  poison, will affect a copper opossum's venom as if it were a poison. The  save DC is  Constitution-based.

Alternatively, we could give it a rake attack plus a regular claw attack, e.g.
*
Attack:* Bite +4 melee (1d3-4)
*Full Attack:* Bite +4 melee (1d3-4) and claws -1 melee (1d3-4)

...hmm, don't like that much. I prefer only giving it a bite like the basic opossum, since the text says it uses AD&D Opossum stats. Looks like I'm agreeing with you know, Freyar!

Time for a Working Draft, methinks!

EDIT: I've added a Working Draft, based on the above. I fixed some of the numbers and cut the "Copper" from "Copper Stasis Venom", since it felt superfluous.


----------



## Cleon (Jun 10, 2011)

*Copper Opossum
*Tiny Magical Beast
Hit Dice: 1/2d10 (2 hp)
Initiative: +2
Speed: 20 ft. (4 squares), climb 15 ft.
Armor Class: 14 (+2 size, +2 Dex), touch 14, flat-footed 12
Base Attack/Grapple: +1/-11
Attack: Bite +5 melee (1d3-4)
Full Attack: Bite +5 melee (1d3-4)
Space/Reach: 2 1/2 ft./0 ft.
Special Attacks: Rake, stasis venom
Special Qualities: Feign death, low-light vision, scent, venom resistant
Saves: Fort +2*, Ref +4, Will +1
Abilities: Str 3, Dex 15, Con 10, Int 1, Wis 12, Cha 4
Skills: Balance +6, Climb +10, Disguise +2*, Jump +6, Hide +10, Listen +3, Move Silently +2, Spot +3, Swim +6
Feats: Alertness, Weapon Finesse (B)
Environment: Temperate hills
Organization: Solitary, pair, or family (2-8)
Challenge Rating: 1/2
Treasure: See below (copper)
Alignment: Always neutral
Advancement: —
Level Adjustment: —

_ This creature looks like an opossum, except its thick fur is the metallic hue of polished copper. A long, prehensile tail trails behind it._

 Copper opossums are a magical breed of opossum. They are  only found in areas with a source of copper, such as an exposed  seam of  copper ore, since they need to eat small quantities of that  metal to  survive. A copper opossum's ideal habitat is an area of foothills with  abundant trees,  streams, and a supply of high-grade ore or raw copper.

The fur of a copper opossum contains real copper.  Burning a copper  opossum (or just its skin) in an an exceptionally hot fire (such as a  forge) leaves behind 10d4+10 copper pieces worth of raw copper. Removing the skin  from a dead copper opossum requires a DC 10 Survival check. The skin  weighs 3 to 6 pounds.

Copper opossums are typically 2 to 3 feet long (up to half of which is tail) and weigh between 5 and 18 pounds.

A spellcaster with the Improved Familiar feat can acquire a copper opossum as a familiar. The spellcaster must be at least 3rd level. A copper opossum familiar grants a +2 bonus on Fort saves to its master plus a +2 bonus on all saves against poison. These bonuses stack, giving a +4 bonus on Fort saves against poison.

*COMBAT*

A copper opossum will curl into a ball and feign death if threatened. If attacked or handled, it will kick out with its hind legs' venomous spines.

*Feign Death (Ex):* A copper opossum can play dead with great accuracy. It rolls into a motionless ball and secretes a foul odor, so it looks and smells like a dead animal. Although able to smell, hear, and know what is going on, the opossum is effectively blind while feigning death.

A creature examining the copper opossum may attempt a Heal or Spot check opposed by the opossum's Disguise check to detect the ruse. The opossum gains a +8 circumstance bonus on Disguise checks to feign death.

*Rake (Ex):* If a copper opossum is in a grapple it gains a claws attack with its hind legs (attack bonus +5 melee,  damage 1d3-4 plus stasis venom).

*Stasis Venom (Su):*  A copper opossum has spines just above its hind feet that secrete a   supernatural venom. Any  creature injured by its rake attack must   succeed on a DC 12 Fortitude save or be placed in a state of suspended   animation for 2d4 days. An envenomed victim is unconscious and immobile,   but has no need of food, water or air while in stasis. If a creature in   stasis takes damage from any source they will awaken, fully  alert, if   they succeed at a DC 12 Fortitude save. The stasis can also be broken by  a  _dispel magic_ or similar effect (effective caster level 3). Any effect that opposes poison, like  the _neutralize poison_   spell or a racial resistance or immunity to  poison, will affect a  copper opossum's venom as if it were a poison. The  save DC is   Constitution-based.

*Venom Resistant (Ex):* Copper opossums have a +4 racial bonus on saves against poison.

*Skills:* Opossums have a +4 racial bonus on Balance and Swim checks. Opossums have a +8 racial bonus on Climb checks. They can use their Dexterity modifier instead of their Strength modifier for Climb, Jump and Swim checks.


----------



## freyar (Jun 10, 2011)

See, I didn't think they'd mention it if it didn't mean something stat-wise.  But I'm glad you agree now. 

I like what you've got, and I think I'd keep the red stuff. CR should probably be a bit higher with the venom, especially if we add something like Imp Grab.


----------



## Shade (Jun 10, 2011)

Let's keep the red bits of text.


----------



## Cleon (Jun 12, 2011)

Shade said:


> Let's keep the red bits of text.




Well I'm happy keeping the Venom Resistance, maybe even with a boost (+4?), but would cut the Feign Death.

There's no support for a Feign Death ability in the original text.


----------



## freyar (Jun 13, 2011)

Didn't the regular opossum have something like feign death?


----------



## Shade (Jun 13, 2011)

freyar said:


> Didn't the regular opossum have something like feign death?




It's sort of their defining characteristic, isn't it?  'twould be sad to have a possum who can't "play possum"!


----------



## Cleon (Jun 13, 2011)

freyar said:


> Didn't the regular opossum have something like feign death?




Well all the Monstrous Manual has on them is "woodland marsupials with good hearing", nothing about playing dead.



Shade said:


> It's sort of their defining characteristic, isn't  it?  'twould be sad to have a possum who can't "play possum"!




Well in the case of the Copper Opossum it's got some pretty defining characteristics of its own - it's partially made of copper and is poisonous!


----------



## freyar (Jun 14, 2011)

Oh, let's just allow it to feign death.


----------



## Shade (Jun 14, 2011)

freyar said:


> Oh, let's just allow it to feign death.




Yeah, what's the harm in it?


----------



## Cleon (Jun 15, 2011)

Shade said:


> Yeah, what's the harm in it?




Oh, leave it in if you're both so keen.

Anything else that needs doing to the Working Draft?


----------



## Shade (Jun 15, 2011)

Once we figure out Treasure and length/weight, I think we're ready to move it to Homebrews.


----------



## freyar (Jun 16, 2011)

Is the treasure just going to be the copper?  

Treasure: see below

The fur of a copper opossum contains real copper.  A DC X Craft (metalworking?) or Profession (X) check extracts 1d4+1 pounds of copper from the fur of a mature copper opossum.


----------



## Shade (Jun 17, 2011)

freyar said:


> Is the treasure just going to be the copper?
> 
> Treasure: see below
> 
> The fur of a copper opossum contains real copper.  A DC X Craft (metalworking?) or Profession (X) check extracts 1d4+1 pounds of copper from the fur of a mature copper opossum.




Not bad. Here's how the aurumvorax works...

An aurumvorax hide, properly prepared with a successful DC 30 Survival check, is worth 3,000 gp. Burning an aurumvorax in an exceptionally hot fire (such as a forge) leaves behind 2d20x10 gp worth of raw gold.


----------



## Cleon (Jun 17, 2011)

Shade said:


> Not bad. Here's how the aurumvorax works...
> 
> An aurumvorax hide, properly prepared with a successful DC 30 Survival check, is worth 3,000 gp. Burning an aurumvorax in an exceptionally hot fire (such as a forge) leaves behind 2d20x10 gp worth of raw gold.




Hmm, while a Survival check makes sense for "skinning the carcass" it seems the fur is only valuable for its copper content - maybe it quickly "rusts" into green vedrigris once the copper opossum is killed?

That suggests we don't need a skill check, unless the hunter wants to remove the skin for ease of transport:

The fur of a copper opossum contains real copper.  Burning a copper opossum (or just its skin) in an an exceptionally hot fire (such as a forge) leaves behind 1d4+1 sp worth of raw copper. Removing the skin from a dead copper opossum requires a DC 10 Survival check. The skin weighs 3 to 6 pounds.

that reminds me, I was going to give the animal an increased weight since it's got extra-dense fur. Our regular opossum is 2-12 pounds, so the copper variety ought to be 5-18 pounds.

I'll *Update* the Working Draft.


----------



## Shade (Jun 17, 2011)

Cleon said:


> The fur of a copper opossum contains real copper.  Burning a copper opossum (or just its skin) in an an exceptionally hot fire (such as a forge) leaves behind *1d4+1 sp* worth of raw copper. Removing the skin from a dead copper opossum requires a DC 10 Survival check, a copper opossum skin weighs 3 to 6 pounds.




Let's convert that to copper pieces, since it's a copper critter after all.  



Cleon said:


> that reminds me, I was going to give the animal an increased weight since it's got extra-dense fur. Our regular opossum is 2-12 pounds, so the copper variety ought to be 5-18 pounds.




Good idea.


----------



## Cleon (Jun 18, 2011)

Shade said:


> Let's convert that to copper pieces, since it's a copper critter after all.  .




Make it 10d4+10 cp then.


----------



## freyar (Jun 19, 2011)

That sounds fine to me.


----------



## Cleon (Jun 19, 2011)

freyar said:


> That sounds fine to me.




I'll *Update* the Working Draft.

Are we OK with +4 venom resistant?

What about copper opossums as familiars?


----------



## Shade (Jun 22, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Are we OK with +4 venom resistant?
> 
> What about copper opossums as familiars?




Yes and yes.

+2 bonus on saves vs. poison for master?


----------



## Cleon (Jun 23, 2011)

Shade said:


> Yes and yes.
> 
> +2 bonus on saves vs. poison for master?




That's the same as a standard 'possum.

I'd rather they be a weak Improved Familiar - say, 3rd level or so - which grants something better.

Maybe +2 Fort saves, increased to +4 versus poison?

A plain old Rat give +2 to Fort, so that's not that much of a step up.


----------



## Shade (Jun 23, 2011)

I'll go for that.


----------



## Cleon (Jun 23, 2011)

Shade said:


> I'll go for that.




Let's make it so then!

Updating *Working Draft*.


----------



## freyar (Jun 24, 2011)

Looks good!  All done?


----------



## Cleon (Jun 26, 2011)

freyar said:


> Looks good!  All done?




We're missing a duration and effective caster level for the Stasis Venom.

2d4 days like a Spiny Sleeper?
CL 3 to match it being a 3rd level Improved familiar?

It's still got a "Description" place holder if we want to add some flavour on habitat/diet/behaviour et cetera.

I'm thinking of the following, plus anything else you fancy.
Copper opossums are a magical breed of opossum. They are only found in areas with a source of copper, such as an exposed  seam of copper ore, since they need to eat small quantities of that  metal to survive. A copper opossum's ideal habitat is an area of foothills with abundant trees,  streams, and a supply of high-grade ore or raw copper.​That's based on the original critter living in the Farrowdale hills.

I'm going to change the environment to "Temperate hills" to match the original's habitat.

I'm also increasing the CR to 1/2. That's what we gave the Spiny Sleeper, which has a similar poison.

Apart from that, I think it's about done. Might run over the stats one last time just to be safe.


----------



## freyar (Jun 26, 2011)

All that sounds good to me!


----------



## Cleon (Jun 26, 2011)

freyar said:


> All that sounds good to me!




I'll wait to hear from Shade before updating.


----------



## Shade (Jul 1, 2011)

Cleon said:


> I'll wait to hear from Shade before updating.




Looks good.  Go for it!


----------



## Cleon (Jul 2, 2011)

Shade said:


> Looks good.  Go for it!




It's been gone for!

Updated *Working Draft*.


----------



## freyar (Jul 4, 2011)

Ready to homebrew them and call them done?


----------



## Cleon (Jul 5, 2011)

freyar said:


> Ready to homebrew them and call them done?




I wouldn't mind rephrasing the Feign Death from "it lies stiffly on its side and secretes a foul odor"  to "it rolls into a ball and secretes a foul odor", since the Ecologies says they curl up when threatened.


----------



## freyar (Jul 6, 2011)

As you like...


----------



## Cleon (Jul 7, 2011)

freyar said:


> As you like...




Updated *Working Draft*.

I think that's done then.


----------



## freyar (Jul 7, 2011)

Yup, just needs homebrewing for future reference.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 8, 2011)

freyar said:


> Yup, just needs homebrewing for future reference.




J'accord, as some say in Quebec.


----------



## freyar (Jul 9, 2011)

Cleon said:


> J'accord, as some say in Quebec.



You're much more likely to hear "OK" on the streets of Montreal, though.   I used to find it odd to hear a conversation switch languages every other sentence, but not so much anymore.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 9, 2011)

freyar said:


> You're much more likely to hear "OK" on the streets of Montreal, though.   I used to find it odd to hear a conversation switch languages every other sentence, but not so much anymore.




Well that's why I said some as opposed to many.


----------



## Shade (Jul 11, 2011)

Added to Homebrews.

Here's the next one from that source...

*Farrowdale mouse *
While most experienced travelers are familiar with poisonous serpents and insects, I’d be remiss if I didn’t warn you of some of the unusual venomous creatures in settled lands. For instance, a field mouse that dwells in the forests of Farrowdale sports a pair of curved incisors that continually drip a milky fluid deadly enough to fell a war horse. The mice lair in rotten logs and abandoned gopher holes, eating insects and grubs. Farrowdale mice are whirlwinds of frenzied activity. They dart after blowing leaves, pounce on blades of grass, and snap at any creature who wanders by, regardless of its size. 

For the Farrowdale mouse and the copper opossum, use the normal mouse and opossum statistics (award 15 experience points for the Farrowdale mouse, 35 for the copper opossum). If either creature makes a successful attack, the victim is poisoned.

Poison Effects Table
Onset Time / Result of Failed Saving Throw*
1-4 rounds / Victim doubled over in pain for the next 2-5 (1d4) hours; can take no actions during that time.

*Victims of the Farrowdale mouse, copper opossum, and gray flatfish receive no modifiers to their saving throws.

Originally appeared in Elminster’s Ecologies (1994).


----------



## Cleon (Jul 12, 2011)

Shade said:


> Added to Homebrews.
> 
> Here's the next one from that source...
> 
> ...




The flavour text doesn't match the AD&D stats very well, with the "deadly enough to fell a war horse" and "whirlwinds of frenzied activity".

How about jazzing it up?

Maybe some kind of quickness SA for the "frenzied whirlwind"?

The "felling a warhorse" bit could mean its venom can cause victims to collapse and is potent enough to affect Large creatures, although the "deadly" bit implies it might be lethal - maybe a nasty secondary Con damage? I'm thinking incapacitating pain will do.


----------



## Shade (Jul 13, 2011)

Incapacitating pain for the venom and the quickness ability of the choker appeal.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 14, 2011)

Shade said:


> Incapacitating pain for the venom and the quickness ability of the choker appeal.




But what condition, if any, shall we use for the incapacitation - nauseated? helpless? dazed? stunned?

Maybe _symbol of pain type_ penalties (-4) for the initial effect, then Dazed for 2-5 hours for the secondary effect?

I was wondering about using the Choker's Quickness as well, but I would prefer it to have the equivalent of a permanent _haste_. We might decide to make this mouse an Improved Familiar, and I don't want to bring Quickness that close to a PC...

Better make it a Magical Beast in any case.


----------



## freyar (Jul 14, 2011)

Agreed.  I could see some Con damage, but probably wouldn't go for too much.

Just base it on downsized rat stats?

EDIT: I missed Cleon's post above.  I meant to agree with Shade.  But Cleon's assessment of the incapacitation might work.  Or else something like nauseated, then sickened.

Also, if we decide to go the haste route, I believe we made some ability called "alacrity" that does something similar. I have a vague feeling it a was for some pig-like critter.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 14, 2011)

freyar said:


> Agreed.  I could see some Con damage, but probably wouldn't go for too much.
> 
> Just base it on downsized rat stats?
> 
> ...




Yes, we've already got a couple of haste-based SAs. The last I recall is working on was for a Moldvay Undead. A souped-up skeleton, if I recall correctly.

WotC has published official Mouse stats, so we might as well have a look at those as well.


----------



## Shade (Jul 14, 2011)

This one's probably the closest to what we seek:

Alacrity (Su): When making a full attack action, a feral slasher may make one extra attack with its bite attack at its highest attack bonus.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 15, 2011)

Shade said:


> This one's probably the closest to what we seek:
> 
> Alacrity (Su): When making a full attack action, a feral slasher may make one extra attack with its bite attack at its highest attack bonus.




Works for me!


----------



## Shade (Jul 15, 2011)

Here are the official mouse stats:

*Mouse:* CR -; Fine Magical Beast; HD 1; hp 1/2 master's; Init +0; Spd 10 ft., climb 10 ft.; AC 19 (touch 18, flat-footed 17); Base Atk +0; Grp -21; Atk -; Full Atk -; Space/Reach: 1/2 ft./0 ft.; SQ improved evasion, scent, granted abilities; AL Any; SV Fort +2, Ref +2, Will +1; Str 1, Dex 11, Con 10, Int 6, Wis 12, Cha 2.
Skills and Feats: Balance +8, Climb +10, Hide +20, Move Silently +12.

*Mouse (Dragon Magazine version):* CR --; Fine Animal; HD 1/4 d8; hp 1; Init +2 (Dex); Spd 15 ft., climb 15 ft.; AC 20 (+8 size, +2 Dex); Atk none; SQ scent; Face 2 1/2 ft. by s 1/2 ft.; Reach 0 ft.; SV Fort +2, Ref +4, Will +1, Str 2, Dex 14, Con 10, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 3.
Skills: Balance +10, Climb +10, Hide +26, Move Silently +10.


----------



## freyar (Jul 16, 2011)

Where's the WotC mouse from?  In any case, I think the Dragon Mag version looks a bit better for our purposes.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 16, 2011)

Shade said:


> Here are the official mouse stats:
> 
> *Mouse:* CR -; Fine Magical Beast; HD 1; hp 1/2 master's; Init +0; Spd 10 ft., climb 10 ft.; AC 19 (touch 18, flat-footed 17); Base Atk +0; Grp -21; Atk -; Full Atk -; Space/Reach: 1/2 ft./0 ft.; SQ improved evasion, scent, granted abilities; AL Any; SV Fort +2, Ref +2, Will +1; Str 1, Dex 11, Con 10, Int 6, Wis 12, Cha 2.
> Skills and Feats: Balance +8, Climb +10, Hide +20, Move Silently +12.
> ...




I remember these.

The second one is the most relevant, since the first has a lot of Familiar stuff built into the stats.


----------



## Shade (Jul 18, 2011)

freyar said:


> Where's the WotC mouse from?  In any case, I think the Dragon Mag version looks a bit better for our purposes.




DMG, I believe.   And I third support for the Dragon version.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 20, 2011)

Shade said:


> DMG, I believe.   And I third support for the Dragon version.




Okay, reverse engineering its skills suggests a hefty racial bonus on Balance, Hide and Move Silently.

+10 Balance : Dex +2, remainder *8
*+10 Climb: Dex +2 (assuming it has Dex-substitution), racial bonus +8 from Climb speed, remainder *0*
+26 Hide : Dex +2, size +16, remainder *8*
+10 Move Silently: Dex +2, remainder *8
*
That's not including its skill ranks or adjustments for any feats. How about assuming it has Stealthy and splits its skill points between the stealth skills, then the remainder becomes a racial bonus. i.e.:

+10 Balance : Dex +2, ranks 0, racial bonus *+8
*+10 Climb: Dex +2, ranks 0, racial bonus +*8*
+26 Hide : Dex +2, ranks 2, Stealth feat +2, size +16, racial bonus *+4*
+10 Move Silently: Dex +2, ranks 2, Stealth feat +2, racial bonus *+4*

That seems enough to start a Working Draft.


----------



## Shade (Jul 21, 2011)

I agree with your reverse-engineering.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 22, 2011)

Shade said:


> I agree with your reverse-engineering.




Would you like to start a Working Draft then, or shall I?


----------



## Shade (Jul 25, 2011)

Added to Homebrews.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 25, 2011)

Shade said:


> Added to Homebrews.




It should have a +1 Base Attack Bonus. It may have a fractional HD, but it still counts as a Hit Dice for a Magical Beast's BAB = HD formula (see Stirge).

I'd rather it be Strength 1. A mouse ought to be weaker than the SRD Rat, which is Str 2.

We were giving it the Stealthy feat, which was included in my Skill formulations.


----------



## Shade (Jul 25, 2011)

Works for me.  Updated.


