Converting Creatures from Other Campaign Settings
- Status
Big Mac
Explorer
He's right. It should say something like this:
Base Attack/Grapple: +2/+8
Attack: 3 tendrils +8 melee (1d6+3)
Full Attack: 3 tendrils +8 melee (1d6+3)
Attack: 3 tendrils +8 melee (1d6+3)
Full Attack: 3 tendrils +8 melee (1d6+3)
I also think the combat section needs to copy some, but not all, of the things from the hydra:
Hydra said:
The first sentence/paragraph seems to work OK:
Arid bloodthorns can attack with all their tendrils at no penalty, even if they move or charge during the round.
Do we want to allow people to sunder the tendrils? That would give us something a bit like this:
An arid bloodthorn can be killed either by severing all its tendrils or by slaying its body. To sever a tendrils, an opponent must make a successful sunder attempt with a slashing weapon. (The player should declare where the attack is aimed before making the attack roll.) Making a sunder attempt provokes an attack of opportunity unless the foe has the Improved Sunder feat. An opponent can strike at an arid bloodthorn’s tendrils from any position in which he could strike at the arid bloodthorn itself, because the arid bloodthorn’s tendrils writhe and whip about in combat. An opponent can ready an action to attempt to sunder a arid bloodthorn’s tendril when the creature lashes out at him. Each of a arid bloodthorn’s tendrils has hit points equal to the creature’s full normal hit point total, divided by its original number of tendrils. Losing a tendril deals damage to the body equal to half the tendril’s full normal hit points. A natural reflex seals the vine shut to prevent further sap loss. A arid bloodthorn can no longer attack with a severed tendrils but takes no other penalties.
That second to last sentence might work better as: "A natural reflex seals the vine shut."
The stuff about growing new heads is not appropriate, but if a hydra looses "bonus" heads over time an arid bloodthorn should regain lost tendrils over time. I'd suggest something like this:
Each time a tendril is severed, a new tendril springs from the stump in 1d4 days. To prevent a severed head from growing back, at least 5 points of fire or acid damage must be dealt to the stump (a touch attack to hit) before the new tendril appears. A flaming weapon (or similar effect) deals its energy damage to the stump in the same blow in which a tendril is severed. Fire or acid damage from an area effect may burn multiple stumps in addition to dealing damage to the arid bloodthorn’s body. An arid bloodthorn does not die from losing its tendrils until all its tendrils have been cut off and the stumps seared by fire or acid.
The stuff about fast healing is not appropriate, but if you can sunder the tendrils you need part of the next paragraph:
An arid bloodthorn’s body can be slain just like any other creature’s. Any attack that is not (or cannot be) an attempt to sunder a tendril affects the body.
The last paragraph is almost totally as is:
Targeted magical effects cannot sever a arid bloodthorn’s tendrils (and thus must be directed at the body) unless they deal slashing damage and could be used to make sunder attempts.
I think that is mostly all you need for these creatures, but you need some sort of ability that makes them automatically grapple on a criticle hit: ("If any vine hits by 4 or more over the attack number needed to hit, it wraps around its prey and embeds its thorns in the victim's flesh.")
You also need to make amputated tendrils continue to grapple and inflict damage until removed: ("The thorns of a severed vine still drain blood until the whole vine is carefully detached from a victim - a process that requires one full round.")
The original creature had two ACs. That doesn't seem to fit into 3rd edition so well. Does anyone know of some sort of parry ability that would allow it to protect its body but not its tendrils?
freyar
Extradimensional Explorer
Agreed, which would give them the 3 tendrils in the regular attack.
I like the idea of sundering tendrils. I'd possibly reduce the hp/tendril a little, since I imagine these are kind of thin. I guess about 6hp each is ok, though.
I don't think we need the fire/acid damage thing, since the tendrils would not be growing back during a single combat (unlike hydra heads). I also don't think that sundering all the tendrils should kill the bloodthorn.
Not sure we need the first sentence, since we wouldn't have the hydra's "sundered death" mechanic.
Agreed.
I think the usual Improved Grab converts the intent of this pretty well; now it requires a grapple check but only needs to hit (not by 4 or more over).
Sure, we could add that the the 2nd paragraph you indented above. In addition, or instead, depending on what we think makes sense, we can add that removing the thorns requires a DC X Heal check or deals X hp damage. That's a pretty common mechanic.
I think the normal sunder mechanics should cover the AC of the tendrils, so we should just list 1 AC value.
