D&D 3.x Creature Catalog 3.5 Overhaul Project

[Shade]

It sounds like this guy can finally go forward. And I agree with Knight...we gotta keep the vorpal business.

"The vorpal sword went snicker-snack!"

 

[BOZ]

you got it - that's the most critical piece.

 

[Knight Otu]

So, should we go straight ahead and add it in?

 

[BOZ]

yeah, but i need to figure out how to write such a thing in. probably replace the DR with a sort of immunity to weapons that only a vorpal weapon can break - or maybe a regneration instead.

 

[Knight Otu]

Just try not to lose your head over it.
DR/vorpal might be interesting to explore. Regeneration might be a bit too tough with such a specific requirement (unless we could loosen it a bit).

 

[Shade]

I think we should explore the "sort of immunity to weapons that only a vorpal weapon can break" option instead of either regeneration or damage reduction to truly maintain the feel of the creature.

Of couse, most parties will probably end up downing it with spells.

 

[BOZ]

moved andargor's spider-demon conversions to this thread

Ok, this will be the first time I have really put any work into this creature.

What the heck; we will switch it to the Dragon type. It’s the popular choice, and admittedly, makes the most sense. This gives us a few changes off the bat:

Huge Dragon
Hit Dice: 15d12+75 (172 hp)
Base Attack/Grapple: +12/+28
Saves: Fort +13, Ref +8, Will +9
Skills: 54 ranks
Feats: 6

It also seems it could have an attack sequence much like true dragons, replacing the flurry of blows.

Note the description from MCA3: “…it has a stout draconian torso with sturdy hind legs, long forearms each ending in four feathery talons (each talon being some four feet long and fully prehensile), a long sinuous neck ending in an enormous head, a pair of elegant wings, and a long thin tail.”

The weird thing is that the stat block only gives it one attack – a bite (3d10 damage). I’m in favor of giving it whatever standard dragon melee attacks are appropriate to the above description (which, if I’m not mistaken, are all of them). The current “flurry of blows” ability makes little sense in current game terms, and actually seems to inhibit the creature a bit:

Flurry of Blows (Ex): When faced by overwhelming odds, a jabberwock may strike with a flurry of blows at the expense of accuracy. When doing so, the jabberwock may make one extra attack in a round at its highest attack bonus, but this attack and each other attack made that round suffer a –2 penalty apiece.

The jabberwock must use the full attack action to strike with a flurry of blows.

Now, let’s have a further look at its other abilities from the same source:

Note that like true dragons the jabberwock has exceptionally keen senses and can detect invisible or hidden opponents; so long as the chosen target remains within its forest, the jabberwock will pursue it.

right, OK, knight pointed this out already. Just give it the dragon’s keen senses?

First, it constantly mutters or burbles to itself - a low, rumbling bubbling sound that carries up to 200 feet. Anyone who hears this sound must make a saving throw vs. spell at a 4 penalty or become confused. A jabberwock’s confusion is more potent than the wizard spell of the same name, lasting as long as the victim is within range and able to hear the noise; in addition, it distorts perception, causing hallucinations and strangely skewed judgment of distance: objects, or parts of objects, may appear much closer or further away than they actually are (this translates into a -3 penalty on the attack roll of anyone suffering from this confused warping of depth perception). A curious side effect of the burble is that it acts as a sort of babble spell (a reversed tongues): the victim’s words slide, shift, and blend, producing odd hybrids that make communication very difficult.

here is the current entry for burble:

“Burble (Su): A jabberwock constantly mutters or burbles to itself—a low, rumbling bubbling sound that carries up to 200 feet. Anyone who hears this sound must make a Will save (DC 20) or be affected as by confusion cast by a 15th-level sorcerer. Affected creatures will remain confused until removed from the area of effect. Creatures making a successful saving throw, must roll new saves each round they are in the area of effect.

The burble also acts as a sort of reversed tongues spell; the victim’s words slide, shift, and blend, producing odd hybrids that make communication very difficult. Any spellcaster trying to cast a spell with a verbal component while under the effects of the burbling must make a Concentration check (DC 20) or the spell will fail.”

Some ideas on reworking it: replace “constantly” with “as a free action” or “continuously” or both. Add “This is a sonic, mind-affecting effect.” The save DC should be Charisma-based, I think. The text mentions a –4 penalty – this could be Ability Focus and/or a racial bonus to the DC. Also, this part was missed:

“in addition, it distorts perception, causing hallucinations and strangely skewed judgment of distance: objects, or parts of objects, may appear much closer or further away than they actually are (this translates into a -3 penalty on the attack roll of anyone suffering from this confused warping of depth perception).”

Also, remove the reference to the tongues spell as this is confusing since 3E no longer makes use of “reversed” spells. I would much rather rewrite parts of the current tongues description, plus add in some bits from the 2E version of babble: “The reverse of the spell cancels the effect of the tongues spell or confuses verbal communication of any sort within the area of effect.”

Its eye-beams act as the rays from a wand of paralysis, freezing in place any target who fails a saving throw vs. paralyzation.

Paralysis Gaze (Su): Paralyzed for 1d6+2 minutes, 50 feet, Fortitude save (DC 20).