----------



## Cleon (Jul 27, 2011)

Shade said:


> Works for me.  Updated.




Shouldn't its Full Attack line have 2 bites, due to its Alacrity?

We've basically got the Poison to sort out and it's about done.


----------



## Shade (Aug 2, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Shouldn't its Full Attack line have 2 bites, due to its Alacrity?




Indeed.  Updated.



Cleon said:


> We've basically got the Poison to sort out and it's about done.






			
				Cleon said:
			
		

> Maybe symbol of pain type penalties (-4) for the initial effect, then Dazed for 2-5 hours for the secondary effect?




Poison (Ex): Injury (bite), Fortitude DC x; initial damage agonizing pain (-4 penalty on attack rolls, skill checks, and ability checks) for 2d6 minutes; secondary damage dazed for 1d4+1 hours. The save DC is Constitution-based.


----------



## Cleon (Aug 4, 2011)

Shade said:


> Poison (Ex): Injury (bite), Fortitude DC x; initial damage agonizing pain (-4 penalty on attack rolls, skill checks, and ability checks) for 2d6 minutes; secondary damage dazed for 1d4+1 hours. The save DC is Constitution-based.




That's pretty much what we were talking about.

It's very nasty for the CR though. Are you all right keeping the original version's long period of incapacitation? If not, we could soften it to sickened for 2-5 hours.


----------



## Shade (Aug 5, 2011)

I'm fine with keeping or softening.  No strong preference either way.


----------



## Cleon (Aug 6, 2011)

Shade said:


> I'm fine with keeping or softening.  No strong preference either way.




Oh heck, why not go for the nastier of the two options, since it's "deadly enough to fell a warhorse".

Besides, it does say victims of its venom are incapable of taking any actions.


----------



## Shade (Aug 8, 2011)

Stick with DC 10 or add a racial bonus?


----------



## Cleon (Aug 8, 2011)

Shade said:


> Stick with DC 10 or add a racial bonus?




10 is OK. The original used an unadjusted Saving Throw.


----------



## Shade (Aug 9, 2011)

We just need...

Organization: x
A group of mice is called a 'horde' or a 'mischief'.  So maybe...
Solitary, mischief (2-12), or horde (13-100)?

Challenge Rating: x


----------



## Cleon (Aug 10, 2011)

Shade said:


> We just need...
> 
> Organization: x
> A group of mice is called a 'horde' or a 'mischief'.  So maybe...
> ...




I was assuming they were pretty solitary creatures, but if you want them to cluster in big groups I'm OK with it.

Hmm... if they amass in hordes, do those hordes ever congregate into *Swarms*...


----------



## Shade (Aug 10, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Hmm... if they amass in hordes, do those hordes ever congregate into *Swarms*...




I don't think I'm ready to go there.


----------



## Cleon (Aug 11, 2011)

Shade said:


> I don't think I'm ready to go there.




Spoilsport.


----------



## Shade (Aug 11, 2011)

Any ideas on CR?  That venom packs a whallop!  Its DC is low, but the mouse can bite twice with a full attack.


----------



## Cleon (Aug 12, 2011)

Shade said:


> Any ideas on CR?  That venom packs a whallop!  Its DC is low, but the mouse can bite twice with a full attack.




Either CR1 or ½.

It's pretty tough to hit with AC 20, but one blow should kill it.

It's slow enough to be easy to run away from, but its stupendous Hide skill means it's almost certain to get close enough to attack before it's noticed.

Let's say 1 for the sake of argument.


----------



## freyar (Aug 15, 2011)

I'm ok with either CR.  To be honest, I think they're more of a threat when followed by some other monster.


----------



## Shade (Aug 15, 2011)

Let's err on the side of caution and go with CR 1.

Updated.  Finished?


----------



## Cleon (Aug 15, 2011)

freyar said:


> I'm ok with either CR.  To be honest, I think they're more of a threat when followed by some other monster.




Agreed.

Methinks an effective synergy would be easier to figure out, CR-wise, with the higher CR.


----------



## Shade (Aug 16, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Methinks an effective synergy would be easier to figure out, CR-wise, with the higher CR.




Agreed.

Here's the next one...

Finally, consider the story of the young elf who discovered a rabbit outside of Myth Drannor. Except for the red fur and bright green eyes, it resembled and behaved like a normal rabbit. The elf put the rabbit inside his coat, where it snuggled against his chest, content and docile. He brought the rabbit home to his family and showed it to his younger brothers and sisters, who fed it clover and stroked its soft fur. That night, he took the rabbit to his grandmother, who shrieked in terror when she recognized the animal for what it really was. The shriek startled the rabbit, causing three spines on its stomach to become erect. The spines pierced the elf’s arm, and he fell to the ground, unconscious. He died within an hour.

*Spiny Rabbit*
Int animal; AL N; AC 6; MV 18 (for up to 10 consecutive rounds, the spiny rabbit can sprint on its hind legs at a rate of 24); HD 2 hp; #AT 1; Dmg 1; SA otherwise flaccid spines on belly become erect when the creature is startled; if normal attack roll succeeds, victim suffers an additional point of damage and is poisoned (no modifier to save, onset in 1-6 rounds, 3-12 points of damage unless saving throw succeeds); THAC0 20; SZ S; ML 5; XP 35.

Originally appeared in Elminster’s Ecologies (1994).


----------



## freyar (Aug 16, 2011)

Huh.  I guess this is a monster, but it reads almost like a hazard.

So I'm sure there's a rabbit somewhere we can start with, but I don't know offhand where.


----------



## Shade (Aug 16, 2011)

From Dragon #280:

*Hare:* CR -; Tiny Animal; HD 1/2 d8; hp 4; Init +4 (Dex); Spd 30 ft.; AC 16 (+2 size, +4 Dex); Atk none; SQ scent; Face 2 1/2 ft. by 2 1/2 ft.; Reach 0 ft.; SV Fort +2, Ref +6, Will +1; Str 3, Dex 18, Con 11, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 7. Skills: Hide +5, Jump +12, Listen +8, Spot +2.


----------



## Cleon (Aug 17, 2011)

Shade said:


> Let's err on the side of caution and go with CR 1.
> 
> Updated.  Finished?




"Fien Size"?

"a Farrowdale mouse is *x* inches long"? 

4 inches (plus a 4 inch tail) is typical for a wood mouse.


----------



## Cleon (Aug 17, 2011)

freyar said:


> Huh.  I guess this is a monster, but it reads almost like a hazard.




If we did a Stonefish as a creature then this fellow certainly deserves to be a creature as well.



freyar said:


> So I'm sure there's a rabbit somewhere we can start with, but I don't know offhand where.




There's the Hare, as Shade mentioned, but I don't remember Rabbit stats anywhere.

Anyhow, the Spiny Rabbit looks like it has a Cheetah-style Sprint ability.

Plus offensive and defensive venomous spines, obviously.


----------



## Shade (Aug 17, 2011)

Cleon said:


> "Fien Size"?




That should have been "Fien Seiz".  



Cleon said:


> "a Farrowdale mouse is *x* inches long"?
> 
> 4 inches (plus a 4 inch tail) is typical for a wood mouse.




Sounds good.  Updated.


----------



## Shade (Aug 17, 2011)

Cleon said:


> There's the Hare, as Shade mentioned, but I don't remember Rabbit stats anywhere.




The only one I found mentioned them as familiars, suggesting to use cat stats of all things!  



Cleon said:


> Anyhow, the Spiny Rabbit looks like it has a Cheetah-style Sprint ability.
> 
> Plus offensive and defensive venomous spines, obviously.




Yes to all that.

Should it be a magical beast, since it appears to have been warped by Myth Drannor?


----------



## Cleon (Aug 17, 2011)

Shade said:


> That should have been "Fien Seiz".
> 
> Sounds good.  Updated.




I'd mention the tail. That's a mouse's finest aspect, you know!


----------



## Cleon (Aug 17, 2011)

Shade said:


> The only one I found mentioned them as familiars, suggesting to use cat stats of all things!




That doesn't seem a terribly good fit.



Shade said:


> Should it be a magical beast, since it appears to have been warped by Myth Drannor?




Well they don't have any supernatural abilities, unless their "so cute an elf will take them home with him" has an uncanny derivation.


----------



## Shade (Aug 17, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Well they don't have any supernatural abilities, unless their "so cute an elf will take them home with him" has an uncanny derivation.




From the magical beast type description:  Magical beasts usually have supernatural or extraordinary abilities, *but sometimes are merely bizarre in appearance or habits*.


----------



## Cleon (Aug 18, 2011)

Shade said:


> From the magical beast type description:  Magical beasts usually have supernatural or extraordinary abilities, *but sometimes are merely bizarre in appearance or habits*.




Yes, I knew the type says that, but had my doubts about red fur and bright green eyes qualifying as a bizarre appearance.

Anyhow, I don't mind Magical Beast if you want it, it just seems a bit surplus to requirements.


----------



## Shade (Aug 18, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Yes, I knew the type says that, but had my doubts about red fur and bright green eyes qualifying as a bizarre appearance.
> 
> Anyhow, I don't mind Magical Beast if you want it, it just seems a bit surplus to requirements.




I'm not bothered by 'em begin animals, but was just looking to differentiate them further.   Let's see what freyar thinks.


----------



## GrayLinnorm (Aug 18, 2011)

Magical beast.  There aren't any poisonous rabbits in real life.


----------



## Cleon (Aug 19, 2011)

GrayLinnorm said:


> Magical beast.  There aren't any poisonous rabbits in real life.




How do you know, have you tasted them all? 

Come to think of it, I remember reading that eating nothing but rabbit is unhealthy because they're so low in fat.


----------



## Shade (Aug 23, 2011)

So...

Magical beast using hare stats, and add sprint and poison?


----------



## Cleon (Aug 23, 2011)

Shade said:


> So...
> 
> Magical beast using hare stats, and add sprint and poison?




Yes, that should cover most of it.

Haven't quite decided on what attack it should deliver the poison with, but I'm thinking we'll end up going for Scorpionfish-style spines.


----------



## Shade (Aug 25, 2011)

Added to Homebrews.


----------



## freyar (Aug 26, 2011)

The way it reads, I question whether the spines are a normal attack or just something that happens to you if you're holding (grappling?) the bunny.  Maybe they're an add-on to a slam with its stomach?


----------



## Shade (Aug 26, 2011)

freyar said:


> The way it reads, I question whether the spines are a normal attack or just something that happens to you if you're holding (grappling?) the bunny.  Maybe they're an add-on to a slam with its stomach?




Since the description doesn't mention them being aggressive, I'm find with just making the spines purely a reflexive SA.


----------



## freyar (Aug 26, 2011)

Shade said:


> Since the description doesn't mention them being aggressive, I'm find with just making the spines purely a reflexive SA.



Yes, I'd prefer that.  So make the attacks - and write SA of spines

Spines (Ex): When startled or attacked, three spines on the rabbit's stomach become erect.  Any creature holding (grappling) a spiny rabbit or otherwise in contact with its stomach at that time must make a DC X Reflex save or take 1 hp damage and be exposed to the rabbit's poison.


----------



## Cleon (Aug 28, 2011)

freyar said:


> Yes, I'd prefer that.  So make the attacks - and write SA of spines
> 
> Spines (Ex): When startled or attacked, three spines on the rabbit's stomach become erect.  Any creature holding (grappling) a spiny rabbit or otherwise in contact with its stomach at that time must make a DC X Reflex save or take 1 hp damage and be exposed to the rabbit's poison.




That'd be OK by me.


----------



## freyar (Aug 30, 2011)

Oh, we need to say what the Ref save is based on!  Con-based?


----------



## Cleon (Aug 31, 2011)

freyar said:


> Oh, we need to say what the Ref save is based on!  Con-based?




Dex-based would be my preference.


----------



## Shade (Sep 1, 2011)

Dex-based appeals, since it's a matter of reflexes more than anything else.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 2, 2011)

Shade said:


> Dex-based appeals, since it's a matter of reflexes more than anything else.




Thus?

*Spines (Ex):* When startled or attacked, three spines on the rabbit's  stomach become erect.  Any creature grappling a spiny rabbit at such times   (or otherwise in contact with its stomach) must make a DC 14  Reflex save or take 1 hp damage and be exposed to the rabbit's poison. The save DC is Dexterity-based.


----------



## Shade (Sep 2, 2011)

I'd just simplify it to " Any creature grappling a spiny rabbit or otherwise in contact with it".


----------



## freyar (Sep 2, 2011)

Then


Spines (Ex): When a spiny rabbit is startled or attacked, three spines on the rabbit's stomach become erect. Any creature grappling a spiny rabbit or otherwise in contact with it at that time must make a DC 14 Reflex save or take 1 hp damage and be exposed to the rabbit's poison. The save DC is Dexterity-based.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 3, 2011)

freyar said:


> Then
> 
> Spines (Ex): When a spiny rabbit is startled or attacked, three spines on the rabbit's stomach become erect. Any creature grappling a spiny rabbit or otherwise in contact with it at that time must make a DC 14 Reflex save or take 1 hp damage and be exposed to the rabbit's poison. The save DC is Dexterity-based.




That's OK, but it could do with a bit more punctuation...

Spines (Ex): When a spiny rabbit is startled or attacked, three spines  on the rabbit's stomach become erect. Any creature grappling the spiny  rabbit, or otherwise in contact with it at that time, must make a DC 14  Reflex save or take 1 hp damage and be exposed to the rabbit's poison.  The save DC is Dexterity-based.


----------



## freyar (Sep 6, 2011)

If you like...


----------



## Shade (Sep 7, 2011)

Updated.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 7, 2011)

Shade said:


> Updated.




Now that's settled, we'd better decide on the poison.

It's supposed to be nasty enough to kill an elf child. So 1d6/1d6 Con or 1d8/1d8 Con?

The original killed said child "in less than an hour", but SRD 3E poisons don't work over such time periods.


----------



## Mortis (Sep 7, 2011)

Well as the original states "...and he fell to the ground, unconscious." how about unconsciousness for the initial damage (like drow poison) followed by 2d6 or 2d8 Con damage as the secondary damage. After all 1 minute is less than 1 hour.

Although if it was up to me it would be 1d4 Con every 15 minutes but the rules don't work that way. 

Regards
Mortis


----------



## Cleon (Sep 7, 2011)

Mortis said:


> Well as the original states "...and he fell to the ground, unconscious." how about unconsciousness for the initial damage (like drow poison) followed by 2d6 or 2d8 Con damage as the secondary damage. After all 1 minute is less than 1 hour.
> 
> Although if it was up to me it would be 1d4 Con every 15 minutes but the rules don't work that way.
> 
> ...




I like the unconsciousness, although I'd fold in some damage too. Maybe a lot less damage for the initial effects?

Maybe unconscious for 1 hour plus 1d4 Con primary, unconscious for 1d3 hours plus 1d12 Con secondary?


----------



## Mortis (Sep 7, 2011)

Cleon said:


> I like the unconsciousness, although I'd fold in some damage too. Maybe a lot less damage for the initial effects?



I'm never adverse to including a bit of damage. Well as long as it isn't to my character. 



> Maybe unconscious for 1 hour plus 1d4 Con primary, unconscious for 1d3 hours plus 1d12 Con secondary?




I prefer 2d6 to 1d12 for the secondary damage (along with the unconscious bit of course). Not much difference I know.

Regards
Mortis


----------



## Cleon (Sep 8, 2011)

Mortis said:


> I'm never adverse to including a bit of damage. Well as long as it isn't to my character.
> 
> I prefer 2d6 to 1d12 for the secondary damage (along with the unconscious bit of course). Not much difference I know.
> 
> ...




Not much difference? But it's a bell-curve rather than linear!

I have no objection to 2d6 Con damage.


----------



## Shade (Sep 8, 2011)

Updated.


----------



## freyar (Sep 8, 2011)

Ready for skills and feats?  Stick the extra ranks into Move Silently, maybe?  Stealthy for the feat, perhaps?


----------



## Cleon (Sep 10, 2011)

freyar said:


> Ready for skills and feats?  Stick the extra ranks into Move Silently, maybe?  Stealthy for the feat, perhaps?




Stealthy's fine. I'd rather put some points in Spot though. Surely rabbits don't sneak about much, they tend to hide or run.

Maybe Spot 2, Hide 1, Move Silently 1; for skills of Hide +15, Jump +20, Move Silently +7, Listen +9, Spot +3


----------



## freyar (Sep 12, 2011)

That works for me.


----------



## Shade (Sep 13, 2011)

freyar said:


> That works for me.




Me 2.   Updated.

Environment: Any land?
Organization: x
Challenge Rating: x

A spiny rabbit is x inches/feet long and weighs x pounds.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 13, 2011)

freyar said:


> That works for me.




That should be about it for them, then.


----------



## Shade (Sep 13, 2011)

Cleon said:


> That should be about it for them, then.




Look again  (2 posts up).


----------



## Cleon (Sep 14, 2011)

Shade said:


> Me 2.   Updated.
> 
> Environment: Any land?
> Organization: x
> ...




Myth Drannor is mainly temperate forest and ruins. I'd think rabbits would prefer the former, but as they're good sprinters they might prefer more open ground? Maybe they live on grassy clearing near magically contaminated ruins?

No mention of numbers, but I would prefer them to be like hares, fairly solitary creatures that don't dig burrows. Something like Organisation: Solitary or family (2-8).

Challenge Rating about 1/2, I suppose.


----------



## Shade (Sep 15, 2011)

Updated.

A spiny rabbit is x inches/feet long and weighs x pounds.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 15, 2011)

Shade said:


> Updated.
> 
> A spiny rabbit is x inches/feet long and weighs x pounds.




I'd go for 12 to 15 inches and 3 to 4 pounds, the size of a little rabbit.

A big rabbit is about 15-18 inches and 5+ pounds.

If you'd prefer a wider range I would not object to 12-18 inches and 3-8 pounds.


----------



## Shade (Sep 16, 2011)

Let's go with the wider range.  Thanks!   Updated.

Moving on...


*Shadowrath, Lesser*
CLIMATE/TERRAIN: Any land
FREQUENCY: Very rare
ORGANIZATION: Solitary
ACTIVITY CYCLE: Any
DIET: Nil
INTELLIGENCE: As former self
TREASURE TYPE: W
ALIGNMENT: Neutral evil
NO. APPEARING: 2-12
ARMOR CLASS: 4
MOVEMENT: 9
HIT DICE: 4+4
THAC0: 17
NO. OF ATTACKS: 1
DAMAGE/ATTACK: 1-6
SPECIAL ATTACKS: Chilling touch
SPECIAL DEFENSES: Hit only by magical weapons
MAGIC RESISTANCE: 10%
SIZE: As former self
MORALE: Fearless (20)
XP VALUE: 1,400

These undead beings appear as totally black skeletons, with only their eyesockets aglow with red, deadly energy. These creatures are created by the ray of undeath power of the Crown of Horns. All victims killed by this ray arise as lesser shadowraths, also known as “blackbones”; if killed by the ray, any nonmagical equipment worn by the subject is consumed during the transformation (all magical equipment is simply abandoned or collected for the Crown bearer).

The shadowraths are still intelligent, but they are totally under the control of the wearer of the Crown of Horns if he or she is within 100 yards of their position. Note that any magical or psionic powers the shadowrath possessed while alive are lost in the conversion to undead status.

Combat: Lesser shadowraths attack by using a chilling touch, which causes 1-6 points of damage and requires the victim to save vs. death magic or lose one point of Strength. Creatures completely drained of Strength points by lesser shadowraths die, and such a death is irreversible. Strength points return at the rate of one per hour.

These undead can be turned by clerics as a ghast. Lesser shadowraths are immune to the effects of normal and silver weapons.

Habitat/Society: As stated above, lesser shadowraths are created by the Crown of Horns. These undead retain their intelligence, but they willingly serve the wearer of the Crown until they are destroyed. As intelligent beings, they can understand instructions given them by the Crown’s wearer and can perform tasks set them.

Originally appeared in City of Splendors (1994).  This is the Monstrous Compendium Annual Volume Four version.

*Shadowrath, Greater*
CLIMATE/TERRAIN: Any land
FREQUENCY: Very rare
ORGANIZATION: Solitary
ACTIVITY CYCLE: Any
DIET: Nil
INTELLIGENCE: As former self
TREASURE TYPE: W
ALIGNMENT: Neutral evil
NO. APPEARING: 1-10
ARMOR CLASS:5 (or as former self)
MOVEMENT: 12
HIT DICE: 5+5
THAC0: 15
NO. OF ATTACKS: As former self
DAMAGE/ATTACK: 2-8
SPECIAL ATTACKS: Energy drain
SPECIAL DEFENSES: Hit only by magical weapons
MAGIC RESISTANCE: 25%
SIZE: As former self
MORALE: Fearless (20)
XP VALUE: 2,000

These powerful undead also are result of the Crown of Horns. Those slain by Myrkul’s Hand (the other major power of the artifact) arise as greater shadowraths or “abysskin”. Greater shadowraths retain both the intelligence they possessed during life and the general appearance of the being, including clothing, armor, equipment, and so on. However, the abysskin have no eyes, internal organs, or bones; instead, they are filled with and animated by Negative Material plane energy, and this crackling black energy is visible in the creatures’ eyes, open mouths, or open wounds on the body. Greater shadowraths can use all equipment their former selves carried (except magical items opposed to their new alignment).  Shadowrath cannot activate any magical items that need command words, as they are mute. As with lesser shadowraths, all magical or psionic abilities of the shadowrath’s previous existence are lost as undead.

