Happy Funball
First Post
Ha! Fear my 3.5 wickedness in all its splendor!
-
NOW LIVE! -- We Ain't Afraid Of No Ghosts: Halloween Horror For 5E on Kickstarter!
Compiled 3.5 Revisions
- Thread starter Olgar Shiverstone
- Start date
Ha! Fear my 3.5 wickedness in all its splendor!
Happy Funball
First Post
Is that a taunt?!?
Shard O'Glase
First Post
greymarch said:
Wow I missed that about the cloak. It just sucks now, 50,000 for 15 rounds of displacement a day, lame. Defense is one area that they didn't need to weaken the game in the revision. If this ends up being even more offense and less defense I'll be pissed. It was about as high offense/low defense as I could stand.
James McMurray
First Post
greymarch said:
Except that the powering down of Haste lowers the effectiveness of the boots much more than the change to a free action raises it.
kallisti_dk
First Post
Arcana:
Constructs, Dragons and Magical Beasts
Dungeoneering:
Aberrations and Oozes
Nature:
Animals, Fey, Giant, Monstrous Humanoids, Plants and Vermin
Religion:
Undead
The Planes:
Outsiders and Elementals
There is no knowledge skill that covers humanoids as a whole. You could probably use Local, History or Geography, depending on the circumstances.
The DC to remeber a piece of useful information about a monster (powers and vulnerabilities) is 10 + the monsters HD. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you gain another piece of useful information.
Personally, I like this rule a lot. This can really help keep some veteran players in line regarding monster knowledge, and help new players that haven't memorized the MM.
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
I agree, its a great rule.
My players are average level about 10th at the moment, and they were asking me whether they know about fire to stop trolls regenerating - their characters have never actually met trolls, but they've been around the block a few times. This is a nice way of giving them a game mechanic for knowing.
I might make the initial roll give an idea of its offensive capabilities and the higher "secrets" let on to its defensive loopholes.
My players are average level about 10th at the moment, and they were asking me whether they know about fire to stop trolls regenerating - their characters have never actually met trolls, but they've been around the block a few times. This is a nice way of giving them a game mechanic for knowing.
I might make the initial roll give an idea of its offensive capabilities and the higher "secrets" let on to its defensive loopholes.
drnuncheon
First Post
kallisti_dk said:
What an...unusual roll. I think when I use it I'll base it on the rarity of the creature - which is by no means connected to its hit dice. It'll avoid the "red dragon? Never heard of it. Let me tell you all about the pseudodragon, though..." problem.
J
Pielorinho
Iron Fist of Pelor
I agree, it's a little bit weird as a roll. What person with the smallest amount of interest in monster stories doesn't know three different vulnerabilities of a vampire? And yet how many fantasy geeks know that a particular kind of small spotted lizard can send out a serious electrical jolt?
This mechanic makes it harder to know the vulnerabilities of your average vampire than to know the powers of a shocker lizard. That's a problem IMO.
Although I understand why they did it this way (part of D&D's philosophy is to make the DM a referee, not a judge, I think), I'll handle it differently, much closer to a bardic knowledge check. Famous monsters have a low initial DC: in order to remember that a black dragon breathes acid, we're talking DC 5. Somewhat well-known monsters have a moderate initial DC: a knowledge/INT check of 10+ will remind you that trolls are especially vulnerable to fire or acid. Lesser-known monsters have a higher initial DC: knowledge check 15, and you remember that the touch of a cockatrice is deadly. Obscure monsters have progressively higher DC: unless you make a check of 20+, you won't realize that a gibbering mouther can confuse people with its chatter.
I'll probably say that any check with a DC of 15 or below can be made by the untrained (using common knowledge in the world), but that DCs higher than 15 require at least one rank in the appropriate knowledge. This means that even the untrained may get the second snippet of important information on trolls (DC 15: they regenerate all wounds beyond fire and acid!), but only the trained will remember the third bit of information (DC 20 if you stand and fight them hand-to-hand, they'll grab you in both hands and rip you apart, so it's better to use hit-and-run tactics against them).
And obviously, different campaigns will consider different monsters famous, moderately-known, less-known, or obscure. That's okay by me.
