Converting Oriental Adventures creatures

[Cleon]

OK, that's a lot of information! I generally agree with this, but we should take it one thing at a time. How about we do the weapon first? I'm fine with either the DMG or OA version for the base weapon, but we do need to deal with some special abilities.

I agree we should only work on one feature at a time. It's a lot less confusing that way.

Doing the weapon first is fine by me.

Overall, I prefer the Oriental Adventures approach of the kusari-gama, since it ought to be a double weapon. Arguable the DMG is the "official version" but we can always argue this is a unique weapon like the Reaper's swiss-army Scythe.

Hmm... if we don't use the DMG version we might be better off referring it to by a different name than "kusari-gama". Maybe "scythe-chain"?

If we do use a modified version of the OA weapon we'd need to update its stats to 3.5, which could be something like:

Exotic Weapons—Melee
Two-Handed Melee Weapon
[TABLE="class: cms_table"] [TR] [TD]
[/TD] [TD]Cost[/TD] [TD]Dmg[/TD] [TD]Critical[/TD] [TD]Range[/TD] [TD]Weight
[/TD] [TD]Damage Type[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Kusari-gama^*[/TD] [TD]10 gp[/TD] [TD]1d6/1d4[/TD] [TD]×2[/TD] [TD]—[/TD] [TD]3 lb.
[/TD] [TD]Slashing/Bludgeoning[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] * See the description of this weapon for special rules.
^ Reach or double weapon (see weapon description).

Hmm... actually, I'd like to tweak the damage up a little bit. How about making it d6/d6 so both damages match the d6 damage of the DMG and 1E AD&D kusari-gama. Maybe give the slashing bit a higher critical multiplier like a scythe?

Something like this:

Exotic Weapons—Melee
Two-Handed Melee Weapon
[TABLE="class: cms_table_cms_table"] [TR] [TD]
[/TD] [TD]Cost[/TD] [TD]Dmg[/TD] [TD]Critical[/TD] [TD]Range[/TD] [TD]Weight[/TD] [TD]Damage Type[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Scythe-chain^*[/TD] [TD]10 gp[/TD] [TD]1d6/1d6[/TD] [TD]×4/×2[/TD] [TD]—[/TD] [TD]3 lb.[/TD] [TD]Slashing/Bludgeoning[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] * See the description of this weapon for special rules.
^ Reach or double weapon (see weapon description).

Scythe-chain: A scythe-chain is a length of chain with a small scythe at one end. It can be used either as a double weapon or as a reach weapon. You can fight with it as if fighting with two weapons, incurring all the normal attack penalties as if using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. In this case, you can only strike at an adjacent opponent. A creature wielding a scythe-chain in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.

If you use the scythe-chain as a reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away with it. In addition, unlike other weapons with reach, you can use it against an adjacent foe. In this case, you can only use one end of the scythe-chain effectively; you cannot use it as a double weapon. You can choose which end of the scythe-chain to use. The scythe end is a slashing weapon with a ×4 [or ×3?] critical multiplier; the chain end is a bludgeoning weapon.

You can make trip attacks with the chain end. If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the scythe-chain to avoid being tripped.

When using a scythe-chain, you get a +2 bonus on opposed attack rolls made to disarm an opponent (including the roll to avoid being disarmed if such an attempt fails).

You can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with a scythe-chain sized for you, even though it isn’t a light weapon for you.

 

[freyar]

That looks pretty good to me! I think we should probably stick to x4 critical for the scythe end; I was thinking x3 would be less over-powered, but it's better to be consistent with the scythe.

I guess the next thing to deal with is "(dmg 1-6; save vs. paralyzation or lose 1d4 points of constitution). Lost constitution is recovered at a rate of 1 point per turn. A character reduced to 0 constitution dies." That sounds like Con damage. We could just give it the wounding property, though that doesn't allow a save and is less damage per hit. Want to simplify to that?

 

[Cleon]

That looks pretty good to me! I think we should probably stick to x4 critical for the scythe end; I was thinking x3 would be less over-powered, but it's better to be consistent with the scythe.