Combat: The touch of a greater shadowrath causes 2-8 (2d4) points of damage and requires the victim to make a saving throw vs. death magic or lose one level of experience. Beings completely drained of levels by a greater shadowraths die a permanent, irreversible death. Greater shadowraths can be turned by cleric characters as mummies.

Habitat/Society: Greater shadowraths are created by the evil artifact, the Crown of Horns. They often accompany the Crown - wearer, acting as bodyguards and enforcers of the Crown - wearer.s will. Greater shadowraths also lead groups of lesser shadowraths when assigned a difficult task or mission by their creator. 

Ecology: As with all undead, shadowraths have no place in any natural ecological system. They drain life and vitality from surroundings and return nothing. If left without direct control, shadowraths always seek out and destroy wizards and worshipers of Mystra (as revenge for Mystra’s destruction of Myrkul during the Godswar). Shadowraths often cover themselves in heavy cloaks and hoods to approach their victims unawares; this works fine for the greater shadowrath (who can pass for their previous selves, as long as their eyes and mouths and other negative energy spots are hidden), but most nonmagical cloth becomes tattered, rotten, and disintegrates after prolonged contact with lesser shadowraths.

Originally appeared in City of Splendors (1994).  This is the Monstrous Compendium Annual Volume Four version.


----------



## freyar (Sep 16, 2011)

Could almost make the greater ones a template, but I can see an argument for monster, also.  In either case, these aren't any more related to each other than they are to, say, normal wraiths.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 17, 2011)

Shade said:


> Let's go with the wider range.  Thanks!   Updated.
> 
> Moving on...




Hold your hares!

"*prever* flight to fight"?

"*suddently* startled"?

Some slight tactical errors there.

Also, what's the point in giving it Weapon Finesse when it doesn't have any attacks?


----------



## Shade (Sep 19, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Hold your hares!




Suddently, I prever to remove Weapon Finesse.  Fixed.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 20, 2011)

Shade said:


> Suddently, I prever to remove Weapon Finesse.  Fixed.




Hold on. "Like their more common, spiny rabbits" is missing something, such as "common relatives". I would prefer something referring to their magical nature, e.g. "Like their more common mundane relatives, spiny rabbits are generally docile and prefer flight to fight."


----------



## Cleon (Sep 20, 2011)

Shade said:


> Let's go with the wider range.  Thanks!   Updated.
> 
> Moving on...
> 
> ...




Actually, the stats you've posted are the City of Splendors version, not the MCA4 version.

I don't believe there are any significant differences, but I'll check.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 20, 2011)

freyar said:


> Could almost make the greater ones a template, but I can see an argument for monster, also.  In either case, these aren't any more related to each other than they are to, say, normal wraiths.




I'd go standard Monster for the lesser, Template for the greater.

Maybe have a HD based threshold like we did for the Netherese Zombie (e.g. 5+ HD = Greater Shadowrath Template, less than 5 HD = Lesser Shadowrath Monster).


----------



## Shade (Sep 20, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Hold on. "Like their more common, spiny rabbits" is missing something, such as "common relatives". I would prefer something referring to their magical nature, e.g. "Like their more common mundane relatives, spiny rabbits are generally docile and prefer flight to fight."




That'll work.  Fixed.



Cleon said:


> I'd go standard Monster for the lesser, Template for the greater.
> 
> Maybe have a HD based threshold like we did for the Netherese Zombie (e.g. 5+ HD = Greater Shadowrath Template, less than 5 HD = Lesser Shadowrath Monster).




While normally I might tend to agree, the types are tied to specific powers of the _Crown of Horns_, which actually has 3e stats in _Magic of Faerûn_.  Myrkul's hand remains, but the ray of undeath has been upgraded to a cone of undeath.

Monster for the lesser/template for the greater appeals, though.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 20, 2011)

Shade said:


> While normally I might tend to agree, the types are tied to specific powers of the _Crown of Horns_, which actually has 3e stats in _Magic of Faerûn_.  Myrkul's hand remains, but the ray of undeath has been upgraded to a cone of undeath.




Actually, it's not so much an upgrade as a misnaming. The AD&D artifact had a conical _undeath_ effect too, albeit a narrower one, they just called it a ray:



			
				MCA4 said:
			
		

> The Crown’s first major power is its _ray of undeath_, a dark energy ray that fires from the black diamond (maximum of one ray per turn) that covers a conical area 40 feet long and 10 feet wide at the base. Any creatures in the area of effect must save vs. death magic or die; even those successfully saving receive 4d12 points of damage from the necromantic energy. Any characters slain by the _ray of undeath_ rise as a lesser shadowrath under the total control of the Crown-bearer.


----------



## freyar (Sep 22, 2011)

Ok, not based on HD then, but the powers from the crown.

Anyway, do the monster first?


----------



## Shade (Sep 22, 2011)

freyar said:


> Ok, not based on HD then, but the powers from the crown.
> 
> Anyway, do the monster first?




Sure.

Let's figure out the basics.  They don't need decent Str, since they utilize touch attacks.   The 4+4 HD implies unholy toughness.  No Int score is given, but since they are similar in HD to a ghast, have the same AC as a 2e ghast, and it suggests they are turned as ghasts, we might just use the ghast's ability scores as a baseline:

Ghast:  Str 17, Dex 17, Con —, Int 13, Wis 14, Cha 16

Set the Str to 10 and retain the rest?


----------



## freyar (Sep 23, 2011)

Yes, I think that's reasonable.  +2 turn resistance, also, along with +4 natural armor.


----------



## Cleon (Sep 25, 2011)

Shade said:


> Sure.
> 
> Let's figure out the basics.  They don't need decent Str, since they utilize touch attacks.   The 4+4 HD implies unholy toughness.  No Int score is given, but since they are similar in HD to a ghast, have the same AC as a 2e ghast, and it suggests they are turned as ghasts, we might just use the ghast's ability scores as a baseline:
> 
> ...




It does give an Intelligence score, "As former self".

Thus it ought to be Int 10-11.


----------



## Shade (Sep 26, 2011)

Cleon said:


> It does give an Intelligence score, "As former self".
> 
> Thus it ought to be Int 10-11.




Assuming the former self was average.  

I'm fine with Int anywhere in the 10-13 range.

Everything else I proposed OK?


----------



## Cleon (Sep 28, 2011)

Shade said:


> Assuming the former self was average.




Well I'd assume a random humanoid converted into a Shadowwrath would be average, yes.  



Shade said:


> I'm fine with Int anywhere in the 10-13 range.
> 
> Everything else I proposed OK?




Str 10, Dex 17, Con —, Int 11, Wis 14, Cha 16 is acceptable, but I'd rather knock 2 off the Wis and Cha to go along with the lowered Int.

Str 10, Dex 17, Con —, Int 11, Wis 12, Cha 14 ?


----------



## Shade (Sep 29, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Str 10, Dex 17, Con —, Int 11, Wis 14, Cha 16 is acceptable, but I'd rather knock 2 off the Wis and Cha to go along with the lowered Int.
> 
> Str 10, Dex 17, Con —, Int 11, Wis 12, Cha 14 ?




That works. Added to Homebrews.

I think we should genericize their creation for non-FR campaigns.  Perhaps just state they are created by "an artifact dedicated to a death deity"?


----------



## Cleon (Sep 30, 2011)

Shade said:


> That works. Added to Homebrews.
> 
> I think we should genericize their creation for non-FR campaigns.  Perhaps just state they are created by "an artifact dedicated to a death deity"?




Well there not that special, I'd prefer something "the first shadowraths were created by an artifact dedicated to a death deity. A _create undead_ spell (minimum caster level X) can create a lesser shadowrath, a _create greater undead_ spell (minimum caster level Y) can create a greater shadowrath."


----------



## freyar (Oct 3, 2011)

Yes, that'll be fine. 

DR should probably be about 5.

Skills: Spot and Listen are always helpful.  Want to go with Hide and Move Silently or something a little more combat-oriented?


----------



## Shade (Oct 3, 2011)

Hide and Move Silently appeal.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 4, 2011)

freyar said:


> Yes, that'll be fine.
> 
> DR should probably be about 5.




How about 10 for the Greater, 5 for the Lesser, like a Vampire & Vampire Spawn?



freyar said:


> Skills: Spot and Listen are always helpful.  Want to go with Hide and Move Silently or something a little more combat-oriented?




Going for the hide and sneak skills is fine.


----------



## freyar (Oct 6, 2011)

I was thinking about the lesser version when I said DR 5, since I thought we were doing those first.  I'd like to reserve judgment on the greater version until we start converting those.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 7, 2011)

freyar said:


> I was thinking about the lesser version when I said DR 5, since I thought we were doing those first.  I'd like to reserve judgment on the greater version until we start converting those.




Well, DR 5 is fine for the Lesser.


----------



## freyar (Oct 7, 2011)

Ok, good then.  Alertness, Stealthy, or some other feat?  We could boost their attack even more with Weapon Focus, but they don't need much really.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 8, 2011)

freyar said:


> Ok, good then.  Alertness, Stealthy, or some other feat?  We could boost their attack even more with Weapon Focus, but they don't need much really.




I'm thinking we ought to give them a few bonus feats.

Wraiths get Alertness and Improved Initiative; while Vampire Spawn get Alertness, Improved Initiative and Lightning Reflexes.

Alertness (B), Improved Initiative (B), Stealthy, Weapon Finesse?


----------



## freyar (Oct 10, 2011)

I guess those bonus feats make some sense.  Then again, these are closer to wights, which have no bonus feats.  Still, even skeletons get Imp Init, so I'm willing to go that far.  How about Imp Init *, Weapon Finesse, Alertness or Stealthy?

Oh, and the original have 4+4 HD.  That suggests unholy toughness to me, and it fits given the whole relic of an evil deity thing.*


----------



## Cleon (Oct 10, 2011)

freyar said:


> I guess those bonus feats make some sense.  Then again, these are closer to wights, which have no bonus feats.  Still, even skeletons get Imp Init, so I'm willing to go that far.  How about Imp Init *, Weapon Finesse, Alertness or Stealthy?
> 
> Oh, and the original have 4+4 HD.  That suggests unholy toughness to me, and it fits given the whole relic of an evil deity thing.*



*

Unholy Toughness is fine, and I think we need the Weapon Finesse. Not so bothered about the skill-boosting feats, although I'd rather give them Alertness (B) than not.

Let's see what Shade fancies.*


----------



## Shade (Oct 11, 2011)

I've always seen 'em more like ghasts and wights, neither of which has bonus feats.  Still, they're created by an artifact, so I'll go for Improved Init (B).   I don't really care if they have Alertness, but don't think it needs to be a bonus feat.

Ghasts have Toughness as a feat to account for their "+" Hit Dice, but I loathe that feat and hereby support unholy toughness.  

Thus, I agree with Improved Initiative (B), Weapon Finesse, and Alertness or Stealthy (with a slight preference for the latter).


----------



## Cleon (Oct 12, 2011)

Shade said:


> I've always seen 'em more like ghasts and wights, neither of which has bonus feats.  Still, they're created by an artifact, so I'll go for Improved Init (B).   I don't really care if they have Alertness, but don't think it needs to be a bonus feat.
> 
> Ghasts have Toughness as a feat to account for their "+" Hit Dice, but I loathe that feat and hereby support unholy toughness.
> 
> Thus, I agree with Improved Initiative (B), Weapon Finesse, and Alertness or Stealthy (with a slight preference for the latter).




I'd prefer Alertness. Their Dex and Wis will give them +3 to Stealth and +1 to Alertness skills just from ability boni, so giving them Alertness will even them out.

I also fancy giving them a racial (or maybe circumstance?) bonus to Hide in shadowy areas, due to their black bones.

Of course, we could always give them Stealthy and juggle the skill-points a bit for a similar result.


----------



## freyar (Oct 13, 2011)

Since you like even skills, we might as well go with Imp Init*, Weapon Finesse, and Alertness.  I do like the racial bonus to Hide in shadowy light.*


----------



## Shade (Oct 13, 2011)

freyar said:


> Since you like even skills, we might as well go with Imp Init*, Weapon Finesse, and Alertness.  I do like the racial bonus to Hide in shadowy light.*



*

Agreed.  I like 'em better as skulkers than spotters, so the racial bonus to stealthy skills appeals.*


----------



## Cleon (Oct 14, 2011)

Shade said:


> Agreed.  I like 'em better as skulkers than spotters, so the racial bonus to stealthy skills appeals.




Works for me!


----------



## Shade (Oct 17, 2011)

Updated.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 18, 2011)

Shade said:


> Updated.




What about my proposal for an increased Hide bonus in shadowy conditions?

Something like "Shadowraths have a +6 circumstance bonus on Hide checks when in shadowy areas".


----------



## Shade (Oct 19, 2011)

Cleon said:


> What about my proposal for an increased Hide bonus in shadowy conditions?
> 
> Something like "Shadowraths have a +6 circumstance bonus on Hide checks when in shadowy areas".




I'll support that idea.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 19, 2011)

Shade said:


> I'll support that idea.




Well I'd expect you to be biased in favour of Shadowy creatures. 

Might as well add that to the skills entry, then.


----------



## freyar (Oct 20, 2011)

I'll agree too.  

OK, somebody work out the SR for these.  I'd peg them at CR 4.  With the Str damage, I'd say they're about as good as vampire spawn.


----------



## Shade (Oct 21, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Well I'd expect you to be biased in favour of Shadowy creatures.




But of course!



Cleon said:


> Might as well add that to the skills entry, then.




Updated.



freyar said:


> I'll agree too.
> 
> OK, somebody work out the SR for these.  I'd peg them at CR 4.  With the Str damage, I'd say they're about as good as vampire spawn.




CR 4 works.   The original had unimpressive MR (10%), so I wouldn't go very high.   By the Conversion Guide method, it would have spell resistance 13.  That's probably good enough.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 21, 2011)

Shade said:


> CR 4 works.   The original had unimpressive MR (10%), so I wouldn't go very high.   By the Conversion Guide method, it would have spell resistance 13.  That's probably good enough.




Vampire Spawn have DR/silver, which is much more effective than the Shadowwrath's DR/magic - indeed, DR/magic is almost worthless beyond a certain CR.

Vampire Spawn also have that hard-to-beat Fast Healing 2. Oh, and they have turn resistance, too.

A Lesser Shadowrath's threat level seems more like a Wight to me, so I'd go for Challenge Rating 3.

They've got Unholy Toughness, but a Wight's Energy Drain is a lot nastier than a point of Strength damage.


----------



## freyar (Oct 21, 2011)

DR/magic is worthless beyond a certain CR, but DR/silver is actually easier to beat at low level.  Silvered weapons are relatively cheap.  I'll agree that fast healing 2 for the vamp spawn is nice, but these should turn resistance +2 (since the original writeup says they turn as ghasts).  

Anyway, I could see a tough CR 3, but the extra +2 on attack bonus compared to the wight is worth a lot.  Especially if the chilling touch is really a touch attack like it sounds.  It's definitely borderline CR 4 in that case, especially given the number of hp.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 22, 2011)

freyar said:


> DR/magic is worthless beyond a certain CR, but DR/silver is actually easier to beat at low level.  Silvered weapons are relatively cheap.  I'll agree that fast healing 2 for the vamp spawn is nice, but these should turn resistance +2 (since the original writeup says they turn as ghasts).
> 
> Anyway, I could see a tough CR 3, but the extra +2 on attack bonus compared to the wight is worth a lot.  Especially if the chilling touch is really a touch attack like it sounds.  It's definitely borderline CR 4 in that case, especially given the number of hp.




Well we've made it a melee attack, not touch. Although that means it's a bit silly calling it "Chilling Touch".

I'd be happier making them a CR4 if we increased the Str damage. Shadows did 1 Str damage in AD&D, but 1d6 in 3rd edition.

So how about changing the name to "chilling claw" and making it do 1d4 Str instead of 1 Str?

Then I'd by OK with CR 4.


----------



## Shade (Oct 24, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Well we've made it a melee attack, not touch. Although that means it's a bit silly calling it "Chilling Touch".
> 
> I'd be happier making them a CR4 if we increased the Str damage. Shadows did 1 Str damage in AD&D, but 1d6 in 3rd edition.
> 
> ...




I'll go for that.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 24, 2011)

Shade said:


> I'll go for that.




Let's do that, then.


----------



## freyar (Oct 25, 2011)

Works for me too.  "Chilling claw" 1d4 Str it is.

Just to aid my memory, when did we decide it was a regular attack and not a touch attack?  I think I'm having a senior moment.


----------



## Shade (Oct 25, 2011)

Updated.

Name for organization?

Suggested weight?  Maybe a bit lighter than a living person, due to the shadowstuff?


----------



## Cleon (Oct 26, 2011)

freyar said:


> Works for me too.  "Chilling claw" 1d4 Str it is.
> 
> Just to aid my memory, when did we decide it was a regular attack and not a touch attack?  I think I'm having a senior moment.




I don't believe we ever discussed it, that's just how it got written up in the Homebrew. We were talking about Vampire Spawn and Vampires as a comparison, which might have been where it came from, since they use claw attacks.

The original description makes no mention of claws, and describes it as a "touch" causing freezing damage and Strength drain, so I'd be fine changing it to a "Chilling Touch" melee touch attack.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 26, 2011)

Shade said:


> Updated.
> 
> Name for organization?




Something to riff of their "blackbones" name or the Crown of Thorns that created them.

An ossuary of shadowraths?

A cornet of shadowraths?

I like cornet the best.



Shade said:


> Suggested weight?  Maybe a bit lighter than a living person, due to the shadowstuff?




They're basically skeletons, so ought to be pretty light.

Mohrgs and Mummies weigh 120 pounds, but they have some flesh and organs. Maybe 60 or 80 pounds?


----------



## freyar (Oct 27, 2011)

Well, if Shade likes also, I'd be happy changing it to a touch attack.  1d4 Str or reduce the damage again?

Cornet works fine, and 70 lb - ish is also good.


----------



## Shade (Oct 27, 2011)

Cleon said:


> I don't believe we ever discussed it, that's just how it got written up in the Homebrew. We were talking about Vampire Spawn and Vampires as a comparison, which might have been where it came from, since they use claw attacks.






Cleon said:


> The original description makes no mention of claws, and describes it as a "touch" causing freezing damage and Strength drain, so I'd be fine changing it to a "Chilling Touch" melee touch attack.






freyar said:


> Well, if Shade likes also, I'd be happy changing it to a touch attack.  1d4 Str or reduce the damage again?




You guys are killin' me!   That's what it was before you decided upon "chilling claw".  



Cleon said:


> Something to riff of their "blackbones" name or the Crown of Thorns that created them.
> 
> An ossuary of shadowraths?
> 
> ...






freyar said:


> Well, if Shade likes also, I'd be happy changing it to a touch attack.  1d4 Str or reduce the damage again?
> 
> Cornet works fine, and 70 lb - ish is also good.




I too prefer cornet, and like the suggested weight.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 27, 2011)

freyar said:


> Well, if Shade likes also, I'd be happy changing  it to a touch attack.  1d4 Str or reduce the damage again?




I wouldn't change the damage, no.



Shade said:


> You guys are killin' me!   That's what it was before you decided upon "chilling claw".




I remember it being called "chilling touch" but listed as a claw attack, so we changed the touch to match the claw rather than the claw to match the touch.

Anyhow, would you like to change it to a touch attack.

...Then we can change our minds and make you change it back... 



Shade said:


> I too prefer cornet, and like the suggested weight.




Sounds like we're agreed yet again! How long will this Blue Moon last?


----------



## freyar (Oct 30, 2011)

No, no, keep it a touch attack. What happened was that I thought it was a touch attack, but Cleon told me it was a regular attack. 

So, touch attack with 1d4 Str?


----------



## Cleon (Oct 31, 2011)

freyar said:


> No, no, keep it a touch attack. What happened was that I thought it was a touch attack, but Cleon told me it was a regular attack.
> 
> So, touch attack with 1d4 Str?




That's OK by me.


----------



## Shade (Oct 31, 2011)

Updated (or is that Reverted?)


----------



## freyar (Nov 1, 2011)

All set for flavor text, then?

CL 14 for the create undead?


----------



## Cleon (Nov 1, 2011)

freyar said:


> All set for flavor text, then?
> 
> CL 14 for the create undead?




