Converting Oriental Adventures creatures

[freyar]

Your Sticking Touch looks fine. I only left off Escape Artist checks because you didn't like them before.

Think all you like about the Multiple Actions. It would make them more tactically interesting if they could mix special attacks with normal attacks, that's all.

 

[Cleon]

Your Sticking Touch looks fine. I only left off Escape Artist checks because you didn't like them before.

Oh yes, I'd forgotten about that post. Upon reflection, my earlier concerns about Escape Artist still hold, as (a) the ability allows the user to follow "every move" of the target and (b) Escape Artist is to escape from restraints, and this ability does not restrain the target.

Hold on, the earlier ability mentions the opponent can escape with a "Leap" special ability, so maybe we should substitute a Jump check for Escape Artist?

Reading the fluff text again, I'm wondering whether these shouldn't be opposed skill checks instead of flat DCs, and if the check fails the "sticky" Maiden moves with the opponent they're using Sticky Touch against.

That'd seem to be in keeping with the original ability.

I'd be fine keeping the current draft of Sticky Touch though, I'm pretty happy with it as-is.

Think all you like about the Multiple Actions. It would make them more tactically interesting if they could mix special attacks with normal attacks, that's all.

Upon reflection, it would help ensure the Maidens get to show off most of her special moves before being felled by those blasted PCs, so let's go for it.

We could mix it up a bit more in the description to indicate the wide range of multiple attack combinations:

Second, if the Veiled Maidens performs an attack action, not all attacks need to be of the same type. For example, four bodies may make standard attacks with veils or unarmed strikes, while the other three bodies make two Entangle Weapon special attacks and a Sticking Touch special attack.

 

[freyar]

Let's just stick with the proposed Sticking Touch, dropping Escape Artist if you like. Set the skill DCs at somewhere around 22 to 25, given that the Maidens will be CR 7 or 8 probably?

Let's go with that modification to the Multiple Actions.

 

[Cleon]

Let's just stick with the proposed Sticking Touch, dropping Escape Artist if you like. Set the skill DCs at somewhere around 22 to 25, given that the Maidens will be CR 7 or 8 probably?

Thinking it over, I like the "Jump instead of Escape Artist" idea to break the connection, since the original indicates it was a matter of moving faster or further than the "Sticky" attacker could.

We could make it an opposed skill check rather than a flat DC, since it's a matter of the opponent Jumping or Tumbling better than the attacker, but those flat skill DCs look like they're in the right ballpark.

Let's go with that modification to the Multiple Actions.

That's fine by me, I'll update the Veiled Maidens Working Draft.

 

[freyar]

Ugh, just getting a chance to breathe with work. Sorry the forum has been so dead.

Anyway, let's just keep Sticking Touch as is and move to Strangling Veils. The original is something like what's in the CC version of the Strangle Vine, though we may want to add suffocation danger to it. I feel like we've done this before also but can't remember the critter.

 

[Cleon]

Ugh, just getting a chance to breathe with work. Sorry the forum has been so dead.

Anyway, let's just keep Sticking Touch as is and move to Strangling Veils.

We still haven't agreed on the DC for the check. 22 is OK by me - I don't think it should be that difficult to escape from.

I'm still liking the idea of adding Jump to the escape skills, since the original text says you can "Leap" out of a sticky touch. Furthermore, it's a Str-based skill and the other two skills are Dex-based, so it adds a bit of variety.

We can keep the Escape Artist if you like it - upon reflection, Tumble is a trained-only skill so if that's the only Dex skill option then a non-jumper with a high Dex would be at a disadvantage.

e.g.:

Sticking Touch (Ex): As an attack action, a Veiled Maidens may make a touch attack with either an unarmed strike or veil that, if successful, forms a connection with its opponent that allows the Maidens to feel their opponent's every move. This connection grants the Veiled Maidens a +2 insight bonus to AC and attack rolls against that opponent. The connection can be broken if the opponent succeeds on a DC 22 Escape Artist, Jump or Tumble check; if the Veiled Maidens ends its turn with the opponent outside the reach of its veil (15 ft.); or if the Veiled Maidens chooses to release the connection.

If that's OK by you I'm willing to add it to the Working Draft and move on.

move to Strangling Veils. The original is something like what's in the CC version of the Strangle Vine, though we may want to add suffocation danger to it. I feel like we've done this before also but can't remember the critter.

It's basically just a garotte attack. The stat line for the Veiled Maidens in the combined monster roster even has "SA Garotte" in their entry.

The original entry has:

The first round only, the maidens use a special strangulation attack if the characters accept the dance passively. The first round of the attack, a successful hit roll means an unwary victim must make a save vs. paralyzation. A victim who fails suffers 1d4 points. Each round thereafter, the victim suffers 1-4 points and must make a constitution save or die. Otherwise the maidens make more conventional attacks.

It seems most straightforward to adapt one of the official garotte rules. The most recent 3.5 version is in Dragon #355:

"Strangling Weapons" from Dragon #355
The special attack of garrotting first appeared in Song and Silence. Attempting to strange someone is a form of grappling, and follows all the normal rules for a grapple, except as follows.

Strangulation doesn't work against any creature that does not breathe (such as constructs, deathless, elementals, and undead), nor against oozes, plants, vermin, incorporeal, or ethereal creatures. Your DM might designate other creatures immune to strangulation as well.

When you are grappling, in addition to the other actions you can take (Player's Handbook, 156) you may attempt to gain a strangle hold on your opponent by making a special melee touch attack. If you succeed at this special melee touch attack, you grab hold of your opponent's throat (or slip a garrotte around his neck) and can begin to strangle him on the following round. You do not ignore all of your opponent's armor bonus to his AC when making this attack, as shown on the accompanying chart.