Big Mac
Explorer
That is you agreeing with me agreeing with you.
Sounds right to me.
You are quite right. Chop out that stuff. A tendril-less arid bloodthorn wouldn't automatically be dead, but without any defence should possibly be vulnerable to a Coup de Grace attack (even though it isn't normally subject to critical hits).
Agreed.
<snip - I agree with your agreement with me
>I missed this. Its already in there.
I think maybe the flavor text could be a bit more like the original version (describing the tendrils as wrapping around opponents rather than grabbing them). This plant grapples, but not in the traditional sense.That is a different way to do it, but if it is what the other monsters all do then maybe it is the best way.
(I wonder whether it is worth describing the bloodthorns themselves as having hollow points. This could allow a plant to use them to "suck" out the blood, but would fit in with the idea of an amputated tendril continuing to cause bloodloss until removed.)
IIRC the sunder mechnanic makes it harder to disarm an oponent than hit them. The old beastie worked the other way (it was easier to hack off the tendrils than stab the heart of the plant). But it really is no big deal. I don't think that feature is that important.
freyar
Extradimensional Explorer
I don't think we want the first sentence that severing all tendrils kills the plant.
Big Mac, I might be getting this wrong, but I think the sunder vs the tendrils is an opposed attack roll rather than a fixed AC because the tendrils are a "weapon" rather than an "object." Though I admit that the rules seem a little vague on this point.
Also, the bloodthorn can move even without tendrils, so I think it shouldn't be CdG'ed, since it's not helpless.
Big Mac, I might be getting this wrong, but I think the sunder vs the tendrils is an opposed attack roll rather than a fixed AC because the tendrils are a "weapon" rather than an "object." Though I admit that the rules seem a little vague on this point.
Also, the bloodthorn can move even without tendrils, so I think it shouldn't be CdG'ed, since it's not helpless.
Shade
Monster Junkie
I don't think we want the first sentence that severing all tendrils kills the plant.
I'm open to suggestions.
Big Mac, I might be getting this wrong, but I think the sunder vs the tendrils is an opposed attack roll rather than a fixed AC because the tendrils are a "weapon" rather than an "object." Though I admit that the rules seem a little vague on this point.
Agreed.
Agreed again.
Big Mac
Explorer
I don't think we want the first sentence that severing all tendrils kills the plant.
I'm open to suggestions.
I already agreed with Freyar on this point. The coup de grace vulnerability was a suggestion for an alternative way to handle this, but I now think that was also wrong.
Big Mac, I might be getting this wrong, but I think the sunder vs the tendrils is an opposed attack roll rather than a fixed AC because the tendrils are a "weapon" rather than an "object." Though I admit that the rules seem a little vague on this point.
Agreed.
I stand corrected. But my point is that in the original monster it was easier to hit the tendrils than the body, but now it is easier to hit the body than the tendrils.
Perhaps the bloodthorn should have some sort of "Sacrificial Parry" ability that allows it to put a tendril into harms way to prevent its body taking the damage.
I suggested that a bloodthorn that looses its tendrils should become defenceless and vulnerable to a coup de grace attack by anyone who attacks it. But thinking again, I think it should retain the ability to run away.
How about if we just say that a bloodthorn with no tendrils is disarmed and looses its ability to attack opponents or to counter grapple attempts. Maybe it could attempt to flee and seek out a safe location where it can grow a new set of tendrils.
freyar
Extradimensional Explorer
Interesting idea, and I see what you mean about being easier to hit the body. We should definitely consider that.
I agree. It can't run away very fast, but that should be part of its tactics description.
Big Mac
Explorer
Mechanically, I think that Shield Other could help keep the body of the bloodthorn alive. If the bloodthorn could transfer a certain amount of damage from its body into its tendrils, it could allow its tendrils to die to keep its body alive.
However, the original creature had no such sort of ability. So I think that it would need to be rebooted and given a different spin. Maybe instead of Sacrificial Parry it could be called Shield Body.
Alternatively, maybe it would be easier if the tendrils could each use the Aid Another action to all give the bloodthorn's body +2 AC. If each tendril was able to do this then a bloodthorns tendrils could work together to give its body a boost of between +6 and +16 AC.
Do we have any examples of creatures engaging in combat when they have no ability to cause damage? I think it could still Overun its oponent as that does not seem to require an ability to cause damage.
- Status
Similar Threads