14th feels about right, they are somewhere between a Ghast and a Mummy.


----------



## Shade (Nov 2, 2011)

Updated.

There wasn't much to go on for flavor text, so its rather sparse.



> Lesser shadowraths are immune to the effects of normal and silver weapons.




Does DR 5/magic sufficently cover this?  I'm wondering if we shouldn't increase it to 10...


----------



## Cleon (Nov 2, 2011)

Shade said:


> Updated.




What about the original's "Creatures completely drained of Strength points by lesser shadowraths die, and such a death is irreversible, even with a wish."

That's way too harsh, but how about a creature killed by a shadowrath is cursed so it can't be raised, unless a _remove curse_ is used to remove the affliction?



Shade said:


> There wasn't much to go on for flavor text, so its rather sparse.




We've got a few things to work in.


If left without direct control, they always seek out and destroy wizards and worshippers of Mystra.
Nonmagical equipment worn by these victims is consumed during the transformation; magical equipment are simply abandoned or collected for the Crown bearer.
They can understand instructions given them by the Crown’s wearer and can perform complex tasks set for them.
 So, hows about:

Shadowraths are specialized undead first created by an artifact  dedicated to a death deity.  Lesser shadowraths, or "blackbones", are  completely subservient to their creator or the possessor of the artifact  that created them.

A lesser shadowrath is as intelligent as most humanoids, and is able to follow complex instructions from their master. However, they have no motivation of their own apart from a compulsion to kill the living. Lesser shadowraths have no interest in equipment or treasure, although their master may instruct them to use equipment or collect treasure for them. Unless instructed otherwise, they will abandon any possessions they might have owned when alive.

An uncontrolled lesser shadowrath will attack any living thing it sees,  even plants or the tiniest insects. Being influenced by a death deity,  they always seek to kill good-aligned clerics before any other target. Uncontrolled shadowraths remain in one spot, which they only leave long enough  to kill. Eventually, a lesser shadowrath will kill all creatures in its vicinity and drain the life  out of the soil, leaving nothing but barrenness.

A _create undead_ spell (minimum caster level 14th) can create a lesser shadowrath.

A lesser shadowrath is 5 to 6 feet tall and weighs around 70 pounds.

COMBAT

Lesser shadowraths strike with a chilling touch. They use stealth and ambushes to maximize their chance of murdering their opponents.



Shade said:


> Does DR 5/magic sufficently cover this?  I'm wondering if we shouldn't increase it to 10...




We could make it 5/cold iron?


----------



## Shade (Nov 3, 2011)

The revised flavor text looks good.

Updated.



Cleon said:


> We could make it 5/cold iron?




I'm not opposed to /magic, I just though the amount should be higher since it is "nearly immune".


----------



## Cleon (Nov 3, 2011)

Shade said:


> I'm not opposed to /magic, I just though the amount should be higher since it is "nearly immune".




The originals weren't "nearly immune", they were simply immune to non-magical weapons. It made no difference whether they were normal and silver weapons.

That's no worse than an AD&D Vampire "Spawn", which is also completely immune to non-magical weapons.

Vampire Spawn have a DR 5 in 3rd edition, so why not the same for a Blackbones? 3E Vampires have DR /silver, but the Blackbones flavour says they're resistant to silver, hence my suggestion of DR 5/cold iron.

If you want to make them tougher, I'd be willing to go so far as DR 5/magic and cold iron.


----------



## freyar (Nov 3, 2011)

DR 5/magic seems right.  They shouldn't require any material beyond magic, and DR 10 seems a bit out of line for their CR.  I'm also in favor of Cleon's suggestion that a victim of the touch can only be raised/resurrected/etc if they receive a remove curse spell first.  Just add that to the chilling touch description.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 6, 2011)

freyar said:


> DR 5/magic seems right.  They shouldn't require any material beyond magic, and DR 10 seems a bit out of line for their CR.




So you prefer 5/magic to 5/cold iron?



freyar said:


> I'm also in favor of Cleon's suggestion that a victim of the touch can only be raised/resurrected/etc if they receive a remove curse spell first.  Just add that to the chilling touch description.




Do we put any restrictions on the "remove curse" like a minimum CL, level check, or just let the spell automatically succeed?


----------



## Shade (Nov 7, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Do we put any restrictions on the "remove curse" like a minimum CL, level check, or just let the spell automatically succeed?




Consdering their power level, I'd say auto success is acceptable.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 8, 2011)

Shade said:


> Consdering their power level, I'd say auto success is acceptable.




Fine by me.

What about the "cold iron question"?


----------



## Shade (Nov 8, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Fine by me.
> 
> What about the "cold iron question"?




I'm torn.  On the one hand, I find DR/magic to be nigh-useless in actual play.  On the other hand, nothing seemed to indicate any reason to give 'em a special material component in the original writeup (although, to be fair, nothing prevents us making that leap, either).

<looks at Crown of Horns>

Well, nothing in the artifact imparts DR, and it changes the wearer's alignment to neutral evil, so it offers no obvious ties to silver (devils) or cold iron (demons).  The neutral evil demodands and yugoloths have DR/good.

You know, DR/good actually seems quite a good fit for undead created by an major artifact of pure evil!


----------



## Cleon (Nov 8, 2011)

Shade said:


> I'm torn.  On the one hand, I find DR/magic to be nigh-useless in actual play.  On the other hand, nothing seemed to indicate any reason to give 'em a special material component in the original writeup (although, to be fair, nothing prevents us making that leap, either).
> 
> <looks at Crown of Horns>




Well, there's nothing in the AD&D version of the vampire that  supports DR/silver for their Spawn. Ordinary silver weapons are as  useless against a 1E/2E vampire as any other mundane weapon.



Shade said:


> Well, nothing in the artifact imparts DR, and it changes the wearer's alignment to neutral evil, so it offers no obvious ties to silver (devils) or cold iron (demons).  The neutral evil demodands and yugoloths have DR/good.
> 
> You know, DR/good actually seems quite a good fit for undead created by an major artifact of pure evil!




I like that solution! So DR 5/good for the lesser, 10/good for the greater? I wouldn't bother about the /magic component, since how many non-magical weapons are aligned to good?

No, hitting the enemy with your cleric does not count.


----------



## Shade (Nov 9, 2011)

Cleon said:


> I like that solution! So DR 5/good for the lesser, 10/good for the greater? I wouldn't bother about the /magic component, since how many non-magical weapons are aligned to good?




Let's do that!



Cleon said:


> No, hitting the enemy with your cleric does not count.




Says you.  

Updated.  Ready for the greater version?


----------



## Cleon (Nov 9, 2011)

Shade said:


> Says you.




I do!

The cleric I'm referring to is Lawful Evil. 



Shade said:


> Updated.  Ready for the greater version?




Erm, weren't we changing their attacks from melee to touch? I seem to recall us having a bloody-minded argument passionate debate over that issue.

I'd also like "times" or "multiplied" instead of "x" in its Unholy Toughness's "Charisma modifier x its Hit Dice", or at the very least an "×" symbol instead of the letter "x".


----------



## Shade (Nov 9, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Erm, weren't we changing their attacks from melee to touch? I seem to recall us having a bloody-minded argument passionate debate over that issue.




That we did, and I thought I'd corrected that.  I'll do so.



Cleon said:


> I'd also like "times" or "multiplied" instead of "x" in its Unholy Toughness's "Charisma modifier x its Hit Dice", or at the very least an "×" symbol instead of the letter "x".




You are getting REALLY nitpicky now.  OK Mr. FancyPants, how do I type an "x symbol" rather than a letter x?

(The WotC standard for he ability is a letter x/x symbol [I can't tell 'em apart])


----------



## Cleon (Nov 10, 2011)

Shade said:


> You are getting REALLY nitpicky now.  OK Mr. FancyPants, how do I type an "x symbol" rather than a letter x?
> 
> (The WotC standard for he ability is a letter x/x symbol [I can't tell 'em apart])




I prefer to type it "multiplied". 

If you want to type the "×" symbol, the keyboard Shortcut is Alt+NumLock 0215.

I find it easier to copy & paste an × from somewhere else, though.


----------



## Shade (Nov 10, 2011)

Cleon said:


> I find it easier to copy & paste an × from somewhere else, though.




Very well...I'll copy/paste from your post.  

Updated.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 11, 2011)

Shade said:


> Very well...I'll copy/paste from your post.
> 
> Updated.




We're ready for the Abysskin then!


----------



## freyar (Nov 14, 2011)

Cleon said:


> We're ready for the Abysskin then!



Agreed, let's start on those.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 14, 2011)

freyar said:


> Agreed, let's start on those.




If I remember correctly, we were going to do these as a Template.

Shall we just do the stats in the same order as the template, or in the order we normally follow for a standard monster? e.g. start with the basics (abilities, size & type), then the special abilities, then the skills and other odds & sods.


----------



## Shade (Nov 15, 2011)

I think it would work best to start with the special abilities, and see what ability score adjustments, etc. fit those abilities best.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 15, 2011)

Shade said:


> I think it would work best to start with the special abilities, and see what ability score adjustments, etc. fit those abilities best.




Right-ho. They're pretty straightforward.

Energy Drain (1 negative level per touch), complete drain causes "permanent, irreversible death".

Turned as Mummies => Turn Resistance.

They can disguise (or Disguise) themselves as living creatures if their negative energy spots are hidden. Want to do anything with that?


----------



## Shade (Nov 16, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Right-ho. They're pretty straightforward.
> 
> Energy Drain (1 negative level per touch), complete drain causes "permanent, irreversible death".




Yep.



Cleon said:


> Turned as Mummies => Turn Resistance.




Oddly, mummies lack turn resistance.  



Cleon said:


> They can disguise (or Disguise) themselves as living creatures if their negative energy spots are hidden. Want to do anything with that?




Sure.  It helps differentiate them.


----------



## freyar (Nov 16, 2011)

Should we allow divine intervention to reverse the irreversible death? 

They also are mute and can't use command word magic items -- or presumably anything with a verbal component (do scrolls count?).  We should probably keep that to differentiate them too.  There's not much to them otherwise.


----------



## Shade (Nov 16, 2011)

freyar said:


> Should we allow divine intervention to reverse the irreversible death?




Yeah, probably the usual "nothing short of a true ressurection, wish, or miracle" bit.



freyar said:


> They also are mute and can't use command word magic items -- or presumably anything with a verbal component (do scrolls count?).  We should probably keep that to differentiate them too.  There's not much to them otherwise.




Nice catch!


----------



## Cleon (Nov 16, 2011)

freyar said:


> Should we allow divine intervention to reverse the irreversible death?




I'd be inclined to allow a properly worded _miracle_/_wish_ to circumvent it.



freyar said:


> They also are mute and can't use command word magic items -- or presumably anything with a verbal component (do scrolls count?).  We should probably keep that to differentiate them too.  There's not much to them otherwise.




Yes, I was wondering whether we should include that. Guess we'd better.

Shouldn't lesser shadowraths be mute as well?

Is that enough for a SQ?

*Mute (Ex):* A shadowrath is as voiceless as the dead. It cannot speak, or cast spells with a verbal component, or use magic items that require a command word.

Seems a bit thin. Maybe add "Powers that grant a creature the ability to speak, such as the _tongues_ spell, do not work on a shadowrath."?


----------



## Shade (Nov 16, 2011)

It can't use spell completion items, either.

Spell Completion: This is the activation method for scrolls. A scroll is a spell that is mostly finished. The preparation is done for the caster, so no preparation time is needed beforehand as with normal spellcasting. All that’s left to do is perform the finishing parts of the spellcasting (the final gestures, *words*, and so on).


----------



## Cleon (Nov 17, 2011)

Shade said:


> It can't use spell completion items, either.
> 
> Spell Completion: This is the activation method for scrolls. A scroll is a spell that is mostly finished. The preparation is done for the caster, so no preparation time is needed beforehand as with normal spellcasting. All that’s left to do is perform the finishing parts of the spellcasting (the final gestures, *words*, and so on).




Surely that only applies when the spell cast from the scroll has a verbal component, which is already covered?


----------



## Shade (Nov 17, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Surely that only applies when the spell cast from the scroll has a verbal component, which is already covered?




That's essentially true, although some third-party addons (like Arcana Unearth) have added other spell completion items, so it might be nice for the DM to just cover all bases.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 17, 2011)

Shade said:


> That's essentially true, although some third-party addons (like Arcana Unearth) have added other spell completion items, so it might be nice for the DM to just cover all bases.




Well the "spell with verbal component" bit is more relevant than the "spell completion" bit. I'd think it could use non-verbal spell completion items.


----------



## freyar (Nov 21, 2011)

How about "cast spells (or use spell-completion items) with a verbal component"?


----------



## Cleon (Nov 22, 2011)

freyar said:


> How about "cast spells (or use spell-completion items) with a verbal component"?




So, something like this?

*Mute (Ex):* A shadowrath is as voiceless as the dead. It cannot  speak, or cast spells (including spells from spell-completion items) that have a verbal component, or use magic items that  require a command word.


----------



## freyar (Nov 23, 2011)

Yes, that's fine.  Did we decide to give this to the lesser ones also?

Shall we start putting the greater template together?


----------



## Cleon (Nov 23, 2011)

freyar said:


> Yes, that's fine.  Did we decide to give this to the lesser ones also?




Yes we did, or at least that's how I remember it.



freyar said:


> Shall we start putting the greater template together?




Suits me.

Since Shade did the Working Draft of the Lesser version in Homebrews, I guess we should do the same for the Abysskin.

Shade wanted to do the special abilities first, so far we've got something like this:

*Energy Drain (Su):* Living creatures hit by a greater shadowrath's touch attack (or any other natural weapon the vampire might possess) gain one negative levels. For each negative level bestowed, the vampire gains 5 temporary hit points. A vampire can use its energy drain ability once per round.

Any creature killed by a greater shadowrath's energy drain has its soul bound to the afterlife and cannot be raised from the dead. A _miracle_ or _wish_ spell can break this bond, allowing a _raise dead_ or similar spell to return the deceased to life.


----------



## Shade (Nov 28, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Yes we did, or at least that's how I remember it.




Yep!



Cleon said:


> Since Shade did the Working Draft of the Lesser version in Homebrews, I guess we should do the same for the Abysskin.
> 
> Shade wanted to do the special abilities first, so far we've got something like this:
> 
> ...




I'll get one going once we've compiled a few more basics.  I'm not sure I like requiring a wish or miracle before allowing a raise dead.  Most creatures with this sort of ability simply allow the wish or miracle to restore life, and usually a true ress is allowed as well.  Thoughts?


----------



## freyar (Nov 29, 2011)

There are a couple of vampires still hiding out in the energy drain.  As for the wish or miracle, I think I'd let them resurrect the character (and true resurrection, too).  That seems costly enough for what's ultimately not such a powerful monster.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 29, 2011)

Shade said:


> I'll get one going once we've compiled a few more basics.  I'm not sure I like requiring a wish or miracle before allowing a raise dead.  Most creatures with this sort of ability simply allow the wish or miracle to restore life, and usually a true ress is allowed as well.  Thoughts?




Well, firstly the SRD description of what a _wish_ can do suggests a _wish_ can perform one function, and puts limits as to what that function is. I imagined the situation was similar to returning a _disintegrated_ creature to life, which the _wish_ spell description says requires *two* wishes (one to recreate a body, one to duplicate a _resurrection_ spell). Thus, in the case of a Greater Shadowrath it'd require one _wish_ (or equivalent) to break the "irreversible death curse" and another to raise the dead.

Secondly, I imagined binding a creature to stay dead in this fashion as being roughly equivalent to a _trap the soul_ or _imprisonment_ spell, and an _imprisonment_ can't be broken by a _wish_ or _miracle_ spell.


----------



## Shade (Nov 29, 2011)

Outsider Type Description said:
			
		

> Unlike most other living creatures, an outsider does not have a dual nature--its soul and body form one unit. When an outsider is slain, no soul is set loose. Spells that restore souls to their bodies, such as raise dead, reincarnate, and resurrection, don’t work on an outsider. It takes a different magical effect, such as limited wish, wish, miracle, or true resurrection to restore it to life. An outsider with the native subtype can be raised, reincarnated, or resurrected just as other living creatures can be.






			
				Barghest's Feed Ability said:
			
		

> Feed (Su): When a barghest slays a humanoid opponent, it can feed on the corpse, devouring both flesh and life force, as a full-round action. Feeding destroys the victim’s body and prevents any form of raising or resurrection that requires part of the corpse. There is a 50% chance that a wish, miracle, or true resurrection spell can restore a devoured victim to life. Check once for each destroyed creature. If the check fails, the creature cannot be brought back to life by mortal magic.






			
				Beast of Xvim's Feed Ability said:
			
		

> Feed (Su): When a beast of Xvim slays a humanoid opponent, it can feed on the corpse, devouring both flesh and life force, as a full-round action. For every 8 HD or levels the beast consumes, it gains one Hit Die. The beast can delay this feeding for up to one day per Hit Die it has; after that time, the victim's life force is beyond its reach. Feeding destroys the victim's body and prevents any form of raising or ressurection that requires part of the corpse. There is a 50% chance that a wish, miracle, or true resurrection spell can restore a devoured victim to life. Check once for each destroyed creature. If the check fails, the creature cannot be brought back to life by mortal magic.






			
				Soulmarauder said:
			
		

> Soul Consumption (Su): Once a soulmarauder has successfully "tasted" a victim's soul (by draining one or more of the victim's Constitution points), the creature can remove and eat the victim's soul. On each following successful melee attack that deals damage normally, the victum must make a successful Fortitude save (DC 25). Failure means one of the soulmarauder's insubstantial tails curls into his or her body, becomes taut, then makes a sickening twist and emerges with the victim's soul (which appears as a multicolored pinpoint of light). The victim's body falls to the ground like a puppet whose strings have been cut--the body appears loose, the skin too large for its bones, and is obviously missing a certain something. The soul is plunged into the soulmarauder's mouthlike orifice, and consumed utterly over the course of 1 hour. If the soulmarauder is slain before 1 hour, the soul returns to the body, reanimating the victim; however, the victim gains 1d4 negative levels from the partially successful digestion of its essence. The save DC is Charisma-based.
> 
> No form of raising or ressurection can restore a victim whose soul is completely digested to life. A wish, miracle, or true ressurection has only a 25% chance to restore a victim to life.




Ahem.


----------



## Cleon (Nov 30, 2011)

Shade said:


> Ahem.




Oh, I knew there were a few Special Attacks that contradicted the _wish_ spell description, but I thought you didn't like exception-based design. 

Come to think of it, I should have said you needed two _wishes _to revive a totally destroyed/annihilated body, not a disintegrated one, since the _resurrection_ spell specifies the dusty residue of a _disintegrate _spell is enough to resurrect someone.

Anyhow, are you proposing a percentage chance of success now?

I'm also wondering whether the destruction of an abysskin should break this "deathtrapping" curse and allow normal raising. I'm leaning towards "no" to that question, since I think the shadowraths' Death God patron is the active party to the ability.


----------



## Shade (Nov 30, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Anyhow, are you proposing a percentage chance of success now?




Sure.  I'd like to use the Feed mechanics where applicable.



Cleon said:


> I'm also wondering whether the destruction of an abysskin should break this "deathtrapping" curse and allow normal raising. I'm leaning towards "no" to that question, since I think the shadowraths' Death God patron is the active party to the ability.




<leans into Cleon, continuing to nudge him along the correct course>


----------



## Cleon (Dec 1, 2011)

Shade said:


> Sure.  I'd like to use the Feed mechanics where applicable.
> 
> <leans into Cleon, continuing to nudge him along the correct course>




But what if I'm already correct, and you're trying to nudge me off course? 

Come to think of it, does the AD&D Barghest's devouring prevent raising? I don't remember them doing that. Hold on while I check...

Hmm, nothing in either the _*Planescape Campaign Setting*_ or the 1st edition* Monster Manual II* about how the Barghest devouring a body affects bringing it back to life, meaning a plain _resurrection_ should be enough (assuming there's a few shreds of flesh or bone left to cast the spell on).

So it's actually harder to raise a Barghest victim in 3rd edition!

Contrariwise, the AD&D Boggart, which also devours its victims body and life force, does prevent _resurrection_, but its official 3.5E conversion from _*The Silent Manse*_ has no such ability. (Ironically, Enworld has a 3.0 conversion of that Boggart which has the SRD Barghest's feed ability.

Weird, eh?

Anyhow, getting back on topic, I suppose I could grudgingly yield on the Feed (up to a point).

I still like the idea of their being a way to break the "stay dead curse" without having to raise the deceased at the same time. Maybe a _limited wish_, or a _break enchantment_ against a high CL?


----------



## Shade (Dec 1, 2011)

Cleon said:


> I still like the idea of their being a way to break the "stay dead curse" without having to raise the deceased at the same time. Maybe a _limited wish_, or a _break enchantment_ against a high CL?




