[3.5E] New Revision Spotlight - Mummy and Mummy Lord

[MerricB]

One question is: how many of these monsters are getting significant changes?

As a rule, they'll tend to show us those things that have changed. Whilst when you look at the entire picture, it might be nowhere near that much. (The changes to the Blackguard are a case in point. Very, very minor indeed).

If a goblin got a change that made it a CR 1 creature, then we'd be in real trouble, but I doubt that will happen.

Cheers!

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I'd just assume keep anything already existing (e.g., a 3.0 mummy in a published adventure) the same as it was originally published. It might require some tweaking to account for any changes in the way creatures are "built" in 3.5 regarding Hit Dice, Skill Points, Feats, etc., but for the sake of keeping EL integrity of a published adventure I wouldn't switch it to the newer version.

 

[MerricB]

The problem is if a person who has played nothing but 3.5E picks up a 3E based supplement, and tries to run it "as is" without knowing about the changes.

It's probably not a problem for any of us, but it is for newer people. (And is the best reason to list full statblocks in the adventure that I can think of).

Cheers!

 

[Bendris Noulg]

The problem is if a person who has played nothing but 3.5E picks up a 3E based supplement, and tries to run it "as is" without knowing about the changes.

True...

Then again, conversion documents, the 3.0 SRD, and us sagely archivist types are always available for reference.

 

[MerricB]

And there's also an issue about how available 3E-based stuff will be in a year or two, anyway.

If an encounter is slightly tougher than it at first appears - well, that's not unusual. Balancing encounters is NOT just a case of looking at CRs and ELs and comparing to the party's level. I've had so many PC groups just walk over mummy's anyway, that I welcome the changes greatly.

One party might find the tougher mummies more difficult, another might find them walkovers. You can't predict it, really. I see CRs as something that, amortised over many encounters, are pretty accurate.

Cheers!

 

[Drakron]

Not to say that instead of having the usually "every fight is a challange" it ended up with a mix of "park walks" and "beatings".

There are alterations, we will have a feat every 3 levels instead of the current a feat every 4 levels, meaning that what publsihed adventures are meant to remove (comming up with stat blocks) is gone since we already have to revise their feat/skills list and if they are of a class that its revised ... well you better off just remaking it.

So whats left?

Maps and story ... sorry but most adventure stories are pretty bland and maps are not as anoying as full stats blacks.

One thing that 3.5 is not, its being compatble ... they throw that away when they decided to make changes for no reason besides wanting to change things ... there was 4th ed for that but I have no idea of what the hell is going on in WotC minds.

 

[Technik4]

Compatability

Hmm. You know at first I was really psyched about the new monsters, Pit Lord and Mummy, that we've seen. But looking at the context of compatability is a little more desperate.

Did the mummy need those extra HD? Wouldn't it have been better to print a 3.5-version of the 3.0 mummy, and then advance one in the book and call it a "greater mummy" and give one some class levels and call it a "mummy lord". This way, everything is still backwards compatible, and dms have a lot of mummy-ness to throw at characters.

Similarly the new pit fiend should simply be revised to fit 3.5's rules for monsters. Then present an advanced one (like the one we've seen for 3.5).

I have a tickle that those monsters weren't as rigorously tested as they should have been...

Technik

 

[Graf]

skr made lots of good comments, one thing that caught me.

5. snip So that means there _is_ time to playtest 300+ monsters, but not time to playtest 9 metamagic feats, which doesn't make sense ... and concerns me.

If I recall correctly the PHB is getting 12 new pages and the MM is getting many times that number. I don't see a discrepancy between WotC producing lots of new content for the MM (and playtesting it) but not producting a new metamagic system because they don't have time to playtest it.

If their stated goal is to make all the books the same size (and justify their same high price tag) then producing that new content nessessarily to bulk up the smaller books (& paytesting it) is probably a high priority.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

If I recall correctly the PHB is getting 12 new pages and the MM is getting many times that number.

A lot of it might be "class examples" (eg the mummy cleric). You find the same thing in D20 Modern.

1. The hit dice have gone up. That means that any existing adventures that say "The evil high priest has two bodyguard mummies (42 hp)" are suddenly dealing with a much more powerful encounter.

It isn't that many hit points

This means the revision isn't as compatible with 3.5 as we're told.

I definitely agree.

2. If the hit dice go up, the CR should probably go up. If the CR goes up, it means all mummy-based ELs go up as well, which throws existing material out of whack (and could easily kill parties appropriate for the old challenges but not the new ones).

Hmm... I've never used the original mummy, so I don't know if it's a pushover or not. I would have preferred seeing a high-CR monster - those things are usually too easy.

3. If the CR _doesn't_ go up, it makes the cleric's turning even less effective than it is now. For example, a 3.0 mummy has 6 HD and is CR 3, which means the 3rd-level cleric in the party has to roll--assuming no bonuses--a 19 to turn the mummy (which gives a result of "cleric's level +3"). With this revised mummy, if the CR doesn't change, the clr3 has _no_ chance to turn the mummy because the best result he can get is "cleric's level +4" ... which is less than the mummy's 8 HD. Already turning is a non-option at higher levels (since the undead's HD increase faster than the CR of the undead), this just makes it happen sooner.

I hope they change that. If they don't, I hope to see a new turning system on a d20 publisher's website. *coughs*

 

[Endur]

+2 Half-Plate

They are definitely doing something to half-plate in 3.5 (or the author of the MM entry misread half-plate).

I mean, who buys magic half-plate? Full plate provides better protection than half-plate, more dex bonus, etc.

I'll be interested to see what they did to the armors (I thought the armor ratings needed adjustment, but didn't really expect them to change anything).

Tom