| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Purple Dragon Knight |
Posted - 17 Dec 2004 : 06:32:58
Check out Serpent Kingdom's Errata at the following link: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a
Terpenzi has gone from 595hp to 221hp... (undead, so no Con bonus)
This, in my opinion, shifts the monster from the very serious threat category to just plain dangerous (all things considered, if we compare it with other creatures with neighboring CRs)
How would one remedy to this, and how can one boost an undead's hit points? |
| 21 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 01 Jan 2005 : 20:06:46
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Yeah, they ran SpellCheck this time.   
 Ouch!  |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 01 Jan 2005 : 17:22:32
quote:
Originally posted by SiriusBlack
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
That was one thing that impressed me with SK -- I was starting to get used to typos and weirdness in Realms products (Yes, it must be said: the month of Ukta!  )... But while reading SK, I saw very few editorial mistakes, and most of them were negligible. 'Twas a nice change. 
I'm still curious to know if there were any changes to the editorial process as SK was a very nice improvement.
Yeah, they ran SpellCheck this time. |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 01 Jan 2005 : 16:45:50
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
That was one thing that impressed me with SK -- I was starting to get used to typos and weirdness in Realms products (Yes, it must be said: the month of Ukta! )... But while reading SK, I saw very few editorial mistakes, and most of them were negligible. 'Twas a nice change.
I'm still curious to know if there were any changes to the editorial process as SK was a very nice improvement. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 01 Jan 2005 : 15:49:47
quote:
Originally posted by warlockco
Yeah the errors is appalling at times, but you do have to admit, the Errata sheet for Serpent Kingdoms has to be one of the smallest ones out there so far.
'Tis indeed.
That was one thing that impressed me with SK -- I was starting to get used to typos and weirdness in Realms products (Yes, it must be said: the month of Ukta! )... But while reading SK, I saw very few editorial mistakes, and most of them were negligible. 'Twas a nice change. |
| warlockco |
Posted - 01 Jan 2005 : 10:15:39
Yeah the errors is appalling at times, but you do have to admit, the Errata sheet for Serpent Kingdoms has to be one of the smallest ones out there so far. |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 19 Dec 2004 : 10:31:17
Oops. Should have caught that. They even did an example like that before, where a barbarian had class-based and race-based damage reduction . . . . |
| Arivia |
Posted - 19 Dec 2004 : 07:46:33
quote:
Originally posted by Purple Dragon Knight
Thanks Bookwyrm!
From which supplement is this feat from? That would work quite nicely to "toughen up" Terpenzi... I also realized that Stoneskin would give him an "extra" 150hp (DR 10/Adamantine, with up to 150hp absorbed this way, after which the damage reduction disappears) -- it's just a matter of casting it in succession when the spell is about to run out, and then you have an extra 150hp every time you cast it... oh, and Terpenzi already has damage reduction 15/epic, which should slow down the damage anyhow. Which leaves me to wonder: would Stoneskin have any effect against someone that does NOT wield an Epic sword? if DR 15/epic is higher than DR 10/adamantine, I guess that 10/adamantine is useless against non-epic weapons (since DRs overlap and do not stack) It gets even more complicated due to the fact that Terpenzi also have DR 5/Bludgeoning... (due to the Bone Naga template)
Hmmm... if I was a DM running Terpenzi, I believe I would treat a successful hit against it in the following method:
1. Let's assume a fighter hits it with a +5 longsword (non-epic because not +6)
2. Rolls 22 damage (no energy bonus die, nothing: just sword + STR + magical enhancement)
3. Damage to Terpenzi would be: 22 - 15 = 7
4. Or would it be (for not being bludgeoning): 22 - 15 - 5 = 2
I would be inclined to answer 2 pts of dmg. to Terpenzi, 7 if this damage would be from a mace or warhammer.
Multiple instances of damage reduction do not stack. The creature uses whichever one is best for the situation. In this case, Terpenzi would take 7 damage, as his 15/epic applies. |
| Purple Dragon Knight |
Posted - 19 Dec 2004 : 07:05:15
quote:
Originally posted by Bookwyrm
You're welcome, PDK. And I'm inclined to go with your inclination. (And I'd also be inclined to think some magical steroids are going into that fighter; if it's 22 damage with just weapon and strength, he's got at least Str 28! Less if he's got some magic gauntlets, of course.)
Oh yes!
This example assumed that the fighter was under some serious magical steroids, had weapon specialization, and was potentially using the power attack feat!
How else would he be fighting a CR 34 monster? (actually for CR 34, 22dmg is kind of puny... a level 34 fighter would do much, much better than that... even in one-handed longsword-shield style...) |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 19 Dec 2004 : 05:26:34
You're welcome, PDK. And I'm inclined to go with your inclination. (And I'd also be inclined to think some magical steroids are going into that fighter; if it's 22 damage with just weapon and strength, he's got at least Str 28! Less if he's got some magic gauntlets, of course.) |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 19 Dec 2004 : 02:12:58
quote:
Originally posted by Purple Dragon Knight
quote:
Originally posted by Bookwyrm
Well, take Improved Toughness. It acts like you get +2 Con to determine hit points, but it doesn't say it that way -- meaning it's still good for undead. (And despite the name, it doesn't "improve" the Toughness feat -- you don't need Toughness to take it, meaning you can skip over that lousy feat.)
Thanks Bookwyrm!
From which supplement is this feat from?
Complete Warrior has that feat.
|
| Purple Dragon Knight |
Posted - 19 Dec 2004 : 02:01:37
quote:
Originally posted by Bookwyrm
quote:
Originally posted by Purple Dragon Knight
How would one remedy to this, and how can one boost an undead's hit points?