To what advantage?  To allow a combo of lower-level spells to achieve the same result as a high-level spell?

If that's the case, I'd like to reserve judgement until we determine the relative CR of these fellas.  If they're weaker than the barghest, I could support that idea.  Otherwise, I think the barghest's rules should stand.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 1, 2011)

Shade said:


> To what advantage?  To allow a combo of lower-level spells to achieve the same result as a high-level spell?




Erm... yes? 



Shade said:


> If that's the case, I'd like to reserve judgement until we determine the relative CR of these fellas.  If they're weaker than the barghest, I could support that idea.  Otherwise, I think the barghest's rules should stand.




Well in some respects the AD&D Abysskin is weaker than the same edition's Barghest - fewer HD (5+5 versus 6+6 to 12+12), lower AC (5 versus 3 to -2), fewer attacks, no SLAs (unlike the Barghest), vulnerability to clerics and holy attacks.

The main advantage they have is an energy drain attack.


----------



## freyar (Dec 2, 2011)

If they're weaker than the barghest, just get rid of the percentage chance....


----------



## Cleon (Dec 2, 2011)

freyar said:


> If they're weaker than the barghest, just get rid of the percentage chance....




That pretty much puts us back where we were a page and a half ago.

Oh heck, I'll go along with that if only to get us out of this loop.


----------



## freyar (Dec 5, 2011)

Hey, I'm not the one who broke out the percentile dice!   The feed mechanics are fine, but we need to take out the bit that it eats the life force.  There's no indication of that in either fluff or mechanics.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 5, 2011)

freyar said:


> Hey, I'm not the one who broke out the percentile dice!   The feed mechanics are fine, but we need to take out the bit that it eats the life force.  There's no indication of that in either fluff or mechanics.




Are we still making this an addendum to the Energy Drain?

In which case:

*Energy Drain (Su):* Living creatures hit by a greater  shadowrath's touch attack (or any other natural weapon the greater shadowrath might  possess) gain one negative levels. For each negative level bestowed,  the vampire gains 5 temporary hit points. A greater shadowrath can use its energy  drain ability once per round.

If a greater  shadowrath's energy drain slays a creature it destroys its victim's life force, which means the creature can not be restored to life by a _raise dead_ or _resurrection_ spell. A _wish_, _miracle_, or _true resurrection_ spell can restore the victim to life.


----------



## Shade (Dec 6, 2011)

That looks perfect.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 6, 2011)

Shade said:


> That looks perfect.




Fine!

Shall we start a Working Draft then?

By the way, we need to add the Mute SQ to the Lesser Shadowrath as well as the greater version.



Cleon said:


> *Mute (Ex):* A shadowrath is as voiceless as the dead. It cannot   speak, or cast spells (including spells from spell-completion items)  that have a verbal component, or use magic items that  require a command  word.


----------



## Shade (Dec 7, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Fine!
> 
> Shall we start a Working Draft then?




I'll add 'em to Homebrews.



Cleon said:


> By the way, we need to add the Mute SQ to the Lesser Shadowrath as well as the greater version.




I'll update it.


----------



## Shade (Dec 7, 2011)

Added to Homebrews.

Anyone else think it would be fun to give them Silent Spell as a bonus feat?


----------



## freyar (Dec 8, 2011)

You have a "lich" under the "Spells" entry.  Actually, do they really need a Spells entry?  Vampires don't have them, for example.

Silent Spell would be fun, but it would partly defeat the purpose of the Mute SQ.  I think, since they're not primarily spellcasters, I'd let individual shadowrath's choose.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 8, 2011)

freyar said:


> You have a "lich" under the "Spells" entry.  Actually, do they really need a Spells entry?  Vampires don't have them, for example.
> 
> Silent Spell would be fun, but it would partly defeat the purpose of the Mute SQ.  I think, since they're not primarily spellcasters, I'd let individual shadowrath's choose.




The Silent Spell feat would be very useful (although Automatic Silent Spell would be even more useful...) However, while the text says they retain their original Intelligence it makes no mention of them retaining spellcasting ability. An inability to use Verbal component spells would go a long way to explaining that!

So, I agree to no bonus Silent Spell.


----------



## Shade (Dec 9, 2011)

Fair enough.  I'll drop the Spells SQ and ditch the notion of Silent Spell.


----------



## freyar (Dec 9, 2011)

Well, I'd say they can keep their casting ability, but it will definitely limit their spells.  Anyway, seems like we're all agreed.

What do they need next?


----------



## Cleon (Dec 10, 2011)

freyar said:


> Well, I'd say they can keep their casting ability, but it will definitely limit their spells.  Anyway, seems like we're all agreed.
> 
> What do they need next?




I'm in favour of them keeping the base creature's spellcasting, they just can't use it without Silent Spell.


----------



## freyar (Dec 12, 2011)

Well, they can use spells without verbal components, too.   But we're agreed.  Actually, I just noticed the line "As with lesser shadowraths, all magical or psionic abilities of the shadowrath’s previous existence are lost as undead."  Do you think we need to drop casting explicitly?  I don't really like it, but it seems pretty clear.


----------



## Shade (Dec 12, 2011)

freyar said:


> Well, they can use spells without verbal components, too.   But we're agreed.  Actually, I just noticed the line "As with lesser shadowraths, all magical or psionic abilities of the shadowrath’s previous existence are lost as undead."  Do you think we need to drop casting explicitly?  I don't really like it, but it seems pretty clear.




Hmm...it is rather explicit, but i'm willing to waive it if the rest of you are.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 12, 2011)

freyar said:


> Well, they can use spells without verbal components, too.   But we're agreed.  Actually, I just noticed the line "As with lesser shadowraths, all magical or psionic abilities of the shadowrath’s previous existence are lost as undead."  Do you think we need to drop casting explicitly?  I don't really like it, but it seems pretty clear.




Dang it, how did we miss that.

That means it should be something like "a greater shadowrath loses all of the base creature's supernatural and spell-like special abilities."


----------



## freyar (Dec 12, 2011)

Hmmm, but keeps class-based casting?  (Since it has the base creature's intelligence.)  I could go for that.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 12, 2011)

freyar said:


> Hmmm, but keeps class-based casting?  (Since it has the base creature's intelligence.)  I could go for that.




I meant to include spellcasting in the list of lost abilities, but it didn't end up quite right.

How about "A greater shadowrath retains the base creature's extraordinary special attacks and loses all the base creature's other special attacks."?


----------



## Shade (Dec 12, 2011)

Cleon said:


> I meant to include spellcasting in the list of lost abilities, but it didn't end up quite right.
> 
> How about "A greater shadowrath retains the base creature's extraordinary special attacks and loses all the base creature's other special attacks."?




That would effectively remove turn undead, which would prove problematic with their ties to negative energy.

I'm fine with that.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 13, 2011)

Shade said:


> That would effectively remove turn undead, which would prove problematic with their ties to negative energy.
> 
> I'm fine with that.




Sounds like we're agreed then.

It makes a change!


----------



## freyar (Dec 14, 2011)

Doesn't leave them with much unless they're martial types to start with.  

Ah well.  Anything else we can do to make these interesting, or does this seem like it?


----------



## Cleon (Dec 14, 2011)

freyar said:


> Doesn't leave them with much unless they're martial types to start with.
> 
> Ah well.  Anything else we can do to make these interesting, or does this seem like it?




That seems about it for the special abilities, we just need to figure out the numbers and add some flavour text.


----------



## freyar (Dec 14, 2011)

Well, "turned as mummies" should mean no turn resistance, but we went with +2 for the lessers. I'd stick to that, I think.

I'd give it +3 natural armor, since the original AC is one worse than the lesser version.

Let's leave mental stats the same, but bump Str and Dex.  The question is how much.


----------



## Shade (Dec 15, 2011)

freyar said:


> Let's leave mental stats the same, but bump Str and Dex.  The question is how much.




Since they're essentially just making touch attacks (right?), then high Dex makes the most sense.   +4?


----------



## freyar (Dec 15, 2011)

Dex +4 is good.  You know, I'm coming around to a Cha +2 to boost the energy drain save a little.


----------



## Shade (Dec 16, 2011)

freyar said:


> Dex +4 is good.  You know, I'm coming around to a Cha +2 to boost the energy drain save a little.




Seconded!


----------



## Cleon (Dec 16, 2011)

Shade said:


> Seconded!




Assuming the Lesser 'wrath has an array of straight 10s and 11s, it has Dex +6, Wis +2, Cha +4.

The Abysskin ought to be _at least_ that good - would Str +2, Dex +6, Wis +4, Cha +4 be OK?


----------



## Shade (Dec 16, 2011)

Cleon said:


> Assuming the Lesser 'wrath has an array of straight 10s and 11s, it has Dex +6, Wis +2, Cha +4.
> 
> The Abysskin ought to be _at least_ that good - would Str +2, Dex +6, Wis +4, Cha +4 be OK?




I've no objections.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 17, 2011)

Shade said:


> I've no objections.




Might as well put that in the *Homebrew* then!


----------



## Shade (Dec 19, 2011)

Updated.

Spell resistance equal to the creature’s HD + 5 like fiendish creatures or equal to 8 + CR like demons?


----------



## Cleon (Dec 19, 2011)

Shade said:


> Updated.
> 
> Spell resistance equal to the creature’s HD + 5 like fiendish creatures or equal to 8 + CR like demons?




Of those two options I prefer the CR + 8.


----------



## freyar (Dec 19, 2011)

Same here.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 20, 2011)

freyar said:


> Same here.




Let it be so then!


----------



## freyar (Dec 20, 2011)

I guess I'd go with CR +2, though I'm not sure that a caster would actually get better.  Hrmph.


----------



## Shade (Dec 21, 2011)

freyar said:


> I guess I'd go with CR +2, though I'm not sure that a caster would actually get better.  Hrmph.




They'd actually worsen.  Should we note the differering CRs for spellcasters?  I belive I've seen similar precedent.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 21, 2011)

Shade said:


> They'd actually worsen.  Should we note the differering CRs for spellcasters?  I belive I've seen similar precedent.




Yes, it makes sense giving them separate CRs for martial and spellcasting classes.


----------



## freyar (Dec 22, 2011)

CR +2 for primarily martial characters, CR +0 for casters?  Base it on affiliated classes?


----------



## Cleon (Dec 22, 2011)

freyar said:


> CR +2 for primarily martial characters, CR +0 for casters?  Base it on affiliated classes?




That sounds OK.


----------



## freyar (Dec 23, 2011)

If Shade agrees, that's set, then.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 24, 2011)

freyar said:


> If Shade agrees, that's set, then.




I fear Shade may be too busy celebrating Christmas to agree in a hurry...


----------



## freyar (Dec 25, 2011)

Probably right...

But, how about this?

CR: +2 for associated classes (primarily rely on stealth or fighting ability), +0 for nonassociated (primarily rely on spellcasting)


----------



## Cleon (Dec 27, 2011)

freyar said:


> Probably right...
> 
> But, how about this?
> 
> CR: +2 for associated classes (primarily rely on stealth or fighting ability), +0 for nonassociated (primarily rely on spellcasting)




Where does that leave clerics, who'd be significantly better off than wizards due to their 3/4 BAB and full armour proficiency?


----------



## freyar (Dec 29, 2011)

Hmmm, I guess they're sort of like bards.  Why not just say associated/nonassociated and let the DM decide?  After all, we can't list every class from every 3.5 book.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 29, 2011)

freyar said:


> Hmmm, I guess they're sort of like bards.  Why not just say associated/nonassociated and let the DM decide?  After all, we can't list every class from every 3.5 book.




That'd be OK by me. It's one of those bits of the d20 mechanics were it would have been nice if WotC had allowed a middle ground, such as including an intermediate save between "good saves" and "bad saves".


----------



## freyar (Dec 31, 2011)

Yes.  I expect they just didn't think of every eventuality.  

In any case, it seems we're agreed.


----------



## Cleon (Dec 31, 2011)

freyar said:


> Yes.  I expect they just didn't think of every eventuality.
> 
> In any case, it seems we're agreed.




I'll agree to that.


----------



## Shade (Jan 4, 2012)

freyar said:


> Hmmm, I guess they're sort of like bards.  Why not just say associated/nonassociated and let the DM decide?  After all, we can't list every class from every 3.5 book.




I like this best.

Updated.

I'm thinking level adjustment should be "-", since they are tied to an artifact.  Thoughts?

Organization: Solitary or x.

Did we discuss Treasure?


----------



## Cleon (Jan 4, 2012)

Shade said:


> I like this best.
> 
> Updated.
> 
> I'm thinking level adjustment should be "-", since they are tied to an artifact.  Thoughts?




Yes, if they're will-less slaves of the artifact holder they're hardly Player Character material, so they ought to be Level Adjustment — like the Lesser Shadowrath.



Shade said:


> Organization: Solitary or x.




We need an organisation with 2-10 greater shadowraths, plus a group of lesser shadowraths led by greater shadowraths.

*Organization:* Solitary or team (1-4 plus 2-12 lesser shadowraths) or cornet (2-10)

Come to think of it, we should include an Abysskin-led group with the *Lesser Shadowrath*, i.e.:

*Lesser Shadowrath Organization:* Solitary or cornet (2-12) or team (1-4 plus 2-12 lesser shadowraths)



Shade said:


> Did we discuss Treasure?




Standard, I suppose.


----------



## freyar (Jan 4, 2012)

This all works for me.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 6, 2012)

freyar said:


> This all works for me.




Sounds like we're agreed, then.

We've still got "the *lich* retains this ability" in the Template's Attack section.

Apart from that, we just need some flavour text and a sample creature.


----------



## freyar (Jan 6, 2012)

Let's discuss the sample critter.  Human fighter 6, picking a number out of my hat.  How's that sound?


----------



## Cleon (Jan 7, 2012)

freyar said:


> Let's discuss the sample critter.  Human fighter 6, picking a number out of my hat.  How's that sound?




I'd rather it be a bit more interesting than that. How about a Bugbear Rogue or a Troglodyte Fighter?


----------



## freyar (Jan 8, 2012)

Well, somehow a human feels more appropriate for the FR flavor of the monster.  But I could go for the trog if you both prefer.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 8, 2012)

freyar said:


> Well, somehow a human feels more appropriate for the FR flavor of the monster.  But I could go for the trog if you both prefer.




Yes, the originals are most likely to be humans. I just find the idea a bit boring.

Troglodyte is fine. What class & level do you like?


----------



## freyar (Jan 8, 2012)

Fighter, somewhere 6-10.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 8, 2012)

freyar said:


> Fighter, somewhere 6-10.




Average to 8th?


----------



## freyar (Jan 9, 2012)

That'd be fine.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 10, 2012)

freyar said:


> That'd be fine.




It's too late to start a Working Draft. It'll have to wait a day or three.


----------



## freyar (Jan 16, 2012)

Whenever you're ready.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 17, 2012)

freyar said:


> Whenever you're ready.




Sometimes I feel like I have to do everything around here... 

I'll do just the Trog as a Working Draft. No need to copy over the *Template* itself.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 17, 2012)

*Sample Greater Shadowrath Working Draft*

*Shadowrath, Greater (template)*

_Desc._

Flavor text.

 Organization: Solitary or team (1-4 plus 2-12 lesser shadowraths) or cornet (2-10).
Challenge Rating: +2 for associated classes (primarily rely on stealth or fighting ability), +0 for nonassociated (primarily rely on spellcasting).
Treasure: Same as base creature.
Alignment: Always neutral evil.
Advancement: —
Level Adjustment: —

*Abysskin Troglodyte Champion*
*Elite troglodyte 8th level fighter*
Medium Humanoid (Reptilian)
Hit Dice: 10d12+40 (105 hp)
Initiative: +5
Speed: 30 ft. (6 squares)
Armor Class: 21 (+5 Dex, +6 natural), touch 15, flat-footed 16
Base Attack/Grapple: +9/+13
Attack: Battleaxe +15 melee (1d8+8/×3) or touch +14 touch (1d6 plus 1d4 Str plus energy drain) or claw +13 melee (1d4+4 plus energy drain) or javelin +14 ranged (1d6+4)
Full Attack: Battleaxe +15/+10 melee (1d8+6/×3)  and claw +13 melee (1d4+2 plus energy drain) and bite +13 melee (1d4+2 plus energy drain);  or battleaxe +15/+10 melee (1d8+6/×3) and touch +14 touch (1d6 plus 1d4 Str plus energy drain) and bite +13 melee (1d4+2 plus energy drain); or 2 claws +13 melee (1d4+4 plus energy drain) and bite +13 melee (1d4+2 plus energy drain); or javelin +14/+9 ranged (1d6+4)
Space/Reach: 5 ft./5 ft.
Special Attacks: Stench, energy drain
Special Qualities: Damage reduction10/good, darkvision 90 ft., mute, spell resistance 19, +2 turn resistance, unholy toughness
Saves: Fort +5, Ref -1, Will +0
Abilities: Str 18, Dex 20, Con --, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 18
Skills: Hide +14*, Intimidate +12, Listen +6, Move Silently +7
Feats: Combat Reflexes, Greater Weapon Focus (battleaxe), Improved Multiattack, Multiattack (B), Improved Sunder, Power Attack, Stand Still, Weapon Focus (battleaxe), Weapon Specialization (battleaxe)
Environment: Underground
Organization: Solitary or team (1-4 plus 2-12 lesser shadowraths) or cornet (2-10)
Challenge Rating: 11
Treasure: 50% coins; 50% goods; 50% items
Alignment: Always neutral evil
Advancement: —
Level Adjustment: —

The greater shadowrath presented here is based on an 8th-level troglodyte fighter, using the following base ability scores: Str 15, Dex 13, Con 10, Int 12, Wis 8, Cha 14.

COMBAT

*Stench (Ex):* When a troglodyte is angry or frightened, it secretes an oily, musk-like chemical that nearly every form of animal life finds offensive. All living creatures (except troglodytes) within 30 feet of a troglodyte must succeed on a DC 11 Fortitude save or be sickened for 10 rounds. The save DC is Constitution-based. Creatures that successfully save cannot be affected by the same troglodyte’s stench for 24 hours. A _delay poison_ or _neutralize poison_ spell removes the effect from the sickened creature. Creatures with immunity to poison are unaffected, and creatures resistant to poison receive their normal bonus on their saving throws. 

*Skills:* Shadowraths have a +2 racial bonus on Hide and Move Silently checks. *Shadowraths have a +6 circumstance bonus on Hide checks when in shadowy  areas

The skin of a troglodyte changes color somewhat, allowing it to blend in with its surroundings like a chameleon and providing a +4 racial bonus on Hide checks. *In rocky or underground settings, this bonus improves to +8.


----------



## freyar (Jan 17, 2012)

It's probably because you type faster and have a history of not wanting to wait for Shade. 

Let's see.  The battleaxe seems fine, but then let's change Weapon Focus over to that.  Put those skill points into Intimidate use use that nice big Cha?  (Why don't fighters have any perception skills as class skills????)


----------



## Cleon (Jan 18, 2012)

freyar said:


> It's probably because you type faster and have a history of not wanting to wait for Shade.




I didn't get where I am today by waiting for Shade. 



freyar said:


> Let's see.  The battleaxe seems fine, but then let's change Weapon Focus over to that.




I was tempted to keep the javelin WF and add WF and a bunch of other feats for the battleaxe, although guess we don't really need a +1 to hit with javelins.

Let's see... as a fighter 8th it can get Greater Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization, which leaves two fighter feats. Power Attack and Improved Sunder methinks.

I'm tempted to give it Improved Multiattack so it gets full use from its claws and teeth while full attacking with its axe. Combat Reflexes might be nice with its extremely high Dex.

That breaks down to:

*Bonus Feat:* Multiattack (B)

*Fighter Feats:* Greater Weapon Focus (battleaxe), Improved Sunder, Power Attack, Weapon Focus (battleaxe), Weapon Specialization (battleaxe)

Other Feats: Combat Reflexes, Improved Multiattack *plus one*

Which leaves one more standard feat. Any preferences?



freyar said:


> (Why don't fighters have any  perception skills as class skills????)




Sure, it ought to be *FRIGHTENING*.



freyar said:


> (Why don't fighters have any  perception skills as class skills????)




Because Wizards of the Coast messed up, that's why.


----------



## freyar (Jan 18, 2012)

Stand Still.  It can use that to keep opponents nearby for full attacks including those draining claws....


----------



## Cleon (Jan 18, 2012)

freyar said:


> Stand Still.  It can use that to keep opponents nearby for full attacks including those draining claws....




OK by me.

Updating *Working Draft*.


----------



## freyar (Jan 19, 2012)

Is that done then?


----------



## Cleon (Jan 20, 2012)

freyar said:


> Is that done then?




We need to give the template a level adjustment. I'd prefer "—" like the Lesser version.

I'm also wondering about whether we shouldn't make the Advancement "—" as well.


