Rhemoraz CR7?

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

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

And no one has disputed any of that. But if you are going to do that, you can't assume that the listed CR is correct.

But characterizing the DC 13 check I listed as being only against the (correct) -7 net inherent modifiers mistates the case.

 

[IceBear]

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.

The reason why this ambush is different than other ambushes is because the actual ambusher can't be seen. Only signs of the ambusher's presence. As I said above, I would allow these signs to be detected with Wilderness Lore (to both notice them, and their significance) or as a flat Spot check against a DC that I decided upon (but I don't like this because of possible metagaming problems).

IceBear

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

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

If you don't want to use the Hide skill for a hiding monster than don't. But you are house-ruling. Which is fine. But it is, again, not applicable to the official abiltiies of the monster.

 

[IceBear]

And no one has disputed any of that. But if you are going to do that, you can't assume that the listed CR is correct.

But characterizing the DC 13 check I listed as being only against the (correct) -7 net inherent modifiers mistates the case.

*LOUD SCREAM* I've NEVER said that CR7 was correct. I'm not arguing that. I don't know what it should be.

If I've been misreading you, I'm sorry. But it seemed that you were reducing the chance of spotting the signs of the ambush to an opposed Spot vs Hide check. That's what I felt you were doing and I didn't think that was the correct way of doing it.

IceBear

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

The reason why this ambush is different than other ambushes is because the actual ambusher can't be seen. Only signs of the ambusher's presence. As I said above, I would allow these signs to be detected with Wilderness Lore (to both notice them, and their significance) or as a flat Spot check against a DC that I decided upon (but I don't like this because of possible metagaming problems).

IceBear

So?

If you don't go into the ambush, you aren't ambushed.

If you want to say that WL is more appropriate for the ambush beause only signs are present. Fine. That seems quite reasonable. It does not change the math.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

*LOUD SCREAM* I've NEVER said that CR7 was correct. I'm not arguing that. I don't know what it should be.

If I've been misreading you, I'm sorry. But it seemed that you were reducing the chance of spotting the signs of the ambush to an opposed Spot vs Hide check. That's what I felt you were doing and I didn't think that was the correct way of doing it.

IceBear

Any way you want to slice it, I am saying that the abilities the remorhaz has are stated on page 155 of the MM. Any additional abilties you want to give to them are your call. But they are not official.

 

[IceBear]

If you don't want to use the Hide skill for a hiding monster than don't. But you are house-ruling. Which is fine. But it is, again, not applicable to the official abiltiies of the monster.

Holy crap! You're not getting me are you? We're back to the example of the goblin that is hiding behind a door in room B while the players are in room A. Would you allow a spot check to allow the players to see the goblin? I sure wouldn't. Would I allow a spot check to notice it's muddy footprint going into that room? Maybe, but the DC wouldn't be the goblin's Hide roll.

If the ice worm was hiding behind a rock, I would use the standard opposed rolls of Hide vs Spot. It's not doing that. It's 20ft under ground. There is no way of the PCs seeing it. They might see signs that it is nearby, but they can't see it. I''m not giving it any more abilities than it has in the Monster Manual. I'm just using common sense when it comes to something being 20ft underground.

If you want to make the chance of detecting those signs to be the same as the chance of spotting it hiding, I think you've invented the house rule not me.

Even Petrosian thinks a Wilderness Lore check is the way of noticing the trap.

IceBear

 

[IceBear]

So?

If you don't go into the ambush, you aren't ambushed.

If you want to say that WL is more appropriate for the ambush beause only signs are present. Fine. That seems quite reasonable. It does not change the math.

What math????

Yes, there is a chance of spotting the ambush. I've never said that it wouldn't be. As to what the DC would be, that would depend, but it's not just it's Hide check because you can't see it.

IceBear

 

[Shard O'Glase]

For me spot and listen checks seem a really long stretch. And I don't think I'm adding something to the creature. I think those who add noticibility to burrowing are adding something to burrowing. I don't think a 20' long worm will make a very noticeably imprit on snow when it is 10' below the snow. I don't think spot can spot it, and I doubt spot could notice anything about the snow. Think about a dirt trail your walking across a dirt trail you spot that it's kind of bumpy, oh no natural terain isn't perfectly smooth something must be burrowing beneath us. I'm sorry that just doesn't track for me. And I certainly don't think it would be leaving such obvious disturbances that are above anything but bumpy snow. Wilderness lore I could go with spot nope. As for listen sure I'd allow a check, but there is a +5 modifier for being behind a door, a +15 modifier for being behind a stone wall, 10 feet of solid material is what +30-+40 to the dc of that listen check. It isn't moving around so what base dc with its sixe penalty added 3-4+the solid material penalty dc 33-44 sure they get the check, but I doubt any of them will make it.


As for it being in the right place, I wouldn't guarantee it, but it is likely waiting in a good ambush spot like on a trail, or if this was less wintery near a stream or other watering hole. If the party decides to walk on the path, yep its in the perfect place. If the party decides to avoid whatever trails animals and nomads have made fine they avoid the encounter with their savy choice of off roading it.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Holy crap! You're not getting me are you? We're back to the example of the goblin that is hiding behind a door in room B while the players are in room A. Would you allow a spot check to allow the players to see the goblin? I sure wouldn't.

If the ice worm was hiding behind a rock, I would use the standard opposed rolls of Hide vs Spot. It's not doing that. It's 20ft under ground. There is no way of the PCs seeing it. They might see signs that it is nearby, but they can't see it. I''m not giving it any more abilities than it has in the Monster Manual. I'm just using common sense when it comes to something being 20ft underground.

If you want to make the chance of detecting those signs to be the same as the chance of spotting it hiding, I think you've invented the house rule not me.

Even Petrosian thinks a Wilderness Lore check is the way of noticing the trap.

IceBear

I'm getting you fine. I just can't get you to look at things from wider scope.

There are mechanics in 3E for how to handle an ambush. A spot check is used. I agree that a Listen or Wilderness Lore can be a replacement check. In general, a hide check is used to set the DC. I already said I can agree that Wilderness Lore is a perfectly fine substitute for hide under these circumstances.

Either you A) use the official mechanics using some ability of the rmorhaz to set the DC for the Spot/Listen/WL check or
B) ignore the mechanics and make one up.

I was assuming that in the Rules forum the rules would be followed unless otherwise stated.

Nothing in the MM gives it the ability to be greatly hidden and also be within striking distance at the same time.