Well, take Improved Toughness. It acts like you get +2 Con to determine hit points, but it doesn't say it that way -- meaning it's still good for undead. (And despite the name, it doesn't "improve" the Toughness feat -- you don't need Toughness to take it, meaning you can skip over that lousy feat.)
Thanks Bookwyrm!
From which supplement is this feat from? That would work quite nicely to "toughen up" Terpenzi... I also realized that Stoneskin would give him an "extra" 150hp (DR 10/Adamantine, with up to 150hp absorbed this way, after which the damage reduction disappears) -- it's just a matter of casting it in succession when the spell is about to run out, and then you have an extra 150hp every time you cast it... oh, and Terpenzi already has damage reduction 15/epic, which should slow down the damage anyhow. Which leaves me to wonder: would Stoneskin have any effect against someone that does NOT wield an Epic sword? if DR 15/epic is higher than DR 10/adamantine, I guess that 10/adamantine is useless against non-epic weapons (since DRs overlap and do not stack) It gets even more complicated due to the fact that Terpenzi also have DR 5/Bludgeoning... (due to the Bone Naga template)
Hmmm... if I was a DM running Terpenzi, I believe I would treat a successful hit against it in the following method:
1. Let's assume a fighter hits it with a +5 longsword (non-epic because not +6)
2. Rolls 22 damage (no energy bonus die, nothing: just sword + STR + magical enhancement)
3. Damage to Terpenzi would be: 22 - 15 = 7
4. Or would it be (for not being bludgeoning): 22 - 15 - 5 = 2
I would be inclined to answer 2 pts of dmg. to Terpenzi, 7 if this damage would be from a mace or warhammer. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 19 Dec 2004 : 00:47:55
Re: Feat list I need to turn Java on again ;-)
As for becoming undead to gain hit points, the HD goes up to d12 so many facing combat certainly might want the advantage if able to control themselves. The control undread appears , at least to me, more powerful then controling living.
Of course a living person could take the feat as well. I would imagine that the d4 classes certainly should give it a look, if DM allows the splat book feat. |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 19 Dec 2004 : 00:34:23
Here's an interesting thought. A character with less than Con 10 would actually gain hit points by being undead. That would lead to a nice character reason for wanting to be undead. Say, a guy who was always a weakling in body going through the rituals to become more formidable. |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 19 Dec 2004 : 00:29:59
My feat list, perhaps?
It can't be taken more than once. However, it's as good as Toughness at 3rd level, and better beyond it. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 19 Dec 2004 : 00:23:08
quote:
Originally posted by Bookwyrm
quote:
Originally posted by Purple Dragon Knight
How would one remedy to this, and how can one boost an undead's hit points?
Well, take Improved Toughness. It acts like you get +2 Con to determine hit points, but it doesn't say it that way -- meaning it's still good for undead. (And despite the name, it doesn't "improve" the Toughness feat -- you don't need Toughness to take it, meaning you can skip over that lousy feat.)
Hmm
Required: Base Fort save +2
Provides: Gain +1 hp per HD
Not sure if it can be taken more then once, I do not have the book at hand, took stats from a site.
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 19 Dec 2004 : 00:14:49
quote:
Originally posted by Purple Dragon Knight
How would one remedy to this, and how can one boost an undead's hit points?
Well, take Improved Toughness. It acts like you get +2 Con to determine hit points, but it doesn't say it that way -- meaning it's still good for undead. (And despite the name, it doesn't "improve" the Toughness feat -- you don't need Toughness to take it, meaning you can skip over that lousy feat.) |
| the psychotic seaotter |
Posted - 18 Dec 2004 : 20:23:24
quote:
Originally posted by SiriusBlack
quote:
Originally posted by Elf_Friend
Until WoTC gets some changes in editorial staffing I would recommend looking very closely at a monsters stats from now on. The amount of really stupid but encounter breaking errors in the MMIII and Libris Mortis were jaw dropping.
I'm feeling better and better about my decision to not purchase those tomes.
Amen |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 18 Dec 2004 : 16:28:58
quote:
Originally posted by Elf_Friend
Until WoTC gets some changes in editorial staffing I would recommend looking very closely at a monsters stats from now on. The amount of really stupid but encounter breaking errors in the MMIII and Libris Mortis were jaw dropping.
Their editting has not been as good as it used to be... At least the last couple FR products have been more properly editted. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 18 Dec 2004 : 15:42:11
quote:
Originally posted by Purple Dragon Knight
How would one remedy to this, and how can one boost an undead's hit points?
Give them more HD
Only other answer that might work, use Charisma modifier (if any) to adjust hit points. Low Charisma undead might need that stat increased.
Only 2 quick fixes I can think of. |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 18 Dec 2004 : 15:41:51
quote:
Originally posted by Elf_Friend
Until WoTC gets some changes in editorial staffing I would recommend looking very closely at a monsters stats from now on. The amount of really stupid but encounter breaking errors in the MMIII and Libris Mortis were jaw dropping.
I'm feeling better and better about my decision to not purchase those tomes. |
| Mystery_Man |
Posted - 18 Dec 2004 : 15:04:40
quote:
Originally posted by Purple Dragon Knight
Check out Serpent Kingdom's Errata at the following link: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a
Terpenzi has gone from 595hp to 221hp... (undead, so no Con bonus)
This, in my opinion, shifts the monster from the very serious threat category to just plain dangerous (all things considered, if we compare it with other creatures with neighboring CRs)
How would one remedy to this, and how can one boost an undead's hit points?
Until WoTC gets some changes in editorial staffing I would recommend looking very closely at a monsters stats from now on. The amount of really stupid but encounter breaking errors in the MMIII and Libris Mortis were jaw dropping. |