To strangle your opponent you must win an opposed grapple check every round (made in place of an attack). If you use only your hands in the strangle attempt (and not a garrote or other appropriate weapon) you take a -4 penalty on the initial opposed grapple check (but not on any subsequent grapple checks) and cannot strangle a creature larger than yourself. You must use both hands to strangle (unless you have a locking garrote—see below) and cannot take any of the following grapple actions: attack your opponent, draw a light weapon, pin an opponent, retrieve a spell component, or use an opponent's weapon. A creature being strangled cannot attempt to pin an opponent, take an opponent's weapon used to garrotte him, speak, or take any vocal actions (such as casting a spell with a verbal component).

If you succeed at your strangle attempt, your opponent can no longer breathe but can still hold his breath for up to 2 rounds per point of Constitution (beginning that same round). After this period of time, the creature must make a DC 10 Constitution check to continue holding his breath. The save must be repeated each round, with the DC increasing by +1 for each previous success.

When the strangled creature fails one of these Constitution checks, he begins to suffocate. In the first round, he falls unconscious (0 hit points). In the following round, he drops to –1 hit points and is dying. On the third round, he suffocates. If you stop strangling your opponent once he falls unconscious he remains unconscious for 2d6 minutes. An opponent who drops to –1 hit points before you release your strangle hold is automatically stable at –1 hit points. A strangled creature may pretend to fall unconscious by making a successful Bluff check.

AC VERSUS STRANGULATION
[TABLE="width: 500"] [TR] [TD]Armor Type[/TD] [TD]Target’s AC modifier against Strangulation Attack[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Natural armor[/TD] [TD]Provides normal protection (equal to the bonus of the natural armor)[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Full plate[/TD] [TD]Provides a +4 armor bonus[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Leather collar[/TD] [TD]Provides a +4 bonus[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Gorget[/TD] [TD]Provides a +10 bonus[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE]
HIT POINT STRANGULATION
As an optional rule, you may have strangling damage instead of, or even in addition to, causing suffocation. In this cast, for each round you maintain a strangle hold you deal 1d3 points of nonlethal damage (Small creatures deal 1d2) plus 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier. You can make this damage lethal with a –4 penalty on your opposed grapple checks, if you have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, or if you use a garrote.
​

That seems rather over-complicated, so I think we can boil it down into a simpler special attack. Probably one that only affects flat-footed or surprised opponents, since the original version says it only works against "passively" accepting victims on the first round of an encounter.

A whip, spiked chain, or steel cable does 1d8 strangling damage according to those rules, so I reckon that's how much the Strangling Veils ought to do.

 

[freyar]

This final Sticking Touch works for me.

Yes, I was trying to say that we've done a simplified garrotting attack for some critter before. Anyway, characteristics we want: touch attack, affects only opponents who are denied their Dex bonus to AC, 1d8 hit point "strangulation damage" variant, victim can't speak. Should that body of the Veiled Maidens be considered grappled?

 

[Cleon]

This final Sticking Touch works for me.

Updating the Veiled Maidens Working Draft.

Yes, I was trying to say that we've done a simplified garrotting attack for some critter before.

The closest I can think of offhand is the Constrict attack we gave our Greater Seawolf conversion:

Constrict (Ex): On a successful grapple check, a greater seawolf deals 2d3+6 damage if in human form or 2d6+9 damage if in seawolf form. Greater seawolves always seize their victims by the throat, so a creature in the seawolf's grasp cannot breathe, speak or cast spells with verbal components on any round the seawolf uses its constrict attack.

The victim will suffocate to death if the greater seawolf constricts them for long enough. Any breathing creature rendered unconscious by this attack must make Constitution checks every round for as long as the constriction continues (DC 10, +1 for each previous success). A victim who fails one of these Constitution checks drops to -1 hit points and is dying, if the victim fails a second check they die from suffocation.

As for the special attack:

Anyway, characteristics we want: touch attack, affects only opponents who are denied their Dex bonus to AC, 1d8 hit point "strangulation damage" variant, victim can't speak. Should that body of the Veiled Maidens be considered grappled?

That about covers it. I was leaning towards the Veiled Maidens body not being considered grappled, as it's at the other end of a 15 foot-long silk veil.

In principle that's little different from an attacker using the trailing rope of a net to limit the movements of an entangled opponent. They're not considered to be in a grapple, so why should the Maiden?

Besides, it'd be a lot simpler to adjudicate if it works in a similar way to a "locking grapple" with a set DC to escape from and no "opponent considered grapple", rather than having to make lots of opposed grapple checks.

 

[freyar]

You know, it occurs to me that we shouldn't call the seawolf's attack "Constrict" since there's already another Constrict that's a pretty standard SA. Maybe something like "Strangling Constrict" to distinguish it a little.

Hmm. Do we want to go over to the Con check variant rather than hp damage strangulation?

 

[Cleon]

You know, it occurs to me that we shouldn't call the seawolf's attack "Constrict" since there's already another Constrict that's a pretty standard SA. Maybe something like "Strangling Constrict" to distinguish it a little.

I don't mind changing it, but don't like the "Strangling Constrict" name. I'd prefer "Strangle Hold", "Strangulation" or "Throttling".

Hmm. Do we want to go over to the Con check variant rather than hp damage strangulation?

Which do you prefer? I'm leaning towards hit point damage, since a PC might have multiple Veiled Maidens strangling them, and if it was Con they'd drop dead pretty quickly.