Daniel
This mechanic makes it harder to know the vulnerabilities of your average vampire than to know the powers of a shocker lizard. That's a problem IMO.
Although I understand why they did it this way (part of D&D's philosophy is to make the DM a referee, not a judge, I think), I'll handle it differently, much closer to a bardic knowledge check. Famous monsters have a low initial DC: in order to remember that a black dragon breathes acid, we're talking DC 5. Somewhat well-known monsters have a moderate initial DC: a knowledge/INT check of 10+ will remind you that trolls are especially vulnerable to fire or acid. Lesser-known monsters have a higher initial DC: knowledge check 15, and you remember that the touch of a cockatrice is deadly. Obscure monsters have progressively higher DC: unless you make a check of 20+, you won't realize that a gibbering mouther can confuse people with its chatter.
I'll probably say that any check with a DC of 15 or below can be made by the untrained (using common knowledge in the world), but that DCs higher than 15 require at least one rank in the appropriate knowledge. This means that even the untrained may get the second snippet of important information on trolls (DC 15: they regenerate all wounds beyond fire and acid!), but only the trained will remember the third bit of information (DC 20 if you stand and fight them hand-to-hand, they'll grab you in both hands and rip you apart, so it's better to use hit-and-run tactics against them).
And obviously, different campaigns will consider different monsters famous, moderately-known, less-known, or obscure. That's okay by me.
Daniel
Im not sure I agree with this, I mean Im not trying to tell you how to run your game, just a friendly dispute about interpretation. See I think the fire and acid thing is only common if trolls are common. Personally Ive never fought a troll in 3e, but of course while *I* knew the vulnerabilities (being a well-read MM user) I wouldnt use them against trolls unless I was trained in the knowledge appropriate (we used Knowledge (Monsters)).
It seems if someone described a troll to me, however, I could imagine that their obvious offensive would be their over-long arms, almost gorilla-like and their sharp claws. Nothing about a physical description, drawing or artist's rendition, or seeing one in the distance suggests they are difficult to kill except with acid and fire. I guess what I'm getting at is the untrained knowledge checks should not be considered to be free "gather information" checks about the monsters, but rather a character's extrapolation of abilities based on what he knows about it.
Of course, it won't probably ever be a big deal (in a 4-person party, most low-level monsters' vulnerabilities are fairly well-known), but I think itd be funny if a long-time player who knew the vulnerabilities had to wait for the newbie to roll the dice, me to tell the newbie, and the newbie to tell him that you kill trolls with fire and acid
Technik
Pielorinho said:
Yeah, this problem comes from them dropping Frequency. Just establish your own freq, could even be based off of 1e and 2e if you want a guideline.
Looks like Slaad have been dropped from the Summon Monster list. I presume this was because they did not release the stats for Slaad in the SRD.
Didn't see this one in your compilation yet, so...
The Light Lance has been dropped (can be replaced with a Small Lance if needed, I assume). The Lance (formerly Heavy Lance) is now a 2-handed weapon with reach.
AFAIK, that means it will no longer be possible to do the classical "lance and shield" mounted knight without resorting to things like Monkey Grip. I asked for clarification on that last point on some of the various Q&A threads (one-handed Lance use might be an additional benefit of the Mounted Combat feat, for example), but nobody has bothered to answer yet...
The Light Lance has been dropped (can be replaced with a Small Lance if needed, I assume). The Lance (formerly Heavy Lance) is now a 2-handed weapon with reach.
AFAIK, that means it will no longer be possible to do the classical "lance and shield" mounted knight without resorting to things like Monkey Grip. I asked for clarification on that last point on some of the various Q&A threads (one-handed Lance use might be an additional benefit of the Mounted Combat feat, for example), but nobody has bothered to answer yet...
Pielorinho
Iron Fist of Pelor
Technik4 said:
It's a matter of interpretation. First, I don't think it's important how *common* the monster is; I think it's important how *famous* it is. Some rare creatures such as red dragons will have better-known abilities than other more common creatures.
