|
branar posted:I get that 5E's ruleset writ large isn't for everyone. But seriously, who is the audience for these monsters? Most of the monsters you fight are nearly indistinguishable sacks of HP + damage expression. The rest have bullshit mechanics that pretty much guarantees an un-fun encounter for somebody involved. Are there really people out there who look at the monsters they've been releasing and think that this represents a step forward in monster design? The grogs I've seen are thrilled with this one, because they love monsters that are "scary" -- by which they mean monsters that can gently caress you over with a bad die roll or two, so you're pretty much forced to do anything you can to avoid fighting them. cf. rust monsters, rot grubs, et al.
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:04 |
|
|
Super Waffle posted:What exactly is an Intelligence Contest? I don't know about CR 2, but that could be a fun monster if the recovery weren't so hilariously cruel. If you made the stupid parts not so stupid I could see it as a special mini-boss type where you build it up narratively so the party knows it's around and what it's capable of. Make it so the 0 int is temporary and the character recovers d6 Int per round back to their normal. After getting to 3 int they can operate at a disadvantage or whatever and are still susceptible to the body thief ability. If you get back to your normal Int then the effect is over and you're fine. He can turn a PC into a vegetable every round so if you don't allow people to start bouncing back quickly from it then this guy is a tiny amount of d20 variance away from handing out a TPK. Next don't make it a drat contested roll against a bankrupted stat. Come the gently caress on. That's a wisdom/will check if I've ever seen one, for balance and flavor in equal measures. Also the creature would in theory get the snot beat out of it while trying to perform this multi-round maneuver, so there's a chance it can still just be stopped before it can finish. And lastly if it does eat your brain, give some exits for resolving the encounter and getting that character back on their feet. Now your friend is an enemy as well as the first creature if it's still alive. Kill the creature, beat your friend down to 0 while he is being fully controlled and doing everything to kill your party. Once he's down call the beast dead (because he can't survive if you're unconscious, idk) and put the character through a slightly harsh recovery period to be back to 100%. I want to rip off this idea and make it not a "lol ur hosed" creature, I guess I got too used to source material usually taking that as a starting point for interesting monsters. Bhaal fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Sep 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
I would enjoy the Intellect Devourer a little more if it became a major problem for wizards once it took over the body of the fighter. I would enjoy it even more than that if the creature literally named for devouring intellect had the statistics to actually go after the mother lodes of intellect (casters).
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Selachian posted:The grogs I've seen are thrilled with this one, because they love monsters that are "scary" -- by which they mean monsters that can gently caress you over with a bad die roll or two, so you're pretty much forced to do anything you can to avoid fighting them. cf. rust monsters, rot grubs, et al. It's clearly CR2 because it's pretty easy to kill, but it's also clearly not intended to be used with level 2 parties because you need high level spells to deal with it, and it's a mind flayer's dog. This loving edition. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
So the intellect devourer gets all your memories... is there any reason you can't just keep playing as a fighter with an intellect devourer where his brain should be?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
It's basically crazy that the intellect devourer is more dangerous to the guy with low intellect than the guy with high intellect. What the hell.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
The 4e version was level 14, dominated people, rode around in them for a while until they saved (45% chance each round at worst) and stunned people with mind blasts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:It's clearly CR2 because it's pretty easy to kill, but it's also clearly not intended to be used with level 2 parties because you need high level spells to deal with it, and it's a mind flayer's dog. You see it's going back to the sane good encounter math of 2e, not this "balanced" foofawraw.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
Not really, except of course that the intellect devourer remains a monster and thus it's UTTDM. (yes, coining a new abbreviation there, deal with it) Yeah, the Intellect Devourer basically seems to be the epitome of the rocket tag that is this edition. You hit first, you probably kill it. It hits first, it probably kills you. Unless you're a Wizard, in which case you nuke it from range lol.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
I think the intellect devourer would work as a nice setpiece monster. When the PCs enter the room they finally find the villagers they were sent to look for, staring into the distance morosely. Then suddenly the Big Bad Evil Guy appears from behind the curtain, announces that the PCs will never catch them, and sics their intellect devourer pet on the PCs. However, instead of just going for the Fighter, the intellect devourer starts body-jumping from Commoner to Commoner (because we need to figure out a use for those guys). Even though the Commoners drop like flies to the PCs' attacks (they only have, what, 1d4 hit points or something?) the PCs must still make the most of the turns when the intellect devourer is vulnerable, and maybe find a way to prevent it from body-hopping into another Commoner. The problem is, as presented it's still a huge "gently caress you Fighters" monster. Having said that, I kind of want to run the above encounter in Dungeon World, which has rules to support exactly that kind of action. (using Defend to prevent the intellect devourer from getting at the commoners, and using 7-9 rolls to give players hard choices like "Okay, you can totally save that commoner, but it's going to draw the intellect devourer's ire.") e: moths posted:So the intellect devourer gets all your memories... is there any reason you can't just keep playing as a fighter with an intellect devourer where his brain should be? As the group watches in horror as Bob the Fighter gets his brain eaten by the intellect devourer and their former comrade's body turns on them, Bob suddenly stops dead in his tracks. Meanwhile, inside the intellect devourer's consciousness a full-scale war is raging, as Bob has rallied the minds of all the other Fighters who were unlucky enough to lead the charge against the intellect devourer in the past in a psychic assault on the intellect devourer. As Bob's body suddenly stirs to life again, he speaks with the voice of a thousand wronged Fighters, declares martial supremacy and goes on a quest to destroy all casters. I may have lost my train of thought there. Ratpick fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Sep 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