----------



## freyar (Jan 23, 2012)

I'll agree to the LA.  

I guess for the advancement, the question is if the advancement line is metagame information explaining to the DM how to make a better one (in which case, character class makes sense) or if it is in-game meaning how an abysskin can improve even after gaining the template.  Functionally, since it's a template, I think it works out the same either way.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 23, 2012)

freyar said:


> I'll agree to the LA.
> 
> I guess for the advancement, the question is if the advancement line is metagame information explaining to the DM how to make a better one (in which case, character class makes sense) or if it is in-game meaning how an abysskin can improve even after gaining the template.  Functionally, since it's a template, I think it works out the same either way.




Surely "how an abysskin can improve after gaining the template" is the relevant version, since a template is a set of changes to a character?


----------



## Shade (Jan 23, 2012)

Advancement "-" appeals.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 23, 2012)

Shade said:


> Advancement "-" appeals.




Updating *Working Draft*.

I suppose we ought to come up with some equipment for it, but apart from that I think we're done.


----------



## Shade (Jan 24, 2012)

Cleon said:


> Updating *Working Draft*.
> 
> I suppose we ought to come up with some equipment for it, but apart from that I think we're done.




Based on the 50% treasure across all types, that would give it roughly 3,750 gp, and at best 1d2 minor, 1 medium , or 1 major magic item.

How about a cloak of resistance +1 and ring of protection +1?


----------



## Cleon (Jan 25, 2012)

Shade said:


> Based on the 50% treasure across all types, that would give it roughly 3,750 gp, and at best 1d2 minor, 1 medium , or 1 major magic item.
> 
> How about a cloak of resistance +1 and ring of protection +1?




That doesn't seem worth the bother, frankly. Wouldn't it make more sense giving it _+1 studded leather_ [_1200 gp, +4 NA, +5 Max Dex, 0 Armor Check Penalty_] with masterwork armour spikes [_+400 gp_] instead of a ring that provides a measly +1 deflection bonus. That leaves 1150 gp, enough for another minor item, like _pipes of the sewers_ or, more practically, a masterwork battleaxe and a couple of masterwork javelins or potions.

Besides, shouldn't we give it half an NPC's gear value? An 8th level NPC has 9400 gp of gear and an 11th level 21,000, suggesting either 4700 gp or 10,500 gp.

Hmm, maybe we should just forget about it. The original fluff suggests they aren't that interested in equipment.


----------



## Shade (Jan 25, 2012)

Cleon said:


> Hmm, maybe we should just forget about it. The original fluff suggests they aren't that interested in equipment.




I like that idea.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 25, 2012)

Shade said:


> I like that idea.




Let's do it!


----------



## Shade (Jan 26, 2012)

Updated.


----------



## Cleon (Jan 27, 2012)

Shade said:


> Updated.




So we only need some descriptive and background text and we can wave the Abysskin bye-bye.


----------



## freyar (Jan 29, 2012)

A humanoid with shrunken skin and black fire dancing in its eyesockets and mouth...


----------



## Cleon (Jan 29, 2012)

freyar said:


> A humanoid with shrunken skin and black fire dancing in its eyesockets and mouth...



_
A __bony humanoid with black fire dancing in its eyesockets and mouth. Shrunken skin like cracked charcoal is stretched across its gaunt body._

?


----------



## Shade (Jan 31, 2012)

Updated.


----------



## Cleon (Feb 1, 2012)

Shade said:


> Updated.




Hmm...



> Greater shadowraths often don heavy, hooded cloaks to travel unawares  through humanoid communities.  However, they must take great care to  keep their eyesockets and mouths hidde lest the bleeding negative energy  give them away.




That "unawares" could mean the Shadowrath is unaware, not the humanoid community. I'd exchange it for "unnoticed" or "incognito".

I'm presuming there's an "n" missing from "hidde".


----------



## freyar (Feb 4, 2012)

I prefer "unnoticed" of your two alternatives, but I do think "unawares" is acceptable.


----------



## Cleon (Feb 5, 2012)

freyar said:


> I prefer "unnoticed" of your two alternatives, but I do think "unawares" is acceptable.




Shall we make it unnoticed then.


----------



## Shade (Feb 7, 2012)

I updated it, but it passed unnoticed.


----------



## Shade (Feb 7, 2012)

*Tarsardar*
Climate/Terrain: Any 
Frequency: Very rare 
Organization: Solitary 
Activity Cycle: Any 
Diet: Nil 
Intelligence: As in life 
Treasure: Nil 
Alignment: Lawful neutral 
No. Appearing: 1 
Armor Class: 6 
Movement: Fl 14 (A) 
Hit Dice: 5+5 
THAC0: 15 
No. of Attacks: 2 
Damage/Attack: 3d4/3d4 
Special Attacks: Item control 
Special Defenses: Immunities 
Magic Resistance: 66% 
Size: M (6’ tall but amorphous) 
Morale: Fearless (20) 
XP Value: 7,000 

More commonly known as “staff spirits” or “sword spirits” due to the favorite types of enchanted items they like to inhabit, tarsardar are translucent, amorphous flying wraithlike beings that tend to appear tattered and “flowing” in form, keeping to a vaguely upright humanoid stance with a head and shoulders, but letting all else change and shift (one bard described them aptly as “ghostly glowing wisps”). Tarsardar are empowered to enter into any sort of item that bears even the smallest enchantment, dwindling down to fit within its confines (even if it’s a gem or finger-ring), but can emerge at will, even if the item’s powers include trapping souls or spirits, or controlling creatures. Like the shadowstaves they resemble, tarsardar may be mistaken for undead, but are not unliving, and are not subject to any magic or powers that govern or harm undead.

Combat: Tarsardar cannot be compelled or controlled by any known means (short of Azuth’s and Mystra’s command of the Weave, which can at will transform tarsardar into any sort of creature, or destroy them in an instant). They avoid combat when possible, although they are not hesitant to animate a chosen item from within and have it attack “by itself” if they see targets to their liking.

Tarsardar can control any item as if they were the class, alignment, and nature of creature the item was most intended for, of the highest possible experience level, and as if they were experienced in the use of all item powers and properties. A tarsardar must be in an unfamiliar item for 1 round of inactivity to master all item powers, but can activate an obvious power, or one it has recently seen in use, immediately upon entering an item – and all tarsardar can make items float, fly, and move around as if carried and manipulated by unseen hands, for it is actually the tarsardar that’s moving, clinging to the enchantment on the item by means of its unique nature.

Any dispel magic spell can drive forth a tarsardar from its chosen item (there’s no need to roll for spell success to determine this result, only to decide the dispel effects on the item), but the dispel neither harms the tarsardar or keeps it out of the item for more than 3 rounds. (Note that if the tarsardar is animating the item, and it lacks the power to so move on its own, it will plummet to the ground if the tarsardar is banished.) If a tarsardar is within an item that loses all of its enchantments, it is driven forth from the item and cannot return (though it suffers no harm in the expulsion). Tarsardar can see all magical auras and bindings, as if using a permanent, ceaseless detect magic, within a 90-foot radius of themselves, perceiving items on all sides at once.

Tarsardar can deliver two “energy burn” touch attacks per round. These attacks are automatically successful if sent against a creature touching an item that a tarsardar is within, but a successful attack roll is required if the tarsardar is partially or wholly emergent. If a tarsardar is injured for more than 6 hit points of damage in a round and also manages to deliver a touch attack in the same round, the hit points over and above the 6 that they lose are added to the damage roll of their energy burn attack, as they “leak” excess energy.

Tarsardar can pass through the smallest of crevices and openings, changing size without pause. They cannot be harmed by winds, falling, or weapons that have the same form as the item they currently call home (for instance, if a tarsardar is inhabiting a magical ax, no bladed chopping weapon – magical or not, artifact or crude homemade ax – can do it any harm). Moreover, they can deem themselves immune to one attack power (if any) possessed by the item they call home, and thereafter will be immune to that power and all related powers (for example, lightning bolt and chain lightning are related, as are fireball and meteor swarm) – even if launched against them from the very item they “call their home” – until the item is destroyed or they deem themselves immune to another magical attack form, of that or another item. Tarsardar can migrate from enchanted item to enchanted item at will.

Tarsardar are immune to Enchantment/charm and Illusion/phantasm spells, to death magic, and to all forms of hold and paralyzation magic. They are also immune to psionics and to all poison, petrification, polymorph, cold-based, and electricity-based attacks.

Habitat/Society: Tarsardar can whisper (in a haunting, windwhistle drone), gesture, and write. They can also communicate mentally with beings they are touching. Tarsardar retain the intellect, memories, and character they possessed in their former lives, although many seem to grow sarcastic, cynical, or bitter, and are charged to increase the use and availability of magic for all, and to enhance the “awe” and allure of magic by making Mystra seem to be everywhere, and enchanted items to move and act “by themselves”.

More than shadowstaves, they seem to develop an independent streak and a desire to “play favorites” among the mortal mages they interact with. Some thwart evil mages as a matter of course (by making magical items flee or turn against them, for instance), while others confound good mages or magically gifted rulers or lawmakers.

Tarsardar do obey Azuth and Mystra and their Chosen, but tend to ignore the authority of the current Magister and all clergy of the deities of magic, and to follow the letter and not the spirit of dictates and strictures of Mystra, Azuth, and the Chosen when those beings are not actually present. Many tarsardar have been destroyed for disobedience, or forcibly and permanently transformed into wingless wonders, common mules, and other creatures (sometimes even those suitable for use as familiars). When such destruction occurs (at the hands of Azuth or Mystra), the tarsardar can be viewed as having shifted alignment, losing the lawful (and perhaps the neutral) facet of their nature.

Tarsardar never willingly fight each other, even by means of items they animate. Rival mortals who attack each other with items that are inhabited by tarsardar will usually discover that such items suddenly become inert, all powers simply refusing to activate.

Ecology: Tarsardar need not eat, drink, breathe, sleep, or keep warm. Many are curious, and will move to investigate any magic they detect (which has misled some human sages into believing they somehow “feed off magic”), but they need not do so, and are part of no food chain or natural cycle.

Originally appeared in Secrets of the Magister (2000).


----------



## Cleon (Feb 7, 2012)

Shade said:


> *Tarsardar*




Incorporeal Undead Template?

EDIT: Scrub that undead, the text is quite specific that although they might appear to be undead, they are not.

So, Incorporeal Aberration (Template) or Incorporeal Outsider (Template)?


----------



## Shade (Feb 9, 2012)

Based on their origins/ties to deities, I'd vote Outsider.


----------



## Cleon (Feb 10, 2012)

Shade said:


> Based on their origins/ties to deities, I'd vote Outsider.




That's my preference. I suppose they should be Native Outsiders, since they inhabit the world. Or maybe they're native to all planes, since they are presumably tied to the "Magical Weave" of the Cosmos?


----------



## Shade (Feb 10, 2012)

Cleon said:


> That's my preference. I suppose they should be Native Outsiders, since they inhabit the world. Or maybe they're native to all planes, since they are presumably tied to the "Magical Weave" of the Cosmos?




Both justifications make good sense, but since they are tied specifically to Faerunian deities, I'd just make 'em Native.  It seems like the FRCS has many Native outsiders.


----------



## Cleon (Feb 10, 2012)

Shade said:


> Both justifications make good sense, but since they are tied specifically to Faerunian deities, I'd just make 'em Native.  It seems like the FRCS has many Native outsiders.




Native Outsider would be my preference.


----------



## Shade (Feb 13, 2012)

Sounds like we're in agreement.

Although it clearly reads like a template, I'm failing to see much advantage for making it one.   It doesn't seem to retain much from its life (other than intelligence), and all its attacks are standardized.  Wanna just make it a straight monster, and note in the flavor that their mental scores range wide?


----------



## Cleon (Feb 13, 2012)

Shade said:


> Sounds like we're in agreement.
> 
> Although it clearly reads like a template, I'm failing to see much advantage for making it one.   It doesn't seem to retain much from its life (other than intelligence), and all its attacks are standardized.  Wanna just make it a straight monster, and note in the flavor that their mental scores range wide?




I don't see anything to support using a Template. There's no mention of them retaining any skills, powers, or even much knowledge about their former lives.


----------



## Shade (Feb 14, 2012)

Cleon said:


> I don't see anything to support using a Template. There's no mention of them retaining any skills, powers, or even much knowledge about their former lives.




Good, then we're agreed.  

The HD are given.  We just need to figure out some ability scores.

AC translates to 14.  As an incorporeal critter, it'll derive that from both Dex and Cha.  Split the difference with both at a +2 bonus, or go slightly higher on the Cha?


----------



## Cleon (Feb 14, 2012)

Shade said:


> Good, then we're agreed.
> 
> The HD are given.  We just need to figure out some ability scores.
> 
> AC translates to 14.  As an incorporeal critter, it'll derive that from both Dex and Cha.  Split the difference with both at a +2 bonus, or go slightly higher on the Cha?




Might as well make it even.

Dex 14, Cha 15?


----------



## Shade (Feb 16, 2012)

Sounds good.   Although Int could vary widely, I'd probably just keep it comparable with Cha. 

So...

Str -, Dex 14, Con 13, Int 15, Wis 14, Cha 15?


----------



## Cleon (Feb 16, 2012)

Shade said:


> Sounds good.   Although Int could vary widely, I'd probably just keep it comparable with Cha.
> 
> So...
> 
> Str -, Dex 14, Con 13, Int 15, Wis 14, Cha 15?




I think that's enough to start a Working Draft.


----------



## Cleon (Feb 16, 2012)

*Tarsardar*
Medium Outsider (Incorporeal, Native)
*Hit Dice:* 5d8+5 (27 hp)
*Initiative:* +6
*Speed:* Fly 40 ft. (8 squares, perfect)
*Armor Class:* 14 (+2 Dex, +2 deflection), touch 14, flat-footed 12
*Base Attack/Grapple:* +3/—
*Attack:* Power touch +5 touch (3d4 force)
*Full Attack:* 2 power touches +5 touch (3d4 force)
*Space/Reach:* 5 ft./5 ft.
*Special Attacks:* Animate magic item, power overspill, power touch
*Special Qualities:* Arcane sight, darkvision 60 ft., immunities (cold, death effects, electricity, mind-affecting effects, paralysis, petrification, poison and polymorph), spell resistance 20, telepathy (touch range) 
*Saves:* Fort +5, Ref +6, Will +6
*Abilities:* Str --, Dex 14, Con 13, Int 15, Wis 14, Cha 15
*Skills:* Bluff +10, Concentration +8, Decipher Script +10, Diplomacy +4, Disguise +2 (+4 acting), Knowledge (arcane) +10, Knowledge  (religion) +10, Knowledge (the planes) +10, Hide +10, Intimidate +4, Listen +10, Sleight of Hand +4, Spot +10, Spellcraft +12, Survival +2 (+4 on other planes), Use Magic Device +2 (+6 with scrolls)
*Feats:* Dodge, Flyby Attack, Improved Initiative (B)
*Environment:* Any
* Organization:* Solitary
*Challenge Rating:* 4
*Treasure:* None
*Alignment:* Always lawful neutral
*Advancement:* 6–15 HD (Medium)
*Level Adjustment:* —

_A __glowing __ghostlike figure glides through the air. Its  shape constantly flows and changes, but includes the vague outline of a  humanoid head and shoulders__._

A tarsardar is an incorporeal creature formed from the spirit of a  deceased mortal spellcaster. They are created by a god or power of magic  to serve its interests on the Prime Material Plane. Tarsardars have the  exotic ability to possess and animate any magic item.

A tarsardar retains the personality and memory it had in life. It    follows the dictates of whichever deity created it, but tends to obey    the letter rather than the spirit of its duties when not in the presence    of a godlike master. Tarsardars created by the same deity never    willingly fight each other. A tarsardar possessing a magic item renders    the item inert if its owner attempts to use it against another   tarsardar  or a tarsardar-possessed magic item.

Tarsardar sometimes masquerade as intelligent magic items, but are often  content to lie in hiding for long periods of time. Many are curious  about magical phenomena and will move to investigate unusual magic,  leading to an erroneous belief they somehow feed off magic.

A tarsardar is 5 to 6 feet tall and is weightless. It can speak whatever    languages it knew in life in a whispering voice, and can also    communicate telepathically with any other creature it touches.

*COMBAT*

  A tarsardar will inhabit the most powerful magic item it can gain  access too. Tarsardar prefer to fight using the abilities of animated  magic items, but use their power touch if necessary.

*Animate Magic Item (Su):* A tarsardar can move into any magic  item and animate it as if that item had become the tarsardar's body. It  takes 1 full round for a tarsardar to animate an unfamiliar magic item,  but if the tarsardar has previously animated a magic item it can animate  it again as a standard action.

The tarsardar has complete access to all of the magic item's abilities,  and is treated as if it has all prerequisites required to use the magic  item (class, caster level, alignment et cetera). It automatically  succeeds at any Use Magic Device check it makes to use the animated  magic item's magical abilities.  It may make such Use Magic Device  checks even if untrained.

The tarsardar can move the animated magic item around using its 40 ft.  (perfect) fly speed. A tarsardar animating a magic item can use it to  make physical attacks  and interact with material objects, but is  limited by the material limits of  the magic item. For example, a  battleaxe could attack as that weapon or  push things around, a rope  could tie itself around something and lift  it up, a glove could do  anything a humanoid can do with one hand. When  animating a magic item,  the tarsardar acts as if it has a Strength score  equal to its Charisma.

  Damage to the magic item does no harm to a tarsardar animating it, but  if the damage is enough to destroy the item the tarsardar is forced to  revert to its normal incorporeal form.

A _dispel magic_ spell targeting the magic item will drive out the    animating tarsardar unless it succeeds as a Will save (DC equals the    spell's DC). If the magic item loses all its magical properties, due to  a   _disjunction_ spell, anti-magic field or similar effect, the animating tarsardar is automatically ejected from the item.

*Arcane Sight (Su):* A tarsardar has continuous _arcane sight_ as the spell (caster level 14th). Its _arcane sight_ can be dispelled, but the tarsardar can create it again as a free action on   its next turn.

*Immunities (Ex):* A tarsardar is immune to cold damage, death effects, electricity damage,  mind-affecting effects, paralysis, petrification, poison and polymorph.

*Power Overspill (Su):*  If a tarsardar takes more than 6 hit points of damage in the previous  round its "power touch" attacks deal that much extra damage as energy  leaks from the tarsardar's body.

*Power Touch (Su):* A tarsardar may make an incorporeal touch  attack  that deals 3d4 hp of force damage.  A tarsardar animating an  item (see  Animate Magic Item above) makes this attack as a melee touch  attack; if  the tarsardar attacks a creature that is currently holding  the item the  tarsardar animates, the attack is automatically  successful. If the  tarsardar takes more than 6 hp of damage in a round,  the damage of its power touch is increased by its Power Overspill ability (see above) in the following round.

*In the Realms*
 Tarsardar serve Mystra by trying to increase the use and allure of  magic. They obey the golds Mystra, Azuth, and their Chosen, but tend to  ignore their Magister and priests.  Some tarsardar enjoy twisting Mystra  and Azuth's doctrines, but the gods take notice and, at times, punish   these wayward servants. Disobedient tarsardar are destroyed, or  permanently transformed into a shameful creature such as a mule, toad or  Wingless Wonder.


----------



## Shade (Feb 21, 2012)

> Tarsardar can control any item as if they were the class, alignment, and nature of creature the item was most intended for, of the highest possible experience level, and as if they were experienced in the use of all item powers and properties. A tarsardar must be in an unfamiliar item for 1 round of inactivity to master all item powers, but can activate an obvious power, or one it has recently seen in use, immediately upon entering an item – and all tarsardar can make items float, fly, and move around as if carried and manipulated by unseen hands, for it is actually the tarsardar that’s moving, clinging to the enchantment on the item by means of its unique nature.




So, would it suffice to give them an ability that simply allows them to automatically succeed on any Use Magic Device check?


----------



## Cleon (Feb 21, 2012)

Shade said:


> So, would it suffice to give them an ability that simply allows them to automatically succeed on any Use Magic Device check?




No, since they can also fly the magic item about and manipulate it as if by "unseen hands".


----------



## Shade (Feb 23, 2012)

Cleon said:


> No, since they can also fly the magic item about and manipulate it as if by "unseen hands".




So, a blending of the two?


----------



## Cleon (Feb 23, 2012)

Shade said:


> So, a blending of the two?




I think the idea was that the tarsardar could "wield itself" when occupying a magic item, so if it occupied a weapon it could attack with its "body".

That means it would need a Strength score or the equivalent, perhaps Str = Cha?


----------



## freyar (Feb 28, 2012)

Uggh, never liked incorporeals with Str, but I guess it makes sense in this case.

Glad you didn't go with a template; the "former lives" bit seemed like a throwaway that didn't fit with the rest of the monster.

