Ropers -- wow
- Thread starter Noumenon
- Start date
Kerrick
First Post
I've got an easy fix for this part, at least - just increase the DC by +2 for each strand that hits a given target. Ropers are smart - they'll concentrate most, if not all, of their attacks on one target, so this cuts down the number of rolls by a bit.
Jeff Wilder
First Post
What is this fixing?
First, the damage is Strength damage. It stacks. Having only one save probably hoses the roper. (Heh.)
Second, whether a roper would concentrate tentacle attacks probably depends on how the DM runs combat. If the DM rolls one attack, then the player rolls a save, then the DM rolls 2d8 Strength damage, the roper probably won't be attacking one target with more than two or three strands.
On the other hand, if the DM rolls all hits, then does all saves, then does all damage, it would make more sense for the roper to concentrate on one target.
Infiniti2000
First Post
That's significantly out of context. It is nowhere near that bad. It actually says, "If the characters attempt to negotiate with the roper, allow player characters to make Diplomacy checks. Since the roper isn't very hungry right now, it can be satisfied with a simple change of fare." Additionally, it "listens to any pleas to save the character."
Even more importantly, there's a sidebar that warns, "If you know that your group of players will assault the roper, it might be best to omit this encounter altogether." It goes on to explain why the roper is even in here.
So, you're simply misremembering the module big-time. You certainly owe Bruce Cordell an apology because he didn't even write The Forge of Fury, Richard Baker did. Bruce Cordell and Monte Cook were simply playtesters.
Kerrick
First Post
Yeah, I know that - on both counts. The roper is hugely overpowered; I think we can agree on that. Another, probably better "fix" would simply be to reduce the amount of Str damage (to, say, 2d6) or rule that it's either poison or a negative energy effect. I'd lean toward a venom of some sort, since that makes more sense. With poisons, also, the DC increases (at least, that's the way I rule it - if you get hit multiple times by the same poison before you make the initial save, the DC increases and the effect remains the same). The way it reads (take damage or make a Fort save for no effect), it seems like it IS a poison.
True. But it's really the same amount of rolling, no matter how many targets it attacks - each one will have to roll a save on a hit. That's what Noumenen is saying, too: "First you roll six ranged touch attacks for each one. Obviously at least four of these are going to hit. Now you have to roll four to six Fortitude saves."
I guess it's really how you want to play it - if you think the damage stacks, the roper would most likely concentrate on one target (the strongest one) to incapacitate it quickly; if the damage doesn't stack, it would most likely either attack multiple targets, or attack the weakest one (the one most likely to fall victim to its poison) first.
I ran some roper encounters when my party entered some caves in the night below campain. Its a ad&d boxed set so I just converted them to 3.5. My group was about level 10 so the three ropers probably should have taken them down without a problem. I fact without fudging the dice the beasts got trashed. My players started screaming they were gooing to die as the fighter and the thief were both paralysed in round one but since the priest and sorcerer were still out of range and could walk back a bit my players didn´t realise they were always going to win. They made a skill check and got to know the buggers are vulnerable to fire. While the thief and fighter got slowly eaten the sorcerer was sending round afther round of scorcing rays at them and I believe the cleric helped as well. They go down so fast and don´t do to much real damage. So they are great to freak out your players but as long as you don´t down all your players at once and leave some room to walk backwards, they are not that letal. Good times with one of the most clasic monsters. I think they just need some more love and recognition for the great way they are designed. CR 12 seems about right.
Zanticor
Zanticor
Infiniti2000
First Post
Did the sorcerer also roll 20 after 20 for SR? I think not. This tactic only works if 2 things occur: (1) the sorcerer has assay resistance and can still manage to wipe out the ropers with only half his spells functioning, (2) the DM designs the encounter stupidly such that the ropers do not position themselves in an advantageous location (they dwell in caves, so what idiotic roper dwells in a cave with a longer-than-50-foot section where he can be pot-shotted from?).
I remember that encounter quite well - none of the characters died. The roper just grabbed one of them and then the party negotiated until the roper was happy.
I think it's a great encounter - every adventure should have a similar one, i.e. an encounter that cannot be won through brute force.
I also make it a point to stick to the DMG recommendation: 5% of all encounters should be with monsters with an EL of 5+ higher than the effective party level.
In my first adventure I included an advanced choker in an irrelevant side branch of an underground area. Yes it killed one of them, but it also taught them to act carefully and concentrate on their goal for the adventure.
Both encounters are still well remembered by my players after 4+ years.
Most of the other official adventures from WotC unfortunately neglected this kind of encounters even though they serve a valuable purpose. Naturally, I've been quite happy about the Irontooth encounter in the first 4E adventure.
Shin Okada
Explorer
While I tend to agree with you in that part, the said encounter has many problems for that purpose.
First of all, unless players act according to meta-gaming knowledge (that means, reading MM), PCs may not imagine that strange looking monster to be a negotiable one at all.
Also, without such information, PCs cannot know that the said monster is something too strong for them. So, when a party member suddenly captured by a monster, DMs can't expect players to start negotiation instead of fighting.
The third problem is language. Roper speaks Terran and Undercommon. It often happens that no-one in the party can speak those languages. Unless the party mage has a scroll of Comprehend Languages ready (unlikely), many parties cannot negotiate with it even if they want.
So the encounter is almost automatic party member loss without any way to prevent, at best (TPK, at worst).
Just putting a strong hungry monster does not make a "not meant to be solved by simple violence" encounter.
The sorcerer indeed had assay and greater assay spell resistence. The ropers were just to busy eating the thief and the fighter and could not reach the others. If you combine ropers with extreme landscape advantage I would say that ads +2 ECL. I don´t think playing these beasts as overconfident lazy buggers that expect everything that walks in to immediately perish, as beeing to unrealistic. The also won´t start helping eachother because they don´t strike me as beeing overly social concious. They are just a great party scare but as long as they don´t take out your whole party at once they should be fine. Just shoot them use fire or run like hell.
Zanticor
Similar Threads
