Rhemoraz CR7?

[IceBear]

Fine, I guess I like things in my game to make sense. There are no monsters in my campaign world that can't justify their survivability.

Just because something can't Hide doesn't mean that it leaves signposts everywhere stating here I am. As you stated, since it doesn't have a Hide skill it's chance of successfully hiding is next to impossible. In my opinion something that is out of sight from you can't be seen....bottom line. Now, if you said something like, I'll make it a Spot check DC10 to notice the signs of it's passage I'd actually be more accepting of it (I still think that search or wilderness lore would be better). I just wouldn't make in an opposed check. As you said, my example with a beholder is different. I knew that. I was just trying to show you how it's not fair to use an opposed check. What if the ice worm was 100ft down? Would you give it a bonus on it's opposed Hide check to see if it's better at hiding it's signs this time. What if it's all ice and no snow? Again, I think the DC would be different. That's why I say using an opposed Spot vs Hide is wrong in this case. I would either determine a fixed DC and allow them to spot the signs or use a Wilderness Lore check.

I pointed out how you were stepping on the toes of tracking because in an earlier post you were saying that you could trace the distrubances in the snow to the location of where it was.

Finally, just because you spot a disturbance in the snow (and I'm not convinced there would be a very noticeable one) so what? Unless the PCs make a Wilderness Lore check they won't know what it means.

A Hide check is not used to mask all trace of your passage, so again, an opposed Hide vs Spot doesn't seem right. You say that comparing the movement of a 20ft creature 10ft under ice and snow to general passage is a stretch. So do I! So why in this case would you use an opposed check? If someone ran through snow to go three rooms into a cave would you use an opposed check then? If they ran over stone would you use an opposed check? It just seems in this case you've arbitrarily decided to use an opposed check where in other cases you wouldn't (and if you would use the same check for snow and stone then somethings not right).

Anyway, this is going nowhere real fast and in the end it doesn't matter so I think this is it for me.

IceBear

 

[SpikeyFreak]

Why does it have to burrow 10ft under the ground to its hiding spot?

Why can't it burrow 200ft below the ground and burrow up to 10ft from below, then wait?

There doesn't have to be visible sign that it has burrowed.

I wouldn't argue that a spot check isn't fair to nice a big long hill. I wouldn't argue that a wilderness lore check isn't fair to realize that it is a rhemy trail. But to say that a spot vs hide is the way to tell if the party realizes that a rhemoraz is under a certain spot is just silly.

--Workin' Spikey

 

[novyet]

The way you are doing it is right IceBear. You can't use spot or listen to negate surprise once the combat has started.

You do know that surprise only allows a partial action though, right?

--Blood Thirsty Spikey

There is always the partial charge however.
I always did have a soft (flaming?) spot for this creature.

 

[Belares]

.

Finally, just because you spot a disturbance in the snow (and I'm not convinced there would be a very noticeable one) so what? Unless the PCs make a Wilderness Lore check they won't know what it means.

I am convinced that spot IS useful here as you then have the idea that something is wrong and you are more alert to anything. Of course that doesnt mean that a large creature erupting from the frozen ground still can't surprise you. I would not give a check after the fact. The use of wilderness lore might be a good idea but you would have to spot a problem before you can puzzle it out unless the character goes i am using my wilderness lore more often becuase of the unfamilair terrain

 

[Petrosian]

On the whole "noticing the rhemoraz thing...

"Remorhaz buried under the ground lying in wait. Party walks towards the spot in which it is hidden. "

This is a quote from before and it starts the encounter.

See, my problem is twofold...

SCENARIO SETUP

First, NOTHING in the remoraz descriptions says "and it always picks the perfect spot so that it is always within 20' of everything that walks by."

This is the Gm saying "and for this encounter the remoraz got lucky and has favorable positioning." That is a situational ambush and should raise the EL of the encounter well above the CR of the beast. Same as it would with an umberhulk or any other slow moving non-ranged weapon varmint.

Now if the party passes just 50' away then the rhemoraz senses them but IF IT MOVES they have more than decent chances of hearing the burrowing and such and suddenly no real surprise because ITS HUGE SIZE and ITS LACK OF STEALTH SKILLS and ITS LACK OF MOVEMENT SPEED all serve to be detriments... like they are supposed to.

If you as GM FORCE all carrion crawler engagements to start within full attack range then you will see carrion crawlers as tough too.

"SPOTTING" THE TRAP...

Here the terminology gets confusing. it seems there are a number who agree, just use different terminology. Spotting the remoraz "trap" is again likely due to its lack of skills and huge size. I agree with most that this would be WILDERNESS LORE checks to see the signs. What signs? Well if a superheated worm melted its way to within striking distance of the surface, then i could definitely see variations in the surface from the melting, even if nothing else from steam having worked its way up. Now as Gm i could decide that "hey its a perfect hunter and never leaves such" and IF THERE WAS ONE IOTA OF SKILL in this area in the remoraz write up i would consider it. But there aint. I see no reason with looking at its utter lack and even penalties for some of any stealth related aptitudes as MEANING SOMETHING.