Anyway: for this ability, we need flying, attacking, using any magical ability of the item.  Right?


----------



## Shade (Feb 28, 2012)

Cleon said:


> I think the idea was that the tarsardar could "wield itself" when occupying a magic item, so if it occupied a weapon it could attack with its "body".
> 
> That means it would need a Strength score or the equivalent, perhaps Str = Cha?




Not necessarily.  It could simply function as something like a spiritual weapon (or just state within the ability that it attacks as if it had Str x).


----------



## Cleon (Feb 29, 2012)

freyar said:


> Uggh, never liked incorporeals with Str, but I guess it makes sense in this case.
> 
> Glad you didn't go with a template; the "former lives" bit seemed like a throwaway that didn't fit with the rest of the monster.
> 
> Anyway: for this ability, we need flying, attacking, using any magical ability of the item.  Right?




Yup. Same 40 ft. (perfect) flight as the tarsardar?


----------



## Cleon (Feb 29, 2012)

Shade said:


> Not necessarily.  It could simply function as something like a spiritual weapon (or just state within the ability that it attacks as if it had Str x).




I was thinking something like "A tarsardar animating a magic weapon can use it to make physical attacks and interact with material objects, but is limited by the properties of the magic item. For example, a battleaxe could attack as that weapon or push things around, a rope could tie itself around something and lift it up, a glove could do anything a humanoid can do with one hand. When animating a magic item, the tarsardar acts as if it has a Strength score equal to its Charisma."


----------



## freyar (Mar 2, 2012)

So not really a Str score, just an effective one for the animated item?  That works for me.

The same flight as the tarsardar itself also works.  Want to put that all together?


----------



## Cleon (Mar 3, 2012)

freyar said:


> So not really a Str score, just an effective one for the animated item?  That works for me.
> 
> The same flight as the tarsardar itself also works.  Want to put that all together?




Thus?

*Animate Magic Item (Su):* A tarsardar can move into any magic item and animate it as if that item had become the tarsardar's body. It takes 1 full round for a tarsardar to animate an unfamiliar magic item, but if the tarsardar has previously animated a magic item it can animate it again as a standard action.

The tarsardar has complete access to all of the magic item's abilities, and is treated as if it has all prerequisites required to use the magic item (class, caster level, alignment et cetera). It automatically succeeds at any Use Magic Device check it makes to use the animated magic item's magical abilities.

The tarsardar can move the animated magic item around using its 40 ft. (perfect) fly speed. A tarsardar animating a magic item can use it to make physical attacks  and interact with material objects, but is limited by the material limits of  the magic item. For example, a battleaxe could attack as that weapon or  push things around, a rope could tie itself around something and lift  it up, a glove could do anything a humanoid can do with one hand. When  animating a magic item, the tarsardar acts as if it has a Strength score  equal to its Charisma.

A _dispel magic_ spell targeting the magic item will drive out the animating tarsardar unless it succeeds as a Will save (DC equals the spell's DC). If the magic item loses all its magical properties, due to a _disjunction_ spell, anti-magic field or similar effect, the animating tarsardar is automatically ejected from the item.


----------



## Shade (Mar 5, 2012)

Lookin' good!


----------



## Cleon (Mar 6, 2012)

Shade said:


> Lookin' good!




I'll add it to the *Working Draft*.

What shall we do with the "Burning Touch"?


----------



## freyar (Mar 8, 2012)

It says:


> Tarsardar can deliver two “energy burn” touch attacks per round. These attacks are automatically successful if sent against a creature touching an item that a tarsardar is within, but a successful attack roll is required if the tarsardar is partially or wholly emergent. If a tarsardar is injured for more than 6 hit points of damage in a round and also manages to deliver a touch attack in the same round, the hit points over and above the 6 that they lose are added to the damage roll of their energy burn attack, as they “leak” excess energy.



Note sure exactly what "energy burn" means here.  Since they're native outsiders, something like force damage could both make sense and be fun.  I'd say a touch attack with a retributive aspect?  And give them 2, like it's a natural weapon.

"Energy Touch" (Su): A tarsardar animating an item (see Animate Magic Item above) may make a melee touch attack that deals 3d4 hp of force damage; if the tarsardar attacks a creature that is currently holding the item the tarsardar animates, the attack is automatically successful.  If the tarsardar has taken more than 6 hp of damage in the previous round, its "energy touch" attacks deal that much extra damage as energy leaks from the tarsardar's body.


Also: it looks like they should have a continuous detect magic ability.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 8, 2012)

freyar said:


> It says:
> 
> Note sure exactly what "energy burn" means here.  Since they're native outsiders, something like force damage could both make sense and be fun.  I'd say a touch attack with a retributive aspect?  And give them 2, like it's a natural weapon.
> 
> "Energy Touch" (Su): A tarsardar animating an item (see Animate Magic Item above) may make a melee touch attack that deals 3d4 hp of force damage; if the tarsardar attacks a creature that is currently holding the item the tarsardar animates, the attack is automatically successful.  If the tarsardar has taken more than 6 hp of damage in the previous round, its "energy touch" attacks deal that much extra damage as energy leaks from the tarsardar's body.




The tarsardar can use its energy touch when in its normal disembodied state, it doesn't have to be animating an object. I'd say it's either an incorporeal touch or a melee touch depending on whether or not it's animating a body.

Having it do force damage would suit me fine.

I'm not that enamored of the "retributive touch" mechanism, so wouldn't mind dropping it. Let's see what Shade thinks.



freyar said:


> Also: it looks like they should have a continuous detect magic ability.




I was thinking more _arcane sight_ if not _greater arcane sight_!


----------



## Shade (Mar 9, 2012)

I like force damage, retributive strike, and arcane sight.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 9, 2012)

Shade said:


> I like force damage, retributive strike, and arcane sight.




I'm OK with that.


----------



## freyar (Mar 9, 2012)

Something like this?  Is there a better retributive strike mechanic lying around somewhere?  This one feels a bit clunky.

"Energy Touch" (Su): A tarsardar may make an incorporeal touch attack that deals 3d4 hp of force damage.  A tarsardar animating an item (see Animate Magic Item above) makes this attack as a melee touch attack; if the tarsardar attacks a creature that is currently holding the item the tarsardar animates, the attack is automatically successful. If the tarsardar has taken more than 6 hp of damage in the previous round, its "energy touch" attacks deal that much extra damage as energy leaks from the tarsardar's body.

Arcane sight is good!


----------



## Cleon (Mar 10, 2012)

freyar said:


> Something like this?  Is there a better retributive strike mechanic lying around somewhere?  This one feels a bit clunky.
> 
> "Energy Touch" (Su): A tarsardar may make an incorporeal touch attack that deals 3d4 hp of force damage.  A tarsardar animating an item (see Animate Magic Item above) makes this attack as a melee touch attack; if the tarsardar attacks a creature that is currently holding the item the tarsardar animates, the attack is automatically successful. If the tarsardar has taken more than 6 hp of damage in the previous round, its "energy touch" attacks deal that much extra damage as energy leaks from the tarsardar's body.
> 
> Arcane sight is good!




I'd make the Retributive Strike a separate ability, just to it doesn't get lost in the text.

Also, I prefer "the attack automatically hit" over "the attack is automatically successful".

e.g.:

*Energy Touch (Su):* A tarsardar may make an incorporeal touch attack  that deals 3d4 hp of force damage.  A tarsardar animating an item (see  Animate Magic Item above) makes this attack as a melee touch attack; if  the tarsardar attacks a creature that is currently holding the item the  tarsardar animates, the attack is automatically successful. If the  tarsardar takes more than 6 hp of damage in a round, the damage of its energy touch is increased by its Retributive Strike ability (see below) in the following round.

*Retributive Strike (Su):* If a tarsardar takes more than 6 hit points of damage in the previous round its "energy touch" attacks deal that much extra damage as energy leaks from the tarsardar's body.


----------



## Shade (Mar 13, 2012)

freyar said:


> Something like this?  Is there a better retributive strike mechanic lying around somewhere?  This one feels a bit clunky.




Here's an example of a previous retributive strike attack:

Retributive Strike (Su): Whenever a gray unicorn is struck by a melee attack (including melee touch delivered spells) the attacker must succeed on a DC 18 Fortitude save or take damage equal to that inflicted upon the unicorn. The damage dealt to the attacker is not subject to negation or reduction because of resistance, immunity, damage reduction, spell resistance, or the like. The save DC is Charisma-based. 




Cleon said:


> I'd make the Retributive Strike a separate ability, just to it doesn't get lost in the text.
> 
> Also, I prefer "the attack automatically hit" over "the attack is automatically successful".
> 
> ...




I think these abilities look fine, although I'd favor renaming both.  The former to avoid confusion with the standard "energy types" and the latter since numerous retributive strike abilities already exist, and this is a bit different.   Perhaps "Forceful Strike" for the former and "Power Leak" for the latter?


----------



## Cleon (Mar 13, 2012)

Shade said:


> I think these abilities look fine, although I'd favor renaming both.  The former to avoid confusion with the standard "energy types" and the latter since numerous retributive strike abilities already exist, and this is a bit different.   Perhaps "Forceful Strike" for the former and "Power Leak" for the latter?




I'm fine changing the names, but don't much like the proposed alternatives.

Maybe "Power Touch" and "Power Backlash"?


----------



## Shade (Mar 13, 2012)

"Power Touch" is fine, but I'm not sure about Backlash.  It's simply doing more damage due to leaking energy...not actually lashing back at the prior attacker out of any sort of retribitution.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 14, 2012)

Shade said:


> "Power Touch" is fine, but I'm not sure about Backlash.  It's simply doing more damage due to leaking energy...not actually lashing back at the prior attacker out of any sort of retribitution.




How about "Retributive Flux", since flux can mean an excessive flow or discharge?


----------



## Shade (Mar 15, 2012)

Cleon said:


> How about "Retributive Flux", since flux can mean an excessive flow or discharge?




How about "Power Flux", since the "retributive" part was most of my concern.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 15, 2012)

Shade said:


> How about "Power Flux", since the "retributive" part was most of my concern.




Seems a bit vague, though.

Perhaps "Damage Overflow", "Power Overspill" or something similar?


----------



## Shade (Mar 16, 2012)

Cleon said:


> Seems a bit vague, though.
> 
> Perhaps "Damage Overflow", "Power Overspill" or something similar?




Power Overspill will work.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 16, 2012)

Shade said:


> Power Overspill will work.




Good!, let's use that name and move on!


----------



## freyar (Mar 19, 2012)

Agreed.



> They cannot be harmed by winds, falling, or weapons that have the same form as the item they currently call home (for instance, if a tarsardar is inhabiting a magical ax, no bladed chopping weapon – magical or not, artifact or crude homemade ax – can do it any harm). Moreover, they can deem themselves immune to one attack power (if any) possessed by the item they call home, and thereafter will be immune to that power and all related powers (for example, lightning bolt and chain lightning are related, as are fireball and meteor swarm) – even if launched against them from the very item they “call their home” – until the item is destroyed or they deem themselves immune to another magical attack form, of that or another item. Tarsardar can migrate from enchanted item to enchanted item at will.
> 
> Tarsardar are immune to Enchantment/charm and Illusion/phantasm spells, to death magic, and to all forms of hold and paralyzation magic. They are also immune to psionics and to all poison, petrification, polymorph, cold-based, and electricity-based attacks.




The immunities are pretty straightforward, though we might tweak the charm immunity to include compulsions or the phantasm immunity to include patterns.  Not sure.  The weapon damage immunity is a bit weirder, and I'm not sure I get the logic.  I can understand the immunity to the magic attack a bit better.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 20, 2012)

freyar said:


> Agreed.
> 
> The immunities are pretty straightforward, though we might tweak the charm immunity to include compulsions or the phantasm immunity to include patterns.  Not sure.  The weapon damage immunity is a bit weirder, and I'm not sure I get the logic.  I can understand the immunity to the magic attack a bit better.




I was thinking immunity to mind-affecting powers would make sense, since they're pretty close to incorporeal undead.

As for the "Weapon Immunity" SQ, that's similar to what Guardian Daemons had in AD&D. The Enworld conversion of those critters didn't inherit that ability, unfortunately.


----------



## Shade (Mar 20, 2012)

Cleon said:


> I was thinking immunity to mind-affecting powers would make sense, since they're pretty close to incorporeal undead.




Agreed.



Cleon said:


> As for the "Weapon Immunity" SQ, that's similar to what Guardian Daemons had in AD&D. The Enworld conversion of those critters didn't inherit that ability, unfortunately.




I'd rather give 'em some sort of damage reduction or blink-like "not always there" ability than blanket immunity.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 20, 2012)

Shade said:


> Agreed.
> 
> I'd rather give 'em some sort of damage reduction or blink-like "not always there" ability than blanket immunity.




Damage Reduction that's only good against one kind of weapon? I like that better than a "blink" approach.


----------



## Shade (Mar 22, 2012)

Cleon said:


> Damage Reduction that's only good against one kind of weapon? I like that better than a "blink" approach.




If by "one kind of weapon" you mean the usual slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning, than I'm in.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 23, 2012)

Shade said:


> If by "one kind of weapon" you mean the usual slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning, than I'm in.




So a tarsardar in a weapon gains damage reduction against the damage types that match the weapon?

What if it has multiple damage types, like a morningstar's bludgeoning *and* piercing?

Does the tarsardar pick one or the other, or apply both?


----------



## freyar (Mar 26, 2012)

Immunity to mind-affecting works for me.

As for DR/damage type, we're saying it is DR/(damage type the weapon doesn't have)?  Then we have to decide about multi-type weapons.  Let's see, I guess it should only apply DR against one type; presumably the tarsardar should choose but only once each time it possesses a weapon.


----------



## Cleon (Mar 27, 2012)

freyar said:


> Immunity to mind-affecting works for me.
> 
> As for DR/damage type, we're saying it is DR/(damage type the weapon doesn't have)?  Then we have to decide about multi-type weapons.  Let's see, I guess it should only apply DR against one type; presumably the tarsardar should choose but only once each time it possesses a weapon.




That sounds reasonable. Care to write something up?


----------



## freyar (Mar 30, 2012)

Actually, before we do that, we need to settle what happens if someone attacks (sunder attempt?) the animated weapon.  Does it damage the weapon, the tarsardar, half and half?


----------



## Cleon (Mar 31, 2012)

I'd better update the *Working Draft* with what we've got so far.



freyar said:


> Actually, before we do that, we need to settle what happens if someone attacks (sunder attempt?) the animated weapon.  Does it damage the weapon, the tarsardar, half and half?




Normally, a soul inside an object suffers no injury if the object is damaged (c.g. _magic jar_ or _trap the soul_), but is driven out if the object is destroyed.

However, if we did that what's to stop the tarsardar hiding in item after item until all the party's magic gear has been smashed?

Hmm, aren't their rules for possessing items in _*The Book of Vile Darkness*_?


----------



## Shade (Apr 2, 2012)

Cleon said:


> Hmm, aren't their rules for possessing items in _*The Book of Vile Darkness*_?




Indeed!



			
				BoVD said:
			
		

> A fiend possessing an object becomes a part of the object. A possessing fiend can see and hear up to 60 feet away from the object, but it can't use darkvision or blindsight while possessing an object, even if it ordinarily has these abilities. The possessing fiend remains vulnerable to spells that affect outsiders, extraplanar creatures, or evil creatures (such as holy word and holy smite) and mind-affecting spells and effects. *Physical attacks and most spells (such as fireball) don't affect the fiend, but they might affect the object. Harming the object does not harm the possessing fiend*; if the object is destroyed, the fiend takes ethereal form and can choose a new host object (or creature).


----------



## Cleon (Apr 3, 2012)

Shade said:


> Indeed!




I appreciate you me sparing me the effort to find where I left my copy!

Hmm, that's more-or-less how I remembered it from the _*Book of Vile Darkness*_. Unless my memory is failing - again! - the AD&D version is similar.

So, looks like we should use the magic jar / BOVD rule of "damage to the item does not harm a creature possessing it".


----------



## Shade (Apr 5, 2012)

Cleon said:


> I appreciate you me sparing me the effort to find where I left my copy!
> 
> Hmm, that's more-or-less how I remembered it from the _*Book of Vile Darkness*_. Unless my memory is failing - again! - the AD&D version is similar.
> 
> So, looks like we should use the magic jar / BOVD rule of "damage to the item does not harm a creature possessing it".




I agree.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 6, 2012)

Shade said:


> I agree.




Like this?:

*Animate Magic Item (Su):* *SNIP*

Damage to the magic item does no harm to a tarsardar animating it, but if the damage is enough to destroy the item the tarsardar is forced to revert to its normal incorporeal form.

A _dispel magic_ spell targeting the magic item will drive out the   animating tarsardar unless it succeeds as a Will save (DC equals the   spell's DC). If the magic item loses all its magical properties, due to a   _disjunction_ spell, anti-magic field or similar effect, the animating tarsardar is automatically ejected from the item.


----------



## freyar (Apr 7, 2012)

OK then.  So does it need to get any kind of DR related to a weapon it possesses?


----------



## Cleon (Apr 8, 2012)

freyar said:


> OK then.  So does it need to get any kind of DR related to a weapon it possesses?




I refer you to:



Cleon said:


> freyar said:
> 
> 
> > Immunity to mind-affecting works for me.
> ...


----------



## freyar (Apr 9, 2012)

My point was that it no longer takes damage when the weapon it's in is attacked, so it doesn't seem to be vulnerable to any attacks while it possesses an item --- how can someone target an incorporeal creature inside an item?  So why does it need DR?


----------



## Shade (Apr 10, 2012)

freyar said:


> My point was that it no longer takes damage when the weapon it's in is attacked, so it doesn't seem to be vulnerable to any attacks while it possesses an item --- how can someone target an incorporeal creature inside an item?  So why does it need DR?




Excellent point!  DR seems superfluous.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 11, 2012)

Shade said:


> Excellent point!  DR seems superfluous.




Well, maybe the special "possessing" DR extends to the weapon it's possessing. So if it's in a _+2 mace_ said mace gains DR against bludgeoning.

Also, there's some flavour about them partially emerging from an item to use their touch attack - which suggests they can make energy touches within their Reach of an item they're possessing, but this exposes them to attack.


----------



## freyar (Apr 11, 2012)

Applying the DR to the item would be ok except for the general rule of thumb against having both DR and hardness.  I'd rather just stick to the item's hardness.

And the bit about partial emergence is getting too complicated for me.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 12, 2012)

freyar said:


> Applying the DR to the item would be ok except for the general rule of thumb against having both DR and hardness.  I'd rather just stick to the item's hardness.




It could be the exception that proves the rule - or, rather, the exception-based design that disproves the rule of thum!



freyar said:


> And the bit about partial emergence is getting too complicated for me.




Do you want to just drop it then?

I can always come up with a Cleon Special.


----------



## Shade (Apr 12, 2012)

No DR for items.   Ewwww!


----------



## Cleon (Apr 13, 2012)

Shade said:


> No DR for items.   Ewwww!




I'll take that as a vote for "let's just drop it then".


----------



## Shade (Apr 13, 2012)

Cleon said:


> I'll take that as a vote for "let's just drop it then".




That _tounges _spells seems to be working!


----------



## Cleon (Apr 14, 2012)

Shade said:


> That _tounges _spells seems to be working!




Niet comprende was du parlez, compadre.

*Casts _greater dispel magic_.

Sure you didn't use the reversed version of _tongues_? 

So, what's next for the Tarsardar?


----------



## freyar (Apr 18, 2012)

We're done with special abilities right?  Just SR, skills, and feats, I think.  

That's 10 skills at 8 ranks each.  I guess UMD should be one, only because it's a "trained only" skill.  Maybe we should just give it an ability to make UMD checks untrained and save the ranks.  What do you think?  Anyway, Spellcraft, Know (arcana), and Know (religion) seem like important skills for these.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 18, 2012)

freyar said:


> We're done with special abilities right?  Just SR, skills, and feats, I think.
> 
> That's 10 skills at 8 ranks each.  I guess UMD should be one, only because it's a "trained only" skill.  Maybe we should just give it an ability to make UMD checks untrained and save the ranks.  What do you think?  Anyway, Spellcraft, Know (arcana), and Know (religion) seem like important skills for these.




Yes, it doesn't really need the skill when it should have a SA that auto-succeeds at UMD checks.

It certainly needs Spellcraft and those 2 Knowledge skills, if not additional Knowledge skills.

The usual Hide, Listen and Spot, I suppose. It has no use for Move Silently when incorporeal, but I suppose it might use it when animating an object.

They retain the knowledge of their former lives, so we should probably give them some skills from the Wizard (like Decipher Script) or Sorcerer (like Bluff) skill lists.

Concentration I guess, since its former existence is practically bound to have that skill.

Which gives us the following 10 for the skills:

Bluff, Concentration, Decipher Script, Knowledge (arcane), Knowledge (religion), Knowledge (the planes), Hide, Listen, Spot, Spellcraft


----------



## freyar (Apr 19, 2012)

That looks like a good skill line to me.

