Hydra question (2003 thread)

[Hypersmurf]

my game permits caled shots, so you wouldn't need improved sunder to attack the heads. the heads should have healed or regrown though. Did the hydra change from 3.0 to 3.5? because I was using a 3.0 monster manual

Ah, well, if you're using 3E...

... then the Spiked Chain and the Magic Missile still wouldn't have worked, and the rogue's sneak attacks could not "damage" a head.

Heads don't have hit points on 3E Hydras. They have, essentially, a "target number" for the damage you need to deal (with a slashing weapon!) to sever them.

If that number is 10... then I can hit that head with my axe for 9 points of damage a dozen times over, and nothing will happen. But if I hit it for 10, I sever the head.

Read the bit where it says "In one blow".

-Hyp.

 

[paulewaug]

.... the little hydra has 5 heads and is CR 4, meaning it is an appropriate challenge for 4 4th-level characters. If all five hydra heads could attack as part of one AoO, they would inflict 5d10+15 damage, or on average, 40 points of damage. And they can do this twice per round. No 4th-level character can reasonably withstand that kind of damage,

I just want to add that I can see the rule (as written in the MM, and I guess the SRD, "Feats: A hydra's Combat Reflexes feat allows it to use all of its heads for attacks of opportunity.") Could be interpreted Either way.


Either it is able to make up to 2 AoO (in a round) with All its heads making the attacks.
Or
It is able to make a number of AoO equal to the number of heads it has, but only make the one attack roll and doing damage for that one head following that part of the rule as 'normal.'
Either way is an exception to the normal rule.
Either one of them makes sense if you are willing to see both sides.

Which one is right? I don't know.

However, I am inclined to agree with ForceUser.

And whether it is the correct interpretation of the rule or not (thereby making it a house rule) that is how I will be doing it.
Personally I feel this method fits the creature (well at least My image of the creature ) and I agree it makes it a suitable challenge for its CR this way.

I can see that the rule very well may mean "2 AoOs with all the heads making the AoO." But for me that doesn't "feel" like it is right.

Really at this point, until there is an official clarification, it depends on what part of the rule exception you emphasize when you read the rule.
Having a huge nasty AoO makes it a killer monster, having a bunch of AoOs makes it an interesting monster (IMHO of course! )

So I guess as a house rule this is how it will be for me, and I don't see either way as wrong.
Both versions are right at this point I think.
(Although using both versions at the same time is very very wrong hehe!)

So that is my .02 (and I hope it all makes sense!)

 

[apparentice]

Cleric?

Maybe I'm an idiot or newbie, but the meat shield sounds like a good idea. However, I think this is not a battle fought well in the open. Trickery and traps appeal to me, and what about using the cleric as a meat shield(war domain of course), he has decent AC and Constitution-boosting skills like Bear's Endurance...
P.S. don't be hating his(or her) D8 hit dice...

 

[Hypersmurf]

Maybe I'm an idiot or newbie...

Well, your major newbie mistake is in replying to a thread where the last post is over two years old

Can lead to some confusion if you're not careful!

-Hyp.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Well, your major newbie mistake is in replying to a thread where the last post is over two years old

I like to call these resurrected zombies "Google bumps."

 

[apparentice]

My logic behind posting on an old string is the assumption most visits to this site are accidental, off of search engines. I found this site that way. And it proves, that someone is reading these strings. And two replies in 2 hours, theres your sign...

 

[Dinkeldog]

Moderator's Note:

Trentonjoe, can you e-mail me @ gdinke1 at uic dot edu? I need to contact you about something, but do not have a valid e-mail for you.

Thanks

 

[Hypersmurf]

My logic behind posting on an old string is the assumption most visits to this site are accidental, off of search engines. I found this site that way. And it proves, that someone is reading these strings. And two replies in 2 hours, theres your sign...

The threads are listed in order of most recent post.

So when you posted, it moved this thread to the very top of the list.

Most regular posters check the first page or two of the forums they frequent, so a lot of them will read this.

The problem with resurrecting an old thread is that often, people who click on a front-page thread don't notice that the messages are from several years ago, and they'll reply to a post made by someone who no longer comes here... which means they'll be waiting a long time for any response.

The general etiquette around here is that one shouldn't resurrect a long-dead thread unless one has something substantial to add. In many cases, it's even preferable to start a new thread, with a link to the old one for reference, to avoid confusing people.

Having said all that, welcome aboard

-Hyp.

 

[apparentice]

Since you say the thread is already on top of the list, I'd like to say one more thing. I've never created a thread before, nor have i ever posted on one. I apologize for any inconvenience i have caused you or everybody else, but, I suppose I have just as much a right to post as enworld does to keep two year old threads. If you disagree, contact me at skippiopeanutbutterus@yahoo

 

[Pielorinho]

Apparentice, I can assure you that Hyp's not trying to dis you here. He was just telling you of how the thread mechanism works, and of some protocols that have arisen around it. No harm, no foul.

Daniel