So in most cases, as i described before unless the gang is a bunch of citified buffoons, the party would have a very decent chance to notice a remoraz dugout trap that they werew WALKING DIRECTLY INTO. They might not notice one 50' away but then the worm would have to move to get to them.

The remoraz abilities are great for hunting YAK...

Most, not all, parties are smarter and more skilled than YAK.

I do agree wholeheartedly that ONCE THE GM FIATS that the worm is in perfect placement and the worm has perfect hiding and thus the party WILL by DM fiat be surprised and within melee range at that point.... then for those situations the CR should be raised and significantly so.

 

[IceBear]

I'm a city boy. I've never been in the artic. How would I know that that snowdrift over there is anything but a snowdrift? Sure I spotted it, but to my mind it's not a polar bear covered with snow so it doesn't even register (which brings up the point - what if has snowed since the ice worm dug itself into position? Wouldn't that obliterate these "signs" that you're spotting?)

With a successful Wilderness Lore check I describe to the player that he found the spoor of the ice worm and what it means. I wouldn't make you Spot the spoor and then use Wilderness Lore. Again, I'm not saying a spot check to see something is unreasonable. What I'm saying is that making it an opposed check vs the creature's hide is unreasonable.

IceBear

 

[IceBear]

So in most cases, as i described before unless the gang is a bunch of citified buffoons, the party would have a very decent chance to notice a remoraz dugout trap that they werew WALKING DIRECTLY INTO. They might not notice one 50' away but then the worm would have to move to get to them.

The remoraz abilities are great for hunting YAK...

Most, not all, parties are smarter and more skilled than YAK.

I do agree wholeheartedly that ONCE THE GM FIATS that the worm is in perfect placement and the worm has perfect hiding and thus the party WILL by DM fiat be surprised and within melee range at that point.... then for those situations the CR should be raised and significantly so.

Ah, we'll hopefully I won't be one of those metagaming GMs that you hate Petrosian.

When I have the party doing long distance travelling I will often tell them that they enter a clearing or some such event. I will then ask them to move through it on the map. I do this to keep them on their toes IF, there is a monster lying in wait in the area I do note where it is first. If it is a monster hiding behind some bushes or what have you, then opposed Spots and Listens are rolled. If it's a monster underground like an ankheg or an ice worm, then a Wilderness Lore is made to detect signs that they might be in the area.

If the PCs move through the area without coming into ideal ambush range I will then decide whether or not the monsters actually attack. Again, I try to decide on the personality and mindset of the creature. A creature that likes to ambush probably wouldn't charge up to the party and attack. If it is very hungry though, it might forego caution and attack. If it does, now Spot and Listen checks come into play. So, no, not all encounters with such creatures will happen with the monster springing up and attacking with surprise (though from the players point of view many of them are because they actually had encounters with others that they didn't know about because it decided not to attack).

As for reading more into monsters than the skills listed, blame that on my desire to try to relate monsters to a real-life creature and on trying to make some sort of balance with how it exists in it's environment. I was just mainly concerned at trying to show that it's success at ambushing could be better than it's Hide skill would lead you to believe because it shouldn't be an opposed Hide vs Spot check to detect the trap but a different mechanic. I never meant to say it wouldn't leave ANY sign, just that it wouldn't be leaving signs that were at -7 on a d20 roll to spot (average Hide check of 3.5). Even a yak with no spot skill would just see that too often for an ice worm to make a living eating them That's what I've been trying to say for the past three pages

IceBear

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Fine, I guess I like things in my game to make sense. There are no monsters in my campaign world that can't justify their survivability.

???? Meaning I don't? Meaning if I say that what the MM says is what the MM says I don't want my game to make sense? I have stated several times that I would support improving the monster. As a side note, I am not at all convinced that a Remorhaz could not justify its survivablity with a DC13 spot check. Some prey would get away, but not all. Just like real world lions.

If you would like to maintain a civil debate, I would also like that. If you would rather start making snide implications, fine.

Just because something can't Hide doesn't mean that it leaves signposts everywhere stating here I am. As you stated, since it doesn't have a Hide skill it's chance of successfully hiding is next to impossible. In my opinion something that is out of sight from you can't be seen....bottom line. Now, if you said something like, I'll make it a Spot check DC10 to notice the signs of it's passage I'd actually be more accepting of it (I still think that search or wilderness lore would be better). I just wouldn't make in an opposed check. As you said, my example with a beholder is different. I knew that. I was just trying to show you how it's not fair to use an opposed check. What if the ice worm was 100ft down? Would you give it a bonus on it's opposed Hide check to see if it's better at hiding it's signs this time. What if it's all ice and no snow? Again, I think the DC would be different. That's why I say using an opposed Spot vs Hide is wrong in this case. I would either determine a fixed DC and allow them to spot the signs or use a Wilderness Lore check.