"Magic weapons are totally optional," say the D&D Next team before publishing a CR2 monster with resistance to non-magical weapons capable of instantly killing PCs and driving them around like a car.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
On the plus side, all those dead fighters can reroll as wizards.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Cerepol posted:Opposed intelligence rolls. Actually, yeah, playing an Int Devourer who is just puppeteering some poor bastard around would be a pretty fantastic character to play.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Rosalind posted:On the plus side, all those dead fighters can reroll as wizards. On the plus side, all those dead fighters can reroll as necromancers raising their own previous characters' skeletons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
The Intellect Devourer might seem like yet another "gently caress you fighters" at first, but it's actually the best support fighters will ever get: a tacit approval of houserules for multiple fighter archetypes. All you have to do is roll three different fighters, get them all brainscarfed by the same Devourer, and bam--all three archetypes in the same character!
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:It's basically crazy that the intellect devourer is more dangerous to the guy with low intellect than the guy with high intellect. What the hell. Literally nothing is ever more dangerous to a wizard. The more a monster seems built to hunt wizards, the more it inevitably becomes anti-fighter bullshit. Golems became the same thing! It always comes down to "verisimiitude" being interpreted coincidentally in the way that best favors wizards, every time. Intellect Devourer? Clearly it targets intellect! Oh, that means what should be it's biggest target, the wizard, is also strongest against it? Naw, coincidence. Wizards use golems explicitly to protect their houses from other wizards? Well....it's just a big dumb block of stone, so it auto-fails all these spells! Now it's also big and strong, so it does permanent wounds to melee characters. Hahaha, that's just the way the realism goes, I guess!
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
If we are talking about better intellect devourers then here are the relevant parts from the 13th age intellect devourer (bolding mine). Otherwise it's just a standard monster with some (pretty cool) themed abilities.13th Age Bestiary Intellect Devourer posted:When a PC has dropped to 0 hit points or lower and is making death saves, the player can choose to have the character’s brain eaten by the intellect devourer . Mechanically, this choice is identical to rolling a natural 20 on a death save. The PC can spend a recovery and begin taking actions again as normal. During the next quick rest, the player chooses three background points to keep and removes all others. The GM will then replace those background points with new backgrounds. Some possibilities are included below. Andrast fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Sep 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Know what's weird? Body Thief says the monster gains all the knowledge of the victim, including spells... but it doesn't really ever say that it loses this knowledge if it leaves the body. And why should it? It ate the brain, which houses the knowledge. It's not like the brainless body by itself knows all this poo poo. So I guess there's Intellect Devourers that also happen to be level 20 in every class, having slowly worked their way up the food chain. Not that the rules take this into account or anything with a random "this is the poo poo it knows" table or anything. Or look at it from another angle: knowing spells implies that the ID can cast them. But how does that make sense? Do gods only grant spells to the bodies of their clerics, even if someone else entirely is driving around the car? What about warlock familiars or ranger pets? Do they still obey? I think there is room for an "up to the DM" philosophy, particularly when it comes to corner cases. But this stuff is so weird that I wouldn't know how to handle it. The ability is two paragraphs but still so vague that I can't figure it out. Is knowledge of warlock spells enough to cast them? Even though the Devourer never made a pact? If the answer is no, then the Devourer's ability lies. If the answer is yes, then nobody ever needs to make a warlock pact anymore because knowledge can be taught and imparted on others, as the patron's permission is irrelevant. Come the gently caress on, if you want to have it all be "up to the DM" at least provide enough of a framework for me to make informed decisions. This isn't empowering me to do my job, it's forcing me to do yours.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
That would actually make a great slightly-meta Big Bad for a campaign. An ancient Intellect Devourer who has consumed dozens of powerful adventurers, obtaining their knowledge and skills over the centuries. It's why the villain performs highly visible evil acts: to draw out new adventurers to devour. The Devourer would then goad them into gaining in strength at the rapid pace that heroes tend to do, until they're worth eating. So the villain still performs simplistic evil actions, threatens the heroes enough to motivate them but doesn't just massacre them all while it still has a 15 level advantage, and provides steadily increasing challenges. The only difference is this time it actually makes sense! The Intellect Devourer just accidentally explained one of the oldest gaming cliches!
