Rakshasa Reconstruction.

[Wulf Ratbane]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Rakshasa Reconstruction.

Have any of them even run into a rakshasa to "know" that that is correct in the first place?

I've always found this viewpoint rather silly. I have never run into a rakshasa or a vampire, a mummy or a golem, and yet I can tell you many things about them and their vulnerabilities.

For any PC who chooses an "adventuring" profession, it makes sense that within the context of their world they would know at least as much about monsters as the pimply faced-geek behind them in "reality."

Neither of them (the player or his PC) have ever run into such creatures "in real life," and yet it is reasonable to assume they have access to the same kind of common lore. Sort of a no-brainer.

That said, I absolutely encourage DMs to change things around, and applaud you for doing so.


Wulf

 

[gfunk]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rakshasa Reconstruction.

I've always found this viewpoint rather silly. I have never run into a rakshasa or a vampire, a mummy or a golem, and yet I can tell you many things about them and their vulnerabilities.

Well the D&D world does not take place in the Information Age. I can guarantee that the average knight (or even noble) in the Middle Ages had no idea what a Rakshasa, Mummy, or Golem was. Certainly it would be possible to consult a Sage to gain such information but I don't think adventurers necessarily know things that seem obvious to us.

 

[Arkham]

"Easy" way to kill a Rakshasa without blessed bolts, or +3 weapons... Grapple it, pin it, tie it up, and burn it with mundane fire...

Damage Reduction does not stop elemental damage. And it is not from a spell, so spell immunity would not save it either...

 

[Demise]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rakshasa Reconstruction.

I can guarantee that the average knight (or even noble) in the Middle Ages had no idea what a Rakshasa, Mummy, or Golem was.

Um, maybe because there were no such creatures?

I'd tend to agree that it would be far different in a world infested with such.

 

[Xarlen]

I don't run Everything by the book.

For example, they encountered a while back the ghost of an elven ranger/ancestrial avenger who's bones were incased in a wax dummy depicting a drow warrior. H eattacked the carnival that the dummy was placed in (A haunted house), and the PC's had to figure out what was going on; by protocal, it wasn't simple ghost things.

Not to mention the Werewolf True lycanthrope NPC that I'm playing to give the party some assistance (having three players is a little hampering). They've encountered humanoid tribes that... Are tribes, such as helping a gnoll trime to avoid extinction from a war between the lizardfolk. So, in defense, I don't do everything as it says in the MM.

But, as it stands, they get the idea what works. It's a little late to say 'Well, it doesn't work'.

I was just trying to narrow the spell selection down, because sorceror spells are few.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rakshasa Reconstruction.

Well the D&D world does not take place in the Information Age.

Frankly, I beg to differ. There is no effect that our technology can produce that cannot be produced equally well, or better, by the spells in the Player's Handbook.

In a Forgotten Realms or other high-magic setting, the comparison is even more apt.

In many respects they have it better than we do.

But that's a topic for another discussion.

Wulf

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Because the party is weak, I suggest simply going with the MM. But the next time your party (healthy) fight a rakshasha, you can change its weakness. After all, the story from the MM might have been the result of a single famous rakshasha killed by a crossbow-wielding paladin. And why is your first rakshasha also weak against blessed bolts? Maybe he's a descendant of that first rakshasha.

PS Be very careful with greater magic weapon, as your party might kill the rakshasha in the first round.

 

[DM_Matt]

Mirror Image might be useful, too, if by your ruling, the images wont be invisable as well. Also, is the Rak knows about the bat familiar's ability to get through the many layers or illusions and invisability's that he has, he should make sure that his minons know to be sure to kill it. The cleric is an even bigger threat, but hardier. His minions should be clear on those priorities.

Perhaps the real Rak ought to be in an area connected to a room with an illusion of him on a throne or something (programmed illusion...use a scroll), while the real rak softens up the party by casting through small, long holes in the wall. The only way into or out of that room should be through ethereal or gaseous form, or through a way quite inaccessable to the PCs (i.e he might have an esacpe route out the back.) His vison can be enhanced by scrying and/or a familiar of his own A bat w/blindsight, perhaps?) There should be traps (and, once they are triggered, a pit trap that is activate by a lever and makes it impossible for a nonflying archer to get close enough to easily fire arrows streight enough to go through the shaft.

Once the PCs are in the room, make sure that a wall of force pops up behind them as a contingency, blocking their escape. The rak can then throw everything he's got at them using offensive spells. besides the scrolls and a little cash, most of his money should be invested in Wands. Wands with scrye or clarevoyance/claraudience are a must. Magic missile and fireball are important as well.

He can cook the PCs unless they find a way to penetrate his inner sanctum, or at least block him off and blind him. (oh, the shafts shouls slope slightly upwwrds as they go in, making the shot harder and preventing them from trying to pour in liquids.