Second, I brought up vampires because nothing about their appearance suggests that holy symbols, sunlight, or stakes would be especially effective against them; however, any geek (in the Western world) with any interest in monsters knows that these things work vs. vampires.
Third, I actually handle it differently in my world anyway. Rather than try to tell people that they don't know the abilities listed in the MM, I ask people to use a little bit of discretion -- and then I tell them that the MM contains legends, not facts. Creatures in my world might differ significantly from their descriptions in the MM: ghosts might be corporeal, dragons might have no breath weapon, trolls may be great shaggy creatures who regenerate everything except slashing weapon damage. Hopefully people are kept enough off their guard that they don't get complacent
.Daniel
Lela
First Post
Conaill said:
Why couldn't a medium creature use a smaller lance?
Or did I miss an change somewhere?
Pielorinho said:
Third, I actually handle it differently in my world anyway. Rather than try to tell people that they don't know the abilities listed in the MM, I ask people to use a little bit of discretion -- and then I tell them that the MM contains legends, not facts. Creatures in my world might differ significantly from their descriptions in the MM: ghosts might be corporeal, dragons might have no breath weapon, trolls may be great shaggy creatures who regenerate everything except slashing weapon damage. Hopefully people are kept enough off their guard that they don't get complacent
Daniel
Nice. YOINK.
Last edited:
I mostly agree with what you said, just thought this was funny. How many western world geeks do you think would be adventurers? I was always bugged by the "we're geeks and we know what will kill vampires, so of course any self-respecting adventurer would!" theory. If I was a vampire I would spend at least a good hundred years spreading lies about vampire vulnerabilities. Sure, its not gonna fool the seasoned vets, but it will at least throw some of the population off the trail.
Good point about commonality vs fame though.
Technik
kallisti_dk
First Post
Remember, that even though there are many tales of the great monsters of legend, eg. vampires, dragons etc., these tales may be wildly inaccurate and misleading. So while there may a lot of info freely available about big HD monsters, it might not might be useful.
Consider this:
- The more HD a monster has, the more dangerous it is.
- The more dangerous a monster is, the farther away from civilization it is AND the fewer people have survived encounters with it.
- Therefore, studies of big HD monster are rare and dangerous.
- Therefore, the more HD a monster has, the less useful information will be available.
Conclusion:
While there might be a lot of free info about "popular" and big monsters, most of it will be hearsay and legend. Useful information is hard to come by, and remember, the Knowledge skill explicitly says _useful_ information. So it seems to me that the "HD determines DC" mechanic is justified.
I might still use the +2/-2 circumstance modifier mechanic, though, for particularly obscure or common monsters.
Consider this:
- The more HD a monster has, the more dangerous it is.
- The more dangerous a monster is, the farther away from civilization it is AND the fewer people have survived encounters with it.
- Therefore, studies of big HD monster are rare and dangerous.
- Therefore, the more HD a monster has, the less useful information will be available.
Conclusion:
While there might be a lot of free info about "popular" and big monsters, most of it will be hearsay and legend. Useful information is hard to come by, and remember, the Knowledge skill explicitly says _useful_ information. So it seems to me that the "HD determines DC" mechanic is justified.
I might still use the +2/-2 circumstance modifier mechanic, though, for particularly obscure or common monsters.
Pielorinho
Iron Fist of Pelor
kallisti_dk said:
Possibly; on the other hand, the bards are likelier to sing about the exploits of the group that escaped from the Illithid's Underdark city than about the group that cleaned out the nest of shocker lizards in the swamp. It's the big creatures that'll enter legend more often. Similarly, folks fighting grimlocks are less likely to hunt down a knowledgeable sage to ask questions than are folks battling white dragons: the less dangerous a creature, the less call there will be for information about it.
As I said, though, I'm fine having MM material be inaccurate. I just know that as a player, I don't enjoy pretending not to know how to fight (for example) trolls and having to spend a couple of rounds fighting them stupidly until I think I can genuinely conclude my character would have figured out what would be an efective fighting style. I'd much rather my DM change the creature's stats so that I as a player can enjoy alongside my character the fun of figuring out the new, mysterious creature's strengths and weaknesses.
Daniel