Not one word above addresses the burrowing issue. I have never said that lack of hide skill means you leave signposts stating here you are. So claiming that to be false seems to indicate that you have missed the point. I HAVE said that a 20 foot worm burrowing ten feet beneath the ground will be default make a noticable sign. (Nothing to do with hide, nothing to do with simply passign through, everything to do with a big thing burrowing). The lack of hide or wilderness lore means the creature lacks the ability to actively couter-act the nature effects of its special movement ability.

If it is 100 feet down, it woudl get a vastly higher circumstance bonus, only a epic char could spot it then. But so what?

I pointed out how you were stepping on the toes of tracking because in an earlier post you were saying that you could trace the distrubances in the snow to the location of where it was.

I said you may be able to see a trail. If it travels along just under the ground, tracking it would be very easy. I would not even require a check once the path is found. I also don't require climb checks to climb a ladder. Neither case has any impact on the usefulness of the skill.

Finally, just because you spot a disturbance in the snow (and I'm not convinced there would be a very noticeable one) so what? Unless the PCs make a Wilderness Lore check they won't know what it means.

Agreed, only wilderness Lore would tell them what it means. But if I see something odd that I don't understand, I am not going to go stand on it. Therefore. the remorhaz can not ambush me. Understanding that the remorhaz is there is not important.

If I run a game and somebody without WL makes the spot check and then goes over to stand on the disturbance, they deserve to be ambushed.

A Hide check is not used to mask all trace of your passage, so again, an opposed Hide vs Spot doesn't seem right. You say that comparing the movement of a 20ft creature 10ft under ice and snow to general passage is a stretch. So do I! So why in this case would you use an opposed check? If someone ran through snow to go three rooms into a cave would you use an opposed check then? If they ran over stone would you use an opposed check? It just seems in this case you've arbitrarily decided to use an opposed check where in other cases you wouldn't (and if you would use the same check for snow and stone then somethings not right).

First, are you saying that only people with ranks in Wilderness Lore can see tracks in the snow?????

If you go back and re-read what I wrote you will see that I reference WL as the correct skill for covering your tracks. The remorhaz does not have WL.

I referenced Hide for lying still in ambush, a skill the remorhaz ALSO does not have.

Anytime you simply see something, without actively searching Spot is the skill to use. Even on a stone floor a spot check should allow the chance to notice a footprint in the dust, if it is there. That does not mean you would no how old it was, which way it was going (unless it was REALLY clear), any details about the person or creature that left it, the number of creatures, etc..., etc... These are all things that only WL can provide. Plus WL would allow to notice much more subtle things, such as partial tracks or moved dust, whatever, that Spot would not pick up on.

Anyway, this is going nowhere real fast and in the end it doesn't matter so I think this is it for me.
IceBear [/B]

OK

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Why does it have to burrow 10ft under the ground to its hiding spot?

Why can't it burrow 200ft below the ground and burrow up to 10ft from below, then wait?

There doesn't have to be visible sign that it has burrowed.

I wouldn't argue that a spot check isn't fair to nice a big long hill. I wouldn't argue that a wilderness lore check isn't fair to realize that it is a rhemy trail. But to say that a spot vs hide is the way to tell if the party realizes that a rhemoraz is under a certain spot is just silly.

--Workin' Spikey

Then what is the correct way to handle it? It is an ambush.


I would allow WL and maybe Listen, though I don't see what you would listen for before it was to late.

Even if it travels way below the ground, it has to come up within striking distance to wait in ambush. I can't imagine a huge monster burrowing that close to the surface without any sign at all.

 

[IceBear]

Not one word above addresses the burrowing issue. I have never said that lack of hide skill means you leave signposts stating here you are. So claiming that to be false seems to indicate that you have missed the point. I HAVE said that a 20 foot worm burrowing ten feet beneath the ground will be default make a noticable sign. (Nothing to do with hide, nothing to do with simply passign through, everything to do with a big thing burrowing). The lack of hide or wilderness lore means the creature lacks the ability to actively couter-act the nature effects of its special movement ability.

If it is 100 feet down, it woudl get a vastly higher circumstance bonus, only a epic char could spot it then. But so what?

All I was asking was why tie spotting the signs to an opposed Hide check. I would just make a determination as to how visable the signs were and have the PCs make spot checks. The only other issue I have with this is just because the PCs noticed a subtle sign doesn't mean they understand what it is. But, because it's a game, the and you say - "You notice an indentation in the snow" the players will automatically understand that something is up. The characters might not understand it. That's why I would prefer a Wilderness Lore check. If it's successful then I would point it out. If not successful, I wouldn't say a word - why give the players a chance to metagame?

As for the tracks in the snow of course I wouldn't just allow a Track check to see them. But, I wouldn't use opposed skill checks to notice them. It's a flat DC decided by me. Just because I have a +10 on Hide and I rolled a natural 20 my tracks don't just disappear from the snow.

IceBear