Converting monsters from Tales From The Infinite Staircase

[Cleon]

Hmmm, what are the rules for a bound character? Use Rope just says the checks are opposed Escape Artist vs Use Rope checks, but it doesn't say the mechanical effects of being bound. Anyway, I guess we should allow it to attack with tentacles when bound, at least if the tentacles aren't specifically bound.

IIRC a bound character is Entangled (q.v.), so can attack with a -2 penalty.

Masterwork manacles have a DC 35 Escape Artist check to get out. So maybe a +20 bonus to Escape Artist given Dex 10? (It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that one of these would invest ranks in Escape Artist.) Break DC is 28 for masterwork manacles, so maybe +10 to the Str check?

I was thinking it could get a racial bonus to both Escape Artist and Strength checks by becoming malleable (bonus to Escape Artist) and exerting pressure by swelling against its bonds (bonus to Strength). I agree it's unlikely to have any ranks in Escape Artist.

We know the DCs, so if we follow the "10% chance per round of breaking free" of the original, that'll set the necessary bonus:

Normal Manacles
Escape Artist DC 30 => skill modifier +9 with Dex 10 => racial bonus +9
Break DC 26 => Strength modifier +5 with Str 15 => racial bonus +3

Masterwork Manacles
Escape Artist DC 35=> skill modifier +14 with Dex 10 => racial bonus +14
Break DC 28 => Strength modifier +7 with Str 15 => racial bonus +5

Hmm... so the simplest solution is a +5 racial bonus to Strength checks to break free of bonds. The Escape Artist bonus, if any, ought to be around +9 to +14.

How about giving its escape rolls racial bonuses of +5 to Strength checks and +10 to Escape Artist checks?

 

[freyar]

Well, if it can attack anyway with a penalty even while bound, I don't see a need to give it an extra ability to cover that.

Wait, I'm a little confused at your math. A 10% chance per round is rolling a 19 or 20. So it should be able to break free with a roll of 19. For the normal manacle, that means it needs a +11 racial bonus, yes? And etc, etc. That said, I'd ok with the +10 and +5 bonuses you suggest or else a touch higher.

 

[Cleon]

Well, if it can attack anyway with a penalty even while bound, I don't see a need to give it an extra ability to cover that.

Yes, I agree it'd be superfluous so let's forget about it.

Wait, I'm a little confused at your math. A 10% chance per round is rolling a 19 or 20. So it should be able to break free with a roll of 19. For the normal manacle, that means it needs a +11 racial bonus, yes? And etc, etc. That said, I'd ok with the +10 and +5 bonuses you suggest or else a touch higher.

Dang it, you're right. For a 10% change of beating a DC of X the Baatorian's best roll needs to be X+1, not X-1.

I can't have been very awake that day.

It should be:

Normal Manacles
Escape Artist DC 30 => skill modifier +11 with Dex 10 => racial bonus +11
Break DC 26 => Strength modifier +7 with Str 15 => racial bonus +5

Masterwork Manacles
Escape Artist DC 35=> skill modifier +16 with Dex 10 => racial bonus +16
Break DC 28 => Strength modifier +9 with Str 15 => racial bonus +7

That said, I'd ok with the +10 and +5 bonuses you suggest or else a touch higher.

Hmm... so how about Escape Artist +12 and Strength +6?

 

[freyar]

+12 and +6 work for me!

Is there anything else to give to these? Looks like a Con damage touch attack.

 

[Cleon]

+12 and +6 work for me!

Updating Maturing Baatorian Working Draft.

Upon reflection, I think the central sentence would work better like so:

Alternate Form (Su): At will, a maturing baatorian creature can sprout a mass of grotesque tentacles from its torso. All its abilities remain unchanged despite the alien appearance, with the following exceptions: the maturing baatorian can only use its 10 tentacle attacks (as described above) when in its alternate form, plus it gains a +12 racial bonus to Escape Artist checks and a +6 racial bonus to Strength checks to break free from any sort of bonds (manacles, webs, et cetera). Changing shape is a standard action.

The current wording could be interpreted as it having twenty tentacle attacks when in its Alternate Form and ten in its regular form - since it "gains 10 tentacle attacks".

Is there anything else to give to these? Looks like a Con damage touch attack.

Constitution damage certainly, but I don't see any indication they're touch attacks. The original stats read as normal melee attacks to me, doing 1d6 damage plus 1 Con.

As for the other abilities, it has immunity to cold, fire and electricity plus spell resistance and regeneration that's slow but so persistent it's only slowed by holy damage rather than being cancelled by it.

Those defenses are tougher than a Nupperibo, which have standard Baatezu immunities and resistances – no damage from fire or poison and half damage from cold and gas in AD&D 2E – and have no spell resistance and their regeneration doesn't work at all against holy damage.

I guess we shouldn't give it a Baatezu's See in Darkness SQ, since it isn't a Baatezu.

That raises a question – should we give it a "Baatorian" subtype?

 

[freyar]

That change to Alternate Form sounds good.

The Con damage attack says (my bold) "SA Touch drains 1 point of Constitution (recovered later at a rate of 1 per 10 minutes of rest)," which is why I'd think it's a touch attack.

More later...

 

[Cleon]

That change to Alternate Form sounds good.

Updating Maturing Baatorian Working Draft.

The Con damage attack says (my bold) "SA Touch drains 1 point of Constitution (recovered later at a rate of 1 per 10 minutes of rest)," which is why I'd think it's a touch attack.

More later...

There are plenty of AD&D monsters that attack by "touching" their victim and most of them do so with a standard attack roll, which is a normal melee or ranged attack in 3E terms. The usual explanation for this is that the AD&D attack has to "touch" an exposed portion of the enemy that isn't protected by armour, such as bare skin, which is little different from a regular AD&D attack which are generally assumed to "hit" by cutting through the most vulnerable points of the armour.

To my thinking, unless there's explicit mention of the attack "ignoring armour", or a formula along the lines of "hitting AC 10 plus adjustments for Dexterity or magic" such "touch" attacks are not necessarily 3E touch attacks.

Still, I'm open to argument. It'd certainly make the Baatorian a considerably more formidable foe, and it'll distinguish it from my homebrew which uses standard melee attacks.

 

[freyar]

Interesting. I guess I can't remember other examples of an attack doing both kinds of damage (I mean, I remember I've seen them but don't remember how they were written). Well, we could do sometihng like 1d6 (or whatever) + (1-1/2) Str + 1 Con if you prefer. I'd have to think about what I'd rather do.

 

[Cleon]

Interesting. I guess I can't remember other examples of an attack doing both kinds of damage (I mean, I remember I've seen them but don't remember how they were written). Well, we could do sometihng like 1d6 (or whatever) + (1-1/2) Str + 1 Con if you prefer. I'd have to think about what I'd rather do.

Fine. Take your time.

I'm thinking it ought to be "plus Str" or "plus 1/2 Str" though, not 1-1/2 as mentioned in your previous post.

 

[freyar]

Well, let's do Con damage on top of the regular melee attack. + 1/2 Str I guess would make them a more reasonable damage level.