Spelljammer Converting Spelljammer creatures

[Cleon]

Works for me.

Like this?

Lightning (Su) #1: A stargazer can unleash two 30 ft lines of electricity from its eyes, which do 6d6 electricity damage each (DC X Reflex save halves). The stargazer can attack with lightning three times (six lines of lightning) before it exhausts its internal electrical charge. It recharges its lightning power by basking in light (restoring one twin-line lightning attack requires 1d4+1 rounds in full sunlight or 2d4+2 rounds in lamplight or torchlight). The save DC is Constitution-based.

I'd rather the recharge times were longer, but I can live with that.

Anyhow, Freyar supports no overlapping and I'm OK with that, so should we change it to:

Lightning (Su) #2: A stargazer can unleash two 30 ft lines of electricity from its eyes, which do 6d6 electricity damage each (DC X Reflex save halves). These lines of lightning cannot overlap. The stargazer can attack with lightning three times (six lines of lightning) before it exhausts its internal electrical charge. It recharges its lightning power by basking in light (restoring one line of lightning requires 1d4+1 rounds in full sunlight or 2d4+2 rounds in lamplight or torchlight). The save DC is Constitution-based.

I'm also wondering about whether to allow single line attacks:

Lightning (Su) #3: A stargazer can unleash two 30 ft lines of electricity from its eyes, which do 6d6 electricity damage each (DC X Reflex save halves). These lines of lightning cannot overlap. A stargazer can unleash a single line of electricity (from either eye) if it only wishes to attack one target. The stargazer's internal electrical charge can produce six lines of lightning (three twinned lightning attacks) before it exhausts its storage capacity. It recharges its lightning power by basking in light (restoring one line of lightning requires 1d4+1 rounds in full sunlight or 2d4+2 rounds in lamplight or torchlight). The save DC is Constitution-based.

 

[freyar]

I support option #2. It's getting complicated enough without keeping track of single vs double lines.

 

[Cleon]

I support option #2. It's getting complicated enough without keeping track of single vs double lines.

I'd be OK with that.

 

[freyar]

Good, so I guess that one's done.

Did we think we had a rolling trample somewhere?

 

[Shade]

Updated.

Hmm...the closest I've found to a "rolling trample" is the MM3 plague brush's trample/scoop combo. Not really a good fit here.

 

[freyar]

Hmmmph. How about combining trample and granting it a dodge or circumstance bonus to AC?

Rolling Trample (Ex): A stargazer can roll into a ball, gaining a +2 dodge? bonus to AC. While in ball form, the stargazer may roll at twice its base speed, crushing any creature completely covered by its space, as the trample special attack, dealing XdX+X bludgeoning damage. A victim of this attack may make an attack of opportunity with a -4 penalty or may attempt a DC X Reflex save for half damage. The save DC is Strength-based.

 

[Shade]

Hmmmph. How about combining trample and granting it a dodge or circumstance bonus to AC?

Rolling Trample (Ex): A stargazer can roll into a ball, gaining a +2 dodge? bonus to AC. While in ball form, the stargazer may roll at twice its base speed, crushing any creature completely covered by its space, as the trample special attack, dealing XdX+X bludgeoning damage. A victim of this attack may make an attack of opportunity with a -4 penalty or may attempt a DC X Reflex save for half damage. The save DC is Strength-based.

That seems reasonable. Dodge bonus makes sense.

The original did 4d6 crushing damage with the "rolling trample". This is the equivalent of a Gargantuan dragon's crush damage. Should we scale it back to that of a huge dragon (2d8)?

 

[freyar]

Oh, I meant to add the line "Rolling into a ball and trampling opponents requires a full-round action."

Anyway, these may be more dense than dragons since they're partially made of rock. They also have pretty strong bite attacks. I guess I'm of two minds: those reasons make me think we should go for 4d6, but the dragon example makes me think we should reduce.

 

[Shade]

Oh, I meant to add the line "Rolling into a ball and trampling opponents requires a full-round action."

Anyway, these may be more dense than dragons since they're partially made of rock. They also have pretty strong bite attacks. I guess I'm of two minds: those reasons make me think we should go for 4d6, but the dragon example makes me think we should reduce.

We could always split the difference at 2d10 or 3d8.

 

[Cleon]

Updated.

Hmm...the closest I've found to a "rolling trample" is the MM3 plague brush's trample/scoop combo. Not really a good fit here.

It reminded me of the Rolling Devastation special attack from something else...