Trolls

[Bendraesar]

You used the mention code to summon me. As I had not previously posted in this thread, I assume you meant to use the code to mention Runestar, and not me. So, when I came to see why I was mentioned, I mentioned Runestar.

While here, I may as well say, interesting thread (for what it's worth, I vote for reskinning the troll--figuratively, or not!).

I re-iterate; what?

 

[Rune]

I re-iterate; what?

If you press the "quote" button in my first post (or the post you made right before it), you will see some code that looks basically like this {Mention}Username{/Mention} only the { and } are replaced with [ and ]. That code sends a notice to the user mentioned that they have been mentioned in a thread--and what thread it is.

In your case, it seemed to me, you were responding to Runestar, but used an abbreviated form of the name. The boards thought you meant me, and sent me a notice to that effect.

The reason, I think, that you did not realize you were mentioning me, is that the code appears automatically when you use the @ symbol before someone's username.

 

[Bendraesar]

If you press the "quote" button in my first post (or the post you made right before it), you will see some code that looks basically like this {Mention}Username{/Mention} only the { and } are replaced with [ and ]. That code sends a notice to the user mentioned that they have been mentioned in a thread--and what thread it is.

In your case, it seemed to me, you were responding to Runestar, but used an abbreviated form. The boards thought you meant me, and sent me a notice to that effect.

I did, but there was no such coding. All I hit was the @ symbol, but I guess that might be some short script for the site. Ah well, just means I need to change what symbol I use to direct comments.

Thanks for your help though.

 

[Rune]

I did, but there was no such coding. All I hit was the @ symbol, but I guess that might be some short script for the site. Ah well, just means I need to change what symbol I use to direct comments.

Thanks for your help though.

No problem, and the problem wasn't the mention, which can be useful for what you want. However, there are a lot of users here, so the abbreviations of names could cause confusion when they are used.

I edited my last post (before your last post came up) with an answer to why the code appeared, when you hadn't intended for it to. Basically, yeah, your guess is right.

Now, to get back on topic:

In my experience, in 3.x, trolls were quickly dropped without acid or flame, and then burned to oblivion once unconscious. That is why I favor a re-envisioning of them, once in a while.

Refluff them to disguise their nature, change their vulnerabilities, or...just get rid of them. Sure, the PCs will be able to drop them, but consider how fun it will be when they keep getting up for more, and the PCs can't figure out why!

 

[Fallenibilis]

[MENTION=77619]Fallen[/MENTION]: I've never personally fought Forest Trolls. Are they like Poison Dusk Lizardfolk on steroids?

Well there we would be at a stand still cause i've never faced a Poison Dusk Lizardfolk but i can tell you that the forrest troll is a nasty little beasty especially if you underestimate them like our party did. Though this may all be due to how the DM plays them. But still fast healing and poison use that does con damage all the while haveing a fantastic abilty to hide cupled with scent isn't something you should take lightly. Also i was wrong about the DC earlier it was 17 not 16 sorry.

Fallenibilis

 

[Bendraesar]

Well there we would be at a stand still cause i've never faced a Poison Dusk Lizardfolk but i can tell you that the forrest troll is a nasty little beasty especially if you underestimate them like our party did. Though this may all be due to how the DM plays them. But still fast healing and poison use that does con damage all the while haveing a fantastic abilty to hide cupled with scent isn't something you should take lightly. Also i was wrong about the DC earlier it was 17 not 16 sorry.

Fallenibilis

Hit and Run tactics plus the ability to completely recuperate between Hits does sound devastating.

 

[frankthedm]

I'm thinking the forest trolls are worse since their poison starts off pretty dangerous and the MM entry is vague on how much of it they have. Poison Dusk lizard-folk will only be as problematic if the party has poor fort saves since the skink's default poisons are low DC and apparently bought out of their NPC gear or hand waved, which either way gives a higher chance of the poison being limited in quantity.

Also most of a PDLF's Challenge will come from it's class as opposed to the Forest troll who is is a fairly strong monster that will receive a big boost from it's first class level. A rogue PDLF can't poison its claws for the Claw, claw bite routine, the forest troll rogue can. Also Barbarian class will benefit the Troll more than PDLF.

 

[Runestar]

Hmm...you have all convinced me to give the forest troll another look. I had previously dismissed it because of its apparently aenemic stats, but I guess I underestimated its poison ability and gauged it from a tank POV.

 

[Empirate]

Trolls are excellent in numbers. As another poster stated, once one Troll is downed, it doesn't matter if you need 10 rounds to finally kill him... except if there's seven more Trolls coming for you!

I used an encounter with six standard Trolls plus one elite Troll (2 levels of Fighter, nice gear, good feat selection - tripper build). That encounter was only EL 11, but my three level 12 PCs were in serious trouble. The Druid was on cremation duty, but she always took longer than a round to finally kill an unconscious Troll. The melee guy was whacking away, and his good AC helped him out a lot, but he still took a few unlucky hits now and then. The Sorcerer confused two or three Trolls with illusions and Charm Monster+Diplomacy.

But when the first two downed Trolls got up again, the fight turned into a long, happy mess. The Druid had to help out in melee, the Sorcerer tried to CdG downed Trolls with Alchemist's Fire (which didn't work so well), the melee guy had to be in-combat-healed repeatedly. It took a looong time to finally really, really kill all those Trolls.


Another sweet idea I had was using Trolls as living bombs. Why should Trolls be afraid to jump down a cliff if they can hit some unlucky adventurers at its bottom? Spot check, then Reflex save to avoid a nasty 20d6 "falling Troll damage". The Trolls? Got back up later!

 

[Bendraesar]

Trolls are excellent in numbers. As another poster stated, once one Troll is downed, it doesn't matter if you need 10 rounds to finally kill him... except if there's seven more Trolls coming for you!

I used an encounter with six standard Trolls plus one elite Troll (2 levels of Fighter, nice gear, good feat selection - tripper build). That encounter was only EL 11, but my three level 12 PCs were in serious trouble. The Druid was on cremation duty, but she always took longer than a round to finally kill an unconscious Troll. The melee guy was whacking away, and his good AC helped him out a lot, but he still took a few unlucky hits now and then. The Sorcerer confused two or three Trolls with illusions and Charm Monster+Diplomacy.

But when the first two downed Trolls got up again, the fight turned into a long, happy mess. The Druid had to help out in melee, the Sorcerer tried to CdG downed Trolls with Alchemist's Fire (which didn't work so well), the melee guy had to be in-combat-healed repeatedly. It took a looong time to finally really, really kill all those Trolls.


Another sweet idea I had was using Trolls as living bombs. Why should Trolls be afraid to jump down a cliff if they can hit some unlucky adventurers at its bottom? Spot check, then Reflex save to avoid a nasty 20d6 "falling Troll damage". The Trolls? Got back up later!

That did sound like an arduous battle, though you can't use Alchemist Fire to Cou de Gras a downed Troll.

There are already Trolls like that. Bladerager Trolls, MMV. (The living bomb part.)