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
Kaza42 posted:That would actually make a great slightly-meta Big Bad for a campaign. An ancient Intellect Devourer who has consumed dozens of powerful adventurers, obtaining their knowledge and skills over the centuries. It's why the villain performs highly visible evil acts: to draw out new adventurers to devour. The Devourer would then goad them into gaining in strength at the rapid pace that heroes tend to do, until they're worth eating.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Kaza42 posted:That would actually make a great slightly-meta Big Bad for a campaign. An ancient Intellect Devourer who has consumed dozens of powerful adventurers, obtaining their knowledge and skills over the centuries. It's why the villain performs highly visible evil acts: to draw out new adventurers to devour. The Devourer would then goad them into gaining in strength at the rapid pace that heroes tend to do, until they're worth eating. I like it, but isn't that what the original Tomb of Horrors was about as well?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
Kaza42 posted:That would actually make a great slightly-meta Big Bad for a campaign. An ancient Intellect Devourer who has consumed dozens of powerful adventurers, obtaining their knowledge and skills over the centuries. It's why the villain performs highly visible evil acts: to draw out new adventurers to devour. The Devourer would then goad them into gaining in strength at the rapid pace that heroes tend to do, until they're worth eating. I am so using this sometime.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:I like it, but isn't that what the original Tomb of Horrors was about as well? If "performing highly visible evil acts to attract many high-level characters to devour" is the same as "having one's earthly remains secretly interred in a well-hidden deathtrap tomb so deadly and confusing that almost nobody will make it to you to be devoured", then yes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
I don't think much of 13th Age but goddamn is that a really cool way to handle a monster like this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
homullus posted:On the plus side, all those dead fighters can reroll as necromancers raising their own previous characters' skeletons. Are there any RAW limitations on the re-rolling of new characters, or anything on suicide? Otherwise you just need a high enough cliff to render all "how will the Necromancer find enough skeletons" complaints null and void. (If the drowning rules actually work in this edition a barrel of water would probably be better, though. Less risk of scattering the merchandise.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
Kaza42 posted:That would actually make a great slightly-meta Big Bad for a campaign. An ancient Intellect Devourer who has consumed dozens of powerful adventurers, obtaining their knowledge and skills over the centuries. It's why the villain performs highly visible evil acts: to draw out new adventurers to devour. The Devourer would then goad them into gaining in strength at the rapid pace that heroes tend to do, until they're worth eating. Hello Dungeon World hook!
