Substitution Levels for Poison Dusk Lizard (MM3)

Evil DM

First Post
Hi folks,

I want my Eberron Party to encounter some poison dusk lizards. But I'd like to change them somehow to make them more specific.
I think of giving them 3 ranger levels with little changes:

1st Favored Enemy
What do you think of trading it into something like Favored Terrain (Forest) and give them a bonus on move silently and / or hiding.

2nd Combat Style
I want to make them more special with their bolas and nets so I think about chosing wheater to advane the bola or net fighting technique. Maybe to give them a bonus on their trip attempt or to increase the range or a bonus on their attack role?

3rd Endurance
As they have a CON increase and can hold their breath very long I'd like to treat it in for some of advancement of their poison use ability.
Something like Improved poison use which would go like: increase the DC by one and maybe by two on a critical hit.


What do you think?

Cheers, Evil DM
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I'd say give them three levels of Rogue instead. Swap out Sneak Attack and take the Fighter feat progression as per the Rogue variant in the Unearthed Arcana. With all those skill points, you can take all sorts of Hide, Move Silently and what not and the Fighter feats will get your your Weapon Focus and any kind of weapon style you like.

If you decide to keep the Ranger progression, your Combat Style is a cool idea. Something a little more nifty to boggle the PC's. I'm not sure what kind of "styles" a net would have, but still a great idea.

I don't know what poison they have or what it does, but you can always take Weapon Focus (poison) and assorted feats...

... that's all I got.
 

Favored Environment seems like a good fit, but isn't. :\ Since most of those skills are things they won't make use of, consider instead giving them instead a +1 to Listen checks, Reflex saves and AC when in their Favored Environment. (These bonuses can be increased to +2 , +3, etc. at 5th, 10th , etc. levels.) These are passive benefits which are easy to just add to their stat block, though you'll need a different AC and skills block if the PCs face the PDLizards later in a dungeon.

All the example poison dusk lizardfolk are Rangers, and they all have bows... and honestly I don't see trading out Rapid Shot being a good tactical choice. Bolas and nets are nice for an opening volley, but they need to actually deal some damage if they want to win a fight. Since they have three natural attacks, it might be cool to give them Multiattack as a choice instead of TWF (and Improved Multiattack, etc. in place of Improved TWF, etc.).

But if you really want to give them a benefit to use with bolas & nets, allow them to ignore their Size penalty. That +4 to their Trip checks will make the weapons much more dangerous.

Endurance is a weak feat. Any replacement should be about as weak. Skill Focus, one of the +2/+2 skill feats, or Toughness (ugh) are all similar replacements.

Regarding extra stealth bonuses: they already have a racial +5 and another +4 for size. How high do you want their Hide checks to be? Seriously, they're ridiculously good at hiding right out of the box.

- - -

There's a nice PHB-II Ranger variant which gives up Animal Companion and instead gains Distracting Attack: any foe you damage is considered flanked against any ally's next single attack. So you could put together a team of two high-level bowmen and a bunch of low-level skirmishers like so...

Bowmen - PD Lizard Ranger 6 -- CR 6
HD: 6d8 +18 (45 hp)
Initiative: +4
Move: 40 ft. (8 squares) with longstrider; 30 ft. normal
AC: 22 (+1 size, +2 leather, +4 dex, +3 natural, +2 favored environment); Flat 18; Touch 17
BAB/Grapple: +6/+4
Full Attack (ranged): MW Longbow +10/+10/+5 (1d6+3 plus flanked; 20/x3) within 30 ft.
Full Attack (melee): Longspear +8/+3 (1d6+3; 20/x3) reach
Full Attack (melee): 2 Claws +8/+8 (1d3+2; 20/x2) and Bite (1d3+1; 20/x2)
Standard Attack (ranged) MW Longbow +12 (1d6+3 plus flanked; 20/x3) within 30 ft.
Standard Attack (ranged) Manyshot +8 (2d6+5 plus flanked; 20/4d6+14)
Standard Attack (melee) Longspear +8 (1d6+3; 20/x3) reach
Standard Attack (melee) Bite +8 (1d3+3; 20/x2)
Feats: Track (b), Rapid Shot (b), Endurance (b), Manyshot (b), Multiattack, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot
Skills: Hide +22 (9 ranks, +5 chameleon, +4 size, +4 dex) !!!
Saves: Fort +8 (5 base +3 con), Ref +11 (5 base +4 dex +2 env), Will +3 (2 base +1 wis)
Abilities: Str 14, Dex 18, Con 16, Int 8, Wis 12, Cha 8
Spells Prepared: longstrider and entangle or hunter's mercy (Spell Compendium)
Loot: MW leather armor, MW Composite longbow (Str +2) + 550 gp worth of stuff