And let's change that paragraph in Animate Magic Item to:
"The tarsardar has complete access to all of the magic item's abilities, and is treated as if it has all prerequisites required to use the magic item (class, caster level, alignment et cetera). It automatically succeeds at any Use Magic Device check it makes to use the animated magic item's magical abilities.  It may make such Use Magic Device checks even if untrained."

CL 5 equivalent for the arcane sight Su?

Flyby Attack and maybe Alertness, Stealthy, or Blind-Fight?


----------



## Cleon (Apr 20, 2012)

freyar said:


> That looks like a good skill line to me.
> 
> And let's change that paragraph in Animate Magic Item to:
> "The tarsardar has complete access to all of the magic item's abilities, and is treated as if it has all prerequisites required to use the magic item (class, caster level, alignment et cetera). It automatically succeeds at any Use Magic Device check it makes to use the animated magic item's magical abilities.  It may make such Use Magic Device checks even if untrained."




Looks OK.



freyar said:


> CL 5 equivalent for the arcane sight Su?




CL 16?

The SRD *Avoral* has CL 14 _true seeing_, and the Tarsardar is a "magic specialist".



freyar said:


> Flyby Attack and maybe Alertness, Stealthy, or Blind-Fight?




Those don't exactly thrill me.

I'd like to think about it for a bit.


----------



## Shade (Apr 20, 2012)

CL 14-16 appeals.

I favor Flyby Attack and Dodge or Improved Initiative.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 22, 2012)

Shade said:


> CL 14-16 appeals.
> 
> I favor Flyby Attack and Dodge or Improved Initiative.




Any CL around there would suit me, and those feats are OK.


----------



## freyar (Apr 23, 2012)

Sure, CL 14.

We have Imp Init as a bonus feat.  Dodge is fine as a 2nd feat; it can use it while possessing something.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 24, 2012)

freyar said:


> Sure, CL 14.
> 
> We have Imp Init as a bonus feat.  Dodge is fine as a 2nd feat; it can use it while possessing something.




No objections to that.


----------



## Shade (Apr 24, 2012)

Do we have a working draft for this one?


----------



## Cleon (Apr 25, 2012)

Shade said:


> Do we have a working draft for this one?




You mean like *this Working Draft*?

I'll update it with what we've got so far.


----------



## freyar (May 2, 2012)

Whenever that's updated, how about CR 3?


----------



## Cleon (May 3, 2012)

freyar said:


> Whenever that's updated, how about CR 3?




My thinking is this is one of those monsters with a very "swingy" Challenge Rating. Basically, its CR depends on what magic items the party has.

CR 3 seems a reasonable ballpark for an incorporeal creature with its Power Touch attacks and myriad defences.

Hmm, it might even lean towards CR 4, depending on the likelihood of its PC opponents being loaded down with magic items for the Tarsardar to turn against them.


----------



## Shade (May 3, 2012)

Cleon said:


> My thinking is this is one of those monsters with a very "swingy" Challenge Rating. Basically, its CR depends on what magic items the party has.
> 
> CR 3 seems a reasonable ballpark for an incorporeal creature with its Power Touch attacks and myriad defences.
> 
> Hmm, it might even lean towards CR 4, depending on the likelihood of its PC opponents being loaded down with magic items for the Tarsardar to turn against them.




I'm inclined to err on the side of caution and go with 4.


----------



## freyar (May 4, 2012)

CR 4 is ok, though I think a party of that level isn't likely to have too many (or too powerful) magic items.


----------



## Cleon (May 6, 2012)

freyar said:


> CR 4 is ok, though I think a party of that level isn't likely to have too many (or too powerful) magic items.




Shall I update it with Challenge Rating 4, then?


----------



## Shade (May 8, 2012)

Cleon said:


> Shall I update it with Challenge Rating 4, then?




Go for it.


----------



## Cleon (May 9, 2012)

Shade said:


> Go for it.




Go for the eyes Boo! Go for the eyes!

Oh, right, we're not converting the Miniature Giant Space Hamster.

*Working Draft* gone for.

Are you OK removing the rest of the red questions? I'm OK cutting them.


----------



## Shade (May 10, 2012)

Cleon said:


> Go for the eyes Boo! Go for the eyes!
> 
> Oh, right, we're not converting the Miniature Giant Space Hamster.




Ahh....good memories.  



Cleon said:


> Are you OK removing the rest of the red questions? I'm OK cutting them.




Yes.  And drop the "special damage reduction" down below.


----------



## Cleon (May 11, 2012)

Shade said:


> Ahh....good memories.
> 
> Yes.  And drop the "special damage reduction" down below.




Updating *Working Draft*.

I cut out the skills entry as well, since we didn't give it any racial bonuses to skills.


----------



## freyar (May 15, 2012)

Whew, stats done?  Just flavor and tactics?  Animate items and blast people with the power touch?


----------



## Cleon (May 15, 2012)

freyar said:


> Whew, stats done?  Just flavor and tactics?  Animate items and blast people with the power touch?




That's about it.

Guess we need generic background info as well as an "In Mystara" section.


----------



## Shade (May 15, 2012)

Cleon said:


> That's about it.
> 
> Guess we need generic background info as well as an "In Mystara" section.




Wouldn't that be an "In the Realms" section?


----------



## Cleon (May 16, 2012)

Shade said:


> Wouldn't that be an "In the Realms" section?




Dang it, I was thinking of the Tarsardar's connection to the goddess Mystra and got a few wires crossed.

Regardless, it needs a "In Wherever-The-Heck-It-Comes-From" section...


----------



## freyar (May 17, 2012)

We should draw from this:


> Tarsardar do obey Azuth and Mystra and their Chosen, but tend to ignore the authority of the current Magister and all clergy of the deities of magic, and to follow the letter and not the spirit of dictates and strictures of Mystra, Azuth, and the Chosen when those beings are not actually present. Many tarsardar have been destroyed for disobedience, or forcibly and permanently transformed into wingless wonders, common mules, and other creatures (sometimes even those suitable for use as familiars). When such destruction occurs (at the hands of Azuth or Mystra), the tarsardar can be viewed as having shifted alignment, losing the lawful (and perhaps the neutral) facet of their nature.
> 
> Tarsardar never willingly fight each other, even by means of items they animate. Rival mortals who attack each other with items that are inhabited by tarsardar will usually discover that such items suddenly become inert, all powers simply refusing to activate.




In the Realms
Tarsardar serve Azuth and Mystra, often grudgingly.  They will obey the two gods and their Chosen, but they ignore their Magister and priests.  Tarsardar also enjoy twisting Mystra's and Azuth's doctrines as much as they can get away with, but the gods take notice and, at times, punish these wayward servants.  Tarsardar that misbehave so much as to change alignment often find themselves transformed into other creatures, including Eggs that Walk.


----------



## Cleon (May 18, 2012)

freyar said:


> We should draw from this:
> 
> 
> In the Realms
> Tarsardar serve Azuth and Mystra, often grudgingly.  They will obey the two gods and their Chosen, but they ignore their Magister and priests.  Tarsardar also enjoy twisting Mystra's and Azuth's doctrines as much as they can get away with, but the gods take notice and, at times, punish these wayward servants.  Tarsardar that misbehave so much as to change alignment often find themselves transformed into other creatures, including Eggs that Walk.




Apart from preferring "Wingless Wonder" for "Eggs that Walk" that loks fine to me.


----------



## freyar (May 21, 2012)

Aren't the Eggs that Walk the "transformed" Wingless Wonders?  So shouldn't these be transformed into Eggs that Walk?  Or am I confused about something?


----------



## Shade (May 22, 2012)

freyar said:


> Aren't the Eggs that Walk the "transformed" Wingless Wonders?  So shouldn't these be transformed into Eggs that Walk?  Or am I confused about something?




Where did "Eggs that Walk" arise again????


----------



## Cleon (May 22, 2012)

freyar said:


> Aren't the Eggs that Walk the "transformed" Wingless Wonders?  So shouldn't these be transformed into Eggs that Walk?  Or am I confused about something?




They are called "transformed wonders" or "transformed wingless wonders" in the monster write-ups I found.

Plus, the writeups only used "walking egg", there weren't any examples of an "egg that walks". Also, the "walking egg" was a synonym for the wingless wonder, not a name that only applied to the "transformed walking wonder" as opposed to the "true walking wonder".


----------



## freyar (May 23, 2012)

Ahhh, sorry, "Walking Egg."  But here, I thought Cleon suggested using "Walking Egg" for the transformed version.


----------



## Cleon (May 24, 2012)

freyar said:


> Ahhh, sorry, "Walking Egg."  But here, I thought Cleon suggested using "Walking Egg" for the transformed version.




No, I was suggesting we use different names for the "rod of wonder" version and the "force blast" version.

Maybe the ten-tentacled 90% Magic Resistance "wonderblast" 2d4 bite version can become an "Alkada, Wingless Wonder" (since it's the one with the _rod of wonder_ power) and the eight-tentacled 44% Magic Resistance "forceburst" 4d4 bite version can become an "Alkada, Walking Egg" (you don't want to break that egg! It's always walking because it doesn't have a swim speed!).

I'd better copy the above over to the *Wingless Wonder thread*.


----------



## freyar (May 28, 2012)

For some reason, I keep thinking the transformed ones are the force blast ones, but that must just be in my head.  

Well, ok, let's just insert "Wingless Wonders" in the above Realms text.


----------



## Cleon (May 31, 2012)

freyar said:


> For some reason, I keep thinking the transformed ones are the force blast ones, but that must just be in my head.
> 
> Well, ok, let's just insert "Wingless Wonders" in the above Realms text.




Either "Wingless Wonders" or "Alkadas" works for me.


----------



## freyar (Jun 5, 2012)

In the Realms
Tarsardar serve Azuth and Mystra, often grudgingly. They will obey the two gods and their Chosen, but they ignore their Magister and priests. Tarsardar also enjoy twisting Mystra's and Azuth's doctrines as much as they can get away with, but the gods take notice and, at times, punish these wayward servants. Tarsardar that misbehave so much as to change alignment often find themselves transformed into other creatures, including Wingless Wonders.


----------



## Cleon (Jun 5, 2012)

freyar said:


> In the Realms
> Tarsardar serve Azuth and Mystra, often grudgingly. They will obey the two gods and their Chosen, but they ignore their Magister and priests. Tarsardar also enjoy twisting Mystra's and Azuth's doctrines as much as they can get away with, but the gods take notice and, at times, punish these wayward servants. Tarsardar that misbehave so much as to change alignment often find themselves transformed into other creatures, including Wingless Wonders.




Hmm, upon reflection we could trim that down a bit. There's also a bunch of stuff in the following we can stick in the general info.



freyar said:


> We should draw from this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




How about...

_A __glowing __ghostlike figure glides through the air. Its shape constantly flows and changes, but includes the vague outline of a humanoid head and shoulders__._

A tarsardar is an incorporeal creature formed from the spirit of a deceased mortal spellcaster. They are created by a god or power of magic to serve its interests on the Prime Material Plane. Tarsardars have the exotic ability to possess and animate any magic item.

A tarsardar retains the personality and memory it had in life. It follows the dictates of whichever deity created it, but tends to obey the letter rather than the spirit of its duties when not in the presence of a godlike master. Tarsardars created by the same deity never willingly fight each other. A tarsardar possessing a magic item renders the item inert if its owner attempts to use it against another tarsardar or a tarsardar-possessed magic item.

A tarsardar is 5 to 6 feet tall and is weightless. It can speak whatever languages it knew in life in a whispering voice, and can also communicate telepathically with any other creature it touches.

*In the Realms*
Tarsardar serve Mystra by trying to increase the use and allure of magic. They obey the golds Mystra, Azuth, and their Chosen, but tend to ignore their Magister and priests.  Some tarsardar enjoy twisting Mystra and Azuth's doctrines, but the gods take notice and, at times, punish  these wayward servants. Disobedient tarsardar are destroyed, or permanently transformed into a shameful creature such as a mule, toad or Wingless Wonder.

***

That last bit reminds me, have we given it "touch telepathy" yet.

Hmm, checking the *Working Draft* it seems we haven't. Just adding telepathy (touch range) to the Special Qualities ought to cover it.

Oh, and we don't seem to have a number for the Spell Resistance X yet.


----------



## freyar (Jun 7, 2012)

I'll agree to that text and the telepathy.  

SR would seem to be between 17 and 23 (depending on whether we are basing it on 66% resistance for a level 4 or level 10 caster).  I guess I'd go somewhere in the middle, like SR 20, but I'm open to suggestions.


----------



## Cleon (Jun 7, 2012)

freyar said:


> I'll agree to that text and the telepathy.
> 
> SR would seem to be between 17 and 23 (depending on whether we are basing it on 66% resistance for a level 4 or level 10 caster).  I guess I'd go somewhere in the middle, like SR 20, but I'm open to suggestions.




SR 20 seems a nice round number, so I'll update the *Working Draft* with that.

That just leaves coming up with a tactics entry and we're done.


----------



## freyar (Jun 8, 2012)

Tarsardar animate the most powerful magic item they can find, and they are often content to lie in hiding for long periods of time, sometimes even masquerading as intelligent items.  Tarsardar will use their power touch if necessary, but they prefer to use the abilities of the items they inhabit.


----------



## Cleon (Jun 10, 2012)

freyar said:


> Tarsardar animate the most powerful magic item they can find, and they are often content to lie in hiding for long periods of time, sometimes even masquerading as intelligent items.  Tarsardar will use their power touch if necessary, but they prefer to use the abilities of the items they inhabit.




Wouldn't most of the first sentence be better in background info, rather than tactics?

e.g.:

A tarsardar retains the personality and memory it had in life. It   follows the dictates of whichever deity created it, but tends to obey   the letter rather than the spirit of its duties when not in the presence   of a godlike master. Tarsardars created by the same deity never   willingly fight each other. A tarsardar possessing a magic item renders   the item inert if its owner attempts to use it against another  tarsardar  or a tarsardar-possessed magic item.

Tarsardar sometimes masquerade as intelligent magic items, but are often content to lie in hiding for long periods of time. Many are curious about magical phenomena and will move to investigate unusual magic, leading to an erroneous belief they somehow feed off magic.

A tarsardar is 5 to 6 feet tall and is weightless. It can speak whatever   languages it knew in life in a whispering voice, and can also   communicate telepathically with any other creature it touches.

*COMBAT*

  A tarsardar will inhabit the most powerful magic item it can gain access too. Tarsardar prefer to fight using the abilities of animated magic items, but use their power touch if necessary.


----------



## freyar (Jun 11, 2012)

Ehh, it's not necessarily _combat_ tactics, but it is a tactic.  Still, it's ok in flavor instead.


----------



## Cleon (Jun 11, 2012)

freyar said:


> Ehh, it's not necessarily _combat_ tactics, but it is a tactic.  Still, it's ok in flavor instead.




Updating the *Working Draft*.

Anything missing, or are we done?


----------



## freyar (Jun 11, 2012)

Looks done at first glance.


----------



## Cleon (Jun 12, 2012)

freyar said:


> Looks done at first glance.




So what's next?


----------



## freyar (Jun 13, 2012)

Don't know.  And it seems like Shade hasn't been on ENWorld this month.  Was he going on vacation again?


----------



## Cleon (Jun 13, 2012)

freyar said:


> Don't know.  And it seems like Shade hasn't been on ENWorld this month.  Was he going on vacation again?




I don't remember Shade saying anything to that effect.


----------



## freyar (Jun 14, 2012)

I don't either, and the email I tried to send him today bounced.    Hopefully, everything's ok for him.  I might PM him, but I don't know if he gets email notifications about them.


----------



## Cleon (Jun 15, 2012)

freyar said:


> I don't either, and the email I tried to send him today bounced.    Hopefully, everything's ok for him.  I might PM him, but I don't know if he gets email notifications about them.




Well, we just have to hope everything's allright with him and carry on by ourselves.


----------



## JohnSmith (Aug 12, 2014)

*Render of Zhentil Keep*

The Render of Zhentil Keep has only a 3.0 version

Is this ok for 3.5?


*Size/Type:*Large Magical Beast*Hit Dice:*13d10+52 (123 hp)*Initiative:*+2*Speed:*40 ft. (8 squares)*Armor Class:*23 (-1 size, +2 Dex, +12 natural), touch 11, flat-footed 22*Base Attack/Grapple:*+15/+26*Attack:*Claw +19 melee (1d6+7) or bite +14 melee (2d6+3)*Full Attack:*2 claws +19 melee (1d6+7) and bite +14 melee (2d6+3)*Space/Reach:*5 ft./10 ft.*Special Attacks:*Paralyzing gaze, improved grab, rend, rage*Special Qualities:*Damage reduction 10/magic, SR 17, regeneration 5, immunities, Darkvision out to 60 feet,  low-light vision*Saves:*Fort +12, Ref +10, Will +6*Abilities:*Str 24, Dex 15, Con 18, Int 13, Wis 14, Cha 13*Skills:*Hide +14, Listen +17, Spot +17*Feats:*Alertness, Cleave, Great Cleave, Power Attack, Weapon Focus (claw)*Environment:*Any Land*Organization:*Solitary*Challenge Rating:*15*Treasure:*None*Alignment:*Always chaotic evil*Advancement:*14-19 HD (Large); 20-39 HD (Huge)*Level Adjustment:*-


----------



## freyar (Aug 12, 2014)

I'd say this is overall pretty good.  The skills seem to be a little off, though.  You can put 17 ranks in each of those three skills, so Hide should be 17+2 Dex -4 size penalty =+15.  Listen and Spot should each be 17+2 Wis +2 Alertness = +21, at least by my reckoning.

Someday we will get around to updating all the 3.0 critters to 3.5e, by the way.  But we're prioritizing conversions of critters that have never been given a 3.X treatment at all.


----------



## Cleon (Aug 12, 2014)

JohnSmith said:


> The Render of Zhentil Keep has only a 3.0 version
> 
> Is this ok for 3.5?
> 
> ...




The BAB/Grapple should be +13/+24 and the Space ought to be 10 ft.

You're also short a few skill points - with Int 13 it can max out three skills at 16 ranks apiece, enough for Hide +14, Listen +20, Spot +20 (including the +2 bonus to Spot & Listen from its Alertness feat).

Oh, and its claw attack ought to be +20 melee, but that was an error in the original, probable due to forgetting to include its Weapon Focus. (13 BAB +7 Str -1 size +1 weapon focus = 13+7-1+1 = 20)

The Challenge Rating's also too high - 3.0 creatures tended to have CRs too high for the actual threat they represent.


----------



## JohnSmith (Aug 12, 2014)

Size/Type: 	Large Magical Beast
Hit Dice: 	13d10+52 (123 hp)
Initiative: 	+2
Speed: 	40 ft. (8 squares)
Armor Class: 	23 (-1 size, +2 Dex, +12 natural), touch 11, flat-footed 22
Base Attack/Grapple: 	+13/+24
Attack: 	Claw +20 melee (1d6+7) or bite +14 melee (2d6+3)
Full Attack: 	2 claws +20 melee (1d6+7) and bite +14 melee (2d6+3)
Space/Reach: 	10 ft./10 ft.
Special Attacks: 	Paralyzing gaze, improved grab, rend, rage
Special Qualities: 	Damage reduction 10/magic, SR 17, regeneration 5, immunities, Darkvision out to 60 feet, low-light vision
Saves: 	Fort +12, Ref +10, Will +6
Abilities: 	Str 24, Dex 15, Con 18, Int 13, Wis 14, Cha 13
Skills: 	Hide +14, Listen +20, Spot +20
Feats: 	Alertness, Cleave, Great Cleave, Power Attack, Weapon Focus (claw)
Environment: 	Any Land
Organization: 	Solitary
Challenge Rating: 	13
Treasure: 	None
Alignment: 	Always chaotic evil
Advancement: 	14-19 HD (Large); 20-39 HD (Huge)
Level Adjustment: 	-


----------



## JohnSmith (Aug 12, 2014)

Since this is like a Gray Render (CR 8), with many improvements, then i assume that even CR 13 might be too high. Its too hot here, i am sweating buckets. I would go for a 10.


----------



## Cleon (Aug 12, 2014)

JohnSmith said:


> Since this is like a Gray Render (CR 8), with many improvements, then i assume that even CR 13 might be too high. Its too hot here, i am sweating buckets.




I'd eyeball it as somewhere around CR 10, but Challenge Ratings are not an exact science.


----------



## Cleon (Aug 12, 2014)

JohnSmith said:


> Special Qualities:     Damage reduction 10/magic, SR 17, regeneration 5, immunities, Darkvision out to 60 feet, low-light vision




Noticed a minor error, the "Darkvision out to 60 feet" shouldn't have the "out to".

Just "darkvision 60 ft." is the normal format.


----------