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Literally nothing is ever more dangerous to a wizard. The more a monster seems built to hunt wizards, the more it inevitably becomes anti-fighter bullshit. Rakshasa's Immune to all Wizards spells below 7th level. Also Clay Golems unlike Stone Golems are immune to enough stuff that taking them down with spells is pretty hard. Kai Tave posted:"Magic weapons are totally optional," say the D&D Next team before publishing a CR2 monster with resistance to non-magical weapons capable of instantly killing PCs and driving them around like a car. You don't need Magic weapons to kill it. It just takes half damage. Also it is not capable of instantly killing PC's and driving them around. It is capable a round later, after the target gets two chances to avoid being rendered Brain dead, of taking over a brain dead person's body. Also I don't get why so many of you have issues with monsters actually being deadly. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Sep 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Has there been a leak for Iron Golems?MonsterEnvy posted:Rakshasa's Immune to all Wizards spells below 7th level. You can be deadly without completely removing a player's ability to do anything because of RNG. And again, the Intellect Devourer exists sole to gently caress over martials, despite it reading like it should go munch on the Wizard. Me personally on the topic? The rest I don't care about as much, they're mostly boring. I have gripes about the Succubus' CR and ability to bust your balls when it comes to HP/stat tracking, which is almost as annoying to track and account for as level drain in previous editions. Strength of Many fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Sep 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Rakshasa's Immune to all Wizards spells below 7th level. Does it still die instantly to a crossbow bolt with Bless cast on it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
The thing is "this monster kills you in one roll if it rolls high" isn't scary. It's shocking. There's no tension. And it leads to not giving a poo poo about your character because they'll just die in one roll anyways. Scary was 4e monsters where they put you in some sort of status and every failed roll makes it worse, leading to your inevitable death. Not "you are hit, roll until you succeed," but "every failure makes it worse."
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
Are we still treating MonsterEnvy like he isn't a gimmick poster while we patiently wait for this thread to become exactly like the Imp Zone thread?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:Does it still die instantly to a crossbow bolt with Bless cast on it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
Nihilarian posted:What, really? I want to see this. It's a weakness derived from the myth where a Rakshasa was killed instantly through a godly bolt from a crossbow. Wikipedia posted:...Kumbhakarna grabbed him and started to drag him off. It was at that point that Rama and his brother Lakshmana used arrows and a secret Brahmastra ("Brahma's weapon") to kill Kumbhakarna, dropping the Rakshasa like a huge tree cleft in twain by a thunderbolt. (Ramayana, Book III: Vana Parva, Section 285.) This is the case in the NWN game where blessed bolts kill any rakshasa instantly. Not too sure if it is specified in any D&D MM. But to be fair the weapon was blessed by Brahma himself, the Deva of creation. Rigged Death Trap fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Sep 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
It was in the 2nd edition MM.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Macdeo Lurjtux posted:It was in the 2nd edition MM. It's old, and also a stupid way to completely negate the Rakshasa's supposed strength against casters, so I figured even money it'd make it into 5e.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
As an Indian with a passing memory of Indian myth, I have to point out that the Divine Arrows, like much magic in myth, were rare, mystical, and powerful gifts given for piety, dedication, or goodness. At their most cavalier, they are the equivalent of the silver bullet you only use to destroy powerful monsters. So naturally, in D&D, a wizard can just crap one out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
Caphi posted:As an Indian with a passing memory of Indian myth, I have to point out that the Divine Arrows, like much magic in myth, were rare, mystical, and powerful gifts given for piety, dedication, or goodness. At their most cavalier, they are the equivalent of the silver bullet you only use to destroy powerful monsters. Who would be more mythical, dedicated and 
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
Also like in most myth, you didn't just go around with a wizard. You met wizards, or more often magical creatures, and sometimes they helped you or gave you magical things. Burn wizards, basically.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Caphi posted:Also like in most myth, you didn't just go around with a wizard. You met wizards, or more often magical creatures, and sometimes they helped you or gave you magical things. Removal would be good, turn them into enemies/aloof ally NPCs for the players. I think Wizards being player characters is also an issue of creator and player mentality. No one wants to be the Gandalf or Merlin anymore, supporting the actual heroes from behind the scenes and almost never directly save when it is absolutely required. Even the hated Elminster spent a lot of his non-book time just setting things up for adventurers to tackle the issues rather than intervene himself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:04 |
|
|
Kaza42 posted:That would actually make a great slightly-meta Big Bad for a campaign. You would, however, want to avoid a situation where the players spend 99% of the campaign thinking that the villain is a boring cliche and only find out that it was secretly interesting at the very end. It would work, though, if the PCs know what was up, are in on the secret that this is what the bad guy had done before and is trying to do to them now. Let them have the fun of acting out being cliched heroes in order to receive the benefit of a supervillain training them, simultaneously plotting how to actually take it down once they're powerful enough, limiting the damage he does in setting up paper challenges for them to defeat, and hiding that they know it doesn't actually want to kill them. Sir Kodiak fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Sep 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 23:44
|
|