Does that work? Gaze attacks are usually Charisma-based.

The jabberwock also shares the fear aura of true dragons.

now that’s easy:

Frightful Presence (Ex): A jabberwock can unsettle foes with its mere presence. This ability takes effect whenever the jabberwock (… attacks, charges, or flies overhead…). Creatures within a 200-foot radius are subject to the effect if they have fewer than 15 HD. A potentially affected creature must succeed on a DC X Will save to remain immune to that jabberwock’s frightful presence for 24 hours. On a failure, creatures with 4 or less HD become panicked for 4d6 rounds and those with 5 or more HD become shaken for 4d6 rounds. Jabberwocks ignore the frightful presence of other jabberwocks.

While its normal attack is a simple bite with its enormous incisors, it can also grasp prey in its great talons, holding a man-sized creature helplessly immobilized in either forepaw (it then gains a +2 bonus to bite a target so restrained - +4 if the victim is held by both forepaws).

ahh… Snatch feat? This was originally converted as Improved Grab – which one works better?

If seriously inconvenienced (that is, if attacked by a large party of well-armed and well-coordinated adventurers), it will go into a flurry of activity, striking out in all directions like a hurricane with swipes of its forepaw claws (1d10/ld10), wing buffets (2d10/2d10), hind leg stomps (2d6/2d6), bite (3d10), and tail lash (2d8). Each of these attacks is at a -2 penalty on the creature's attack roll; those struck must make a saving throw vs. paralysis or be knocked down or driven back (50% chance of either), enabling the jabberwock to refocus its attack.

aha! All I had to do is read ahead a bit…

The only effective means of attacking a jabberwock is with a vorpal weapon; its extremely tough scales repel all other blows (all non-vorpal weapons inflict only nonlethal subdual damage). Even its eyes - traditionally a vulnerable spot in armored creatures - are protected by tough semitransparent inner eyelids. Its superior magic resistance prevents most spells from being effective as well.

been doing some thinking about this one (the name is up for change)…

Resistance to Weapon Damage (Ex): A jabberwock treats damage from bludgeoning, slashing, and piercing weapons as nonlethal damage. A vorpal weapon can kill a jabberwock if the wielder successfully cuts off its head.

Also, given this ability, I’m wondering how necessary Damage Reduction is? Of course, that might just keep down the nonlethal damage…

 

[Knight Otu]

Note the description from MCA3: “…it has a stout draconian torso with sturdy hind legs, long forearms each ending in four feathery talons (each talon being some four feet long and fully prehensile), a long sinuous neck ending in an enormous head, a pair of elegant wings, and a long thin tail.”

The weird thing is that the stat block only gives it one attack – a bite (3d10 damage). I’m in favor of giving it whatever standard dragon melee attacks are appropriate to the above description (which, if I’m not mistaken, are all of them). The current “flurry of blows” ability makes little sense in current game terms, and actually seems to inhibit the creature a bit:

I was mostly getting that from this quote:

The jabberwock’s preferred method of attack is a straight-forward bite with its huge front teeth; its snaky neck enables its head to dart out and attack targets a surprising distance away.
...
While its normal attack is a simple bite with its enormous incisors, it can also grasp prey in its great talons, holding a man-sized creature helplessly immobilized in either forepaw (it then gains a +2 bonus to bite a target so restrained - +4 if the victim is held by both forepaws). If seriously inconvenienced (that is, if attacked by a large party of well-armed and well-coordinated adventurers), it will go into a flurry of activity, striking out in all directions like a hurricane with swipes of its forepaw claws (1d10/ld10), wing buffets (2d10/2d10), hind leg stomps (2d6/2d6), bite (3d10), and tail lash (2d8). Each of these attacks is at a -2 penalty on the creature's attack roll; those struck must make a saving throw vs. paralysis or be knocked down or driven back (50% chance of either), enabling the jabberwock to refocus its attack.

Sounds like the full sequence and more. I also wonder if the Reach for its bite should be long for the size?

right, OK, knight pointed this out already. Just give it the dragon’s keen senses?

And the dragon's blindsense.

Paralysis Gaze (Su): Paralyzed for 1d6+2 minutes, 50 feet, Fortitude save (DC 20).

Does that work? Gaze attacks are usually Charisma-based.

Sure. And DC 20 is right for Charisma.

ahh… Snatch feat? This was originally converted as Improved Grab – which one works better?

Hmmm, technically, it could have both... I think.

aha! All I had to do is read ahead a bit…

Yes, maybe I should have dpne so as well.

Resistance to Weapon Damage (Ex): A jabberwock treats damage from bludgeoning, slashing, and piercing weapons as nonlethal damage. A vorpal weapon can kill a jabberwock if the wielder successfully cuts off its head.

That sounds overly restrictive, even for an unique monster. I'd rather give adventurers without vorpal weapons a bit of a fighting chance (not too much, but a bit), and DR 15/vorpal would do that, IMHO. Also, most of the weapon immunities are done as DR, if I'm not mistaken.
Admittedly, we might have to add a little bit of text to explain what DR/vorpal actually is, but it should be easy enough to understand.