Skirmisher -- PD Lizard Rogue 3 -- CR 3
HD: 3d6 + 9 (19 hp)
Initiative: +3
Move: 30 ft. (6 squares); can Tumble
AC: 19 (+1 size, +2 leather, +3 dex, +3 natural); Flat 16; Touch 14
BAB/Grapple: +2/-1
Standard Attack (ranged): Bola +6 (1d3+1 nonlethal and Trip)
Full Attack (melee): 2 Claws +6/+6 (1d3+1 +2d6 SA) and Bite +4 (1d3 +2d6 SA)
Standard Attack (melee): Claw +6 (1d3+1 +2d6 SA)
Feats: Multiattack, Weapon Finesse
Skills: Hide +18 (6 ranks, +5 chameleon, +4 size, +3 dex) !!!
Saves: Fort +4, Reflex +6, Will +0
Abilities: Str 12, Dex 17, Con 16, Int 13, Wis 8, Cha 8

Tactics should be obvious. The two bow guys shoot while the (many) skirmishers run up and try to flank.

Cheers, -- N
 

Nifft said:
Bolas and nets are nice for an opening volley, but they need to actually deal some damage if they want to win a fight.

Thanks for your good advice Nifft but I must admit that I want to try something different. Life in the jungle (of Xen'Drik) is different - so the fighting challenge is different.
I am not so sure if they need to do some damage to win a fight. What if they catch the PCs with their nets and pull them under water? No damage to heal, no armor that protects you...just your grapple check which you lose against those nasty beasts because they have improved grapple and are buffed with bull's strength from their cleric....
...and they pull you under water where all your magic equipment is worthless.

Cheers, Evil DM.
 

Evil DM said:
I am not so sure if they need to do some damage to win a fight. What if they catch the PCs with their nets and pull them under water?
Size small = -4 to their attempt to net, and -4 on their attempt to pull.

You tell me if they're going to live long healthy lives.

Cheers, -- N
 

Nifft said:
Size small = -4 to their attempt to net, and -4 on their attempt to pull.

You tell me if they're going to live long healthy lives.

Cheers, -- N

Why would small size give them -4 on both of these? The net description in the SRD doesn't say anything about it.

Also, it isn't clear from the rules whether size modifiers apply to ranged trip attempts.

-Stuart
 

szilard said:
Why would small size give them -4 on both of these? The net description in the SRD doesn't say anything about it.
D'oh! You're right; the -4 mentioned in the Nets block has nothing to do with size. The size restriction is on who they can Entangle. Thanks.

szilard said:
Also, it isn't clear from the rules whether size modifiers apply to ranged trip attempts.
IMHO it is clear: you make a trip check, and trip checks have size modifiers. The only way in which a bola ranged trip check is different from a regular one is: it occurs at range, and you can't be counter-tripped.

Cheers, -- N
 

Nifft said:
IMHO it is clear: you make a trip check, and trip checks have size modifiers. The only way in which a bola ranged trip check is different from a regular one is: it occurs at range, and you can't be counter-tripped.

Cheers, -- N

The language there is pretty clearly explicating a melee trip attempt. As far as I know we don't have language describing a ranged one... we can extrapolate and assume they use the same mechanics, but...

-Stuart
 

szilard said:
The language there is pretty clearly explicating a melee trip attempt. As far as I know we don't have language describing a ranged one... we can extrapolate and assume they use the same mechanics, but...
The language there is pretty clearly granting your opponent a counter-Trip if you fail, but the language under Bola makes an exception. Just like the language under Bola says you can use it to make a Trip check at range. Those are the two ways in which making a Trip check with a Bola differ from making a regular Trip check.

We don't have to extrapolate all that much. It says make a Trip check, it means make a Trip check.

Are you claiming that the mechanics for a ranged trip check are entirely undefined? I honestly don't see how you can justify throwing out part of those rules without simultaneously justifying throwing out the rest.

Cheers, -- N
 

Nifft said:
Are you claiming that the mechanics for a ranged trip check are entirely undefined? I honestly don't see how you can justify throwing out part of those rules without simultaneously justifying throwing out the rest.

Cheers, -- N

You are probably correct... but, yeah, the concern is that we don't actually have any clear mechanics defined for a ranged trip attack - and, honestly, I'm not sure why the size of the thing doing the tripping should have any effect at all at range...

-Stuart
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top