I guess the next thing to deal with is "(dmg 1-6; save vs. paralyzation or lose 1d4 points of constitution). Lost constitution is recovered at a rate of 1 point per turn. A character reduced to 0 constitution dies." That sounds like Con damage. We could just give it the wounding property, though that doesn't allow a save and is less damage per hit. Want to simplify to that?

Hmm... the original "Constitution loss" was very temporary, recovering at 1 point per 10 rounds. Do we want to keep that? If we do, we should probably make it a penalty rather than actual damage.

Something like "the opponent must succeed at a DC X Fort save or suffer a 1d4 penalty to their Constitution. If this penalty reduces the victim's Con to 0 or below they immediately die. If the victim survives, they recover from the Con penalty at a rate of 1 point per minute."

I'd even consider increasing the Con "damage" to a 1d6 penalty, so it has more chance of being a deciding factor in the fight.

 

[freyar]

Yeah, that's just an odd mechanic for 3.X. Wouldn't it usually be translated to normal Con damage? But I'll think about it (ie, you try to convince me ).

 

[Cleon]

Yeah, that's just an odd mechanic for 3.X. Wouldn't it usually be translated to normal Con damage? But I'll think about it (ie, you try to convince me ).

Usually yes, but we're not usual around these parts!

As I said in my previous post, it depends on whether we want to keep the "Con loss for a few turns" mechanism of the original.

Considering that ability damage is pretty easy to heal in Third Edition, I don't mind making it regular Con damage. It makes little difference in the long run - although I do think having it do more than 1 point per strike is in order considering how short 3E combats tend to be.

Oh, and are we making the Con damage / penalty a special property of the Shadow Walker's unnatural ability with the weapon or just a weapon property? If the latter it's probably way too high CL for the likely CR of the Walker.

 

[freyar]

Hmmm. It's already a +2 exotic weapon (with some nice exotic properties). The wounding property would be an additional +2, and this would be more potent if we make it 1d4 Con damage. Let's call it a +5 weapon, which makes it worth about 50,000 gp. We had estimated the General's crimson katana to be worth around 95,000 gp. So a +5 or +6 weapon wouldn't be unreasonable here, at least if we think the Shadow Walker will be close in CR to the General.

So, I could make it a weapon property.

 

[Cleon]

Hmmm. It's already a +2 exotic weapon (with some nice exotic properties). The wounding property would be an additional +2, and this would be more potent if we make it 1d4 Con damage. Let's call it a +5 weapon, which makes it worth about 50,000 gp. We had estimated the General's crimson katana to be worth around 95,000 gp. So a +5 or +6 weapon wouldn't be unreasonable here, at least if we think the Shadow Walker will be close in CR to the General.

So, I could make it a weapon property.

Well the point of the previous post is that's way higher priced than a character of the Shadow Walker's likely CR's normal equipment value.

The General had the same problem, in its case aggravated by the Intelligent Weapon rules being rather highly priced (or overpriced).

Don't forget it's a double weapon, so both ends need to be enchanted separately. If they're both equal to +5, that's 100,000 gp.

If only the scythe end has the "extra wounding" property and the chain end is a plain +2 weapon, it's "only" 50,000 for the scythe plus 8,000 gp for the chain, or 58,000 plus whatever a masterwork scythe-chain costs.

A standard NPC would need to be at least 16th level to have a weapon that costly, with their equipment value of 77,000 gp.

 

[freyar]

Yeah, that's true. Well, we did it for the General, but maybe this time let's go with the "it only works for the Shadow Walker" trick. There's certainly precedent. This weapon does seem a bit more problematic than the katana.

 

[Cleon]

Yeah, that's true. Well, we did it for the General, but maybe this time let's go with the "it only works for the Shadow Walker" trick. There's certainly precedent. This weapon does seem a bit more problematic than the katana.

So are we talking something like:

Any living creature the Shadow Walker wounds with its scythe-chain must succeed at a DC X Fortitude save or take 1d4 Con damage. This is a special ability of the Shadow Walker, not the weapon. The save DC is Charisma-based. [?]

 

[freyar]

Yes, something like that. Following the precedent of the barbazu's Infernal Wound, I guess we'd either put this in the weapon description or as a separate SA.