 

[Shade]

Wow, too much to quote. Here's a summary reply to what we've got so far.

I agree with keen senses and blindsense.

Long bite reach...good idea.

Paralysis gaze...looks good.

I'd go with both Snatch and improved grab.

I'd prefer the "Resistance to Weapon Damage" to damage reduction. Why? Because DR just isn't restrictive enough in 3.5. Additionally, I don't think that melee types deserve a fighting chance, as there are already other monsters they can't effect with their weapons (such as many swarms). Just my opinion, though.

 

[BOZ]

If seriously inconvenienced (that is, if attacked by a large party of well-armed and well-coordinated adventurers), it will go into a flurry of activity, striking out in all directions like a hurricane with swipes of its forepaw claws (1d10/ld10), wing buffets (2d10/2d10), hind leg stomps (2d6/2d6), bite (3d10), and tail lash (2d8). Each of these attacks is at a -2 penalty on the creature's attack roll; those struck must make a saving throw vs. paralysis or be knocked down or driven back (50% chance of either), enabling the jabberwock to refocus its attack.

Sounds like the full sequence and more. I also wonder if the Reach for its bite should be long for the size?

absolutely on the reach – I think most dragons get that anyway right? If standard reach for a long Huge creature is 10, should we give it 15 or 20 reach?

And, assuming it’s getting Multiattack, would that make the full attack line something like this?:

Full Attack: Bite +21 melee (3d10+8), 2 claws +19 melee (1d10+4), 2 wings +19 melee (2d10+4), 2 stomps +19 melee (2d6+4), and tail slap +19 melee (2d8+4)


If I give it keen senses, do I still need to list low-light vision and darkvision?

I just re-read the description for Snatch. the first line reads: “The creature can choose to start a grapple when it hits with a claw or bite attack, as though it had the improved grab special attack.” This kind of suggests that Snatch is superior. Though, if you really want both, I can do that.


So, Shade likes my Resistance to Weapon Damage, Knight does not… woe is me. I think what I wrote up is very close to what the original text says – note that it even uses the words “nonlethal” and “subdual” damage! That’s what gave the idea that regeneration might work, but I like what I wrote even better.

Here, let me explain it this way. If we did give it a damage reduction of 15/vorpal, then someone hitting it with anything other than a vorpal weapon (and how many adventurers have one of those?) will barely hurt it at all. It would take someone that can do massive amounts of damage to hurt it – and then a creature that can do 30 or more damage with each hit could actually kill a jabberwock by hitting it enough times!

Now, with my ability, adventurers can beat the snot out of it all day and all night. In fact, after enough hits the thing would go down, and the PCs would actually think they killed it. Now a troll in the same situation would get up a few rounds later, but this guy would actually have to take the time to heal. If you did not finish off the jabberwock with a vorpal weapon it will come back to haunt you!

Now, I’m not in love with my writeup, so I can change it if you give me a good reason.


Any commentary on this?

First, it constantly mutters or burbles to itself - a low, rumbling bubbling sound that carries up to 200 feet. Anyone who hears this sound must make a saving throw vs. spell at a 4 penalty or become confused. A jabberwock’s confusion is more potent than the wizard spell of the same name, lasting as long as the victim is within range and able to hear the noise; in addition, it distorts perception, causing hallucinations and strangely skewed judgment of distance: objects, or parts of objects, may appear much closer or further away than they actually are (this translates into a -3 penalty on the attack roll of anyone suffering from this confused warping of depth perception). A curious side effect of the burble is that it acts as a sort of babble spell (a reversed tongues): the victim’s words slide, shift, and blend, producing odd hybrids that make communication very difficult.

here is the current entry for burble:

“Burble (Su): A jabberwock constantly mutters or burbles to itself—a low, rumbling bubbling sound that carries up to 200 feet. Anyone who hears this sound must make a Will save (DC 20) or be affected as by confusion cast by a 15th-level sorcerer. Affected creatures will remain confused until removed from the area of effect. Creatures making a successful saving throw, must roll new saves each round they are in the area of effect.

The burble also acts as a sort of reversed tongues spell; the victim’s words slide, shift, and blend, producing odd hybrids that make communication very difficult. Any spellcaster trying to cast a spell with a verbal component while under the effects of the burbling must make a Concentration check (DC 20) or the spell will fail.”

Some ideas on reworking it: replace “constantly” with “as a free action” or “continuously” or both. Add “This is a sonic, mind-affecting effect.” The save DC should be Charisma-based, I think. The text mentions a –4 penalty – this could be Ability Focus and/or a racial bonus to the DC. Also, this part was missed:

“in addition, it distorts perception, causing hallucinations and strangely skewed judgment of distance: objects, or parts of objects, may appear much closer or further away than they actually are (this translates into a -3 penalty on the attack roll of anyone suffering from this confused warping of depth perception).”

Also, remove the reference to the tongues spell as this is confusing since 3E no longer makes use of “reversed” spells. I would much rather rewrite parts of the current tongues description, plus add in some bits from the 2E version of babble: “The reverse of the spell cancels the effect of the tongues spell or confuses verbal communication of any sort within the area of effect.”