Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BOZ" data-source="post: 1688700" data-attributes="member: 1241">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.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />So, Shade likes my Resistance to Weapon Damage, Knight does not…  woe is me.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  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.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />Any commentary on this?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.”</blockquote>

Verification