Boggard Swampseer

Tom McTrouble's page

Organized Play Member. 6 posts (8 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 16 Organized Play characters.


RSS

Scarab Sages

parsimony wrote:

It's fecund not fecal. Fertile (hence swarm) vs made of s!##. The description says its normal armor applies, so probably barkskin would work but it's a swarm, so you're worried about area attacks. Magic fang wouldn't affect damage, which is per swarm subtype but might allow that swarm damage against otherwise immune creatures. The familiars are limited by the archetype since they require a familiar that has a swarm version,

Maybe you could make an argument for an some improved familiars to swarm like that if they had an alternate form matching those listed -- i.e. imp or quasit in an alternate form, in which case you might get some help against damage resistance.
But I think the familiars are deliberately limited to those creatures that match the flavor of the archetype; you are not a normal wizard with a familiar. You are a Swarm Monger druid with little swarm friends who love your fecal matter -- well, anybody's fecal matter probably.

You should have a period after "swarm version", not a comma. See, you only need one sentence to be condescending and not helpful, not two paragraphs.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hoping I'm not missing something obvious here. The way the spiritualist archetype is written seems to mean that a Shadow Caller's shade would have to move at the exact same time as the spiritualist. Otherwise it either would constantly get banished to the shadow plane or the Shadow Caller will be provoking attacks of opportunity while they focus, and I can't imagine that was the intention. Has a precedent for simultaneous movement ever been set before?

Scarab Sages

I am GMing a home game where one of the boss NPCs is a succubus with four levels of antipaladin. According to the monster reconstruction rules, this would be a CR 9 creature, however I feel that is kind of a misrepresentation, mostly based on that after applying one of the +4 ability score adjustments to her CHA (obviously) and adding the +1 from four class levels, her CHA is a 32. IMO, this creates three "problems". First, unholy resilience will put her saves through the roof. Second, the DC to resist her dominate will go to 26, which makes it very likely that the fight is going to turn from a 1v5 into a 2v4. Third, smite good will effectively let her ignore one other person in the fight.

My question is: With a reasonably balanced party of 5 characters that are not optimized, when would this be an appropriate boss encounter? I think that at APL 7, the party would get annihilated by this, 8 might be more appropriate. Again, want this encounter to be a possible TPK, but not something they never had a chance at. Some things to consider:

- Due to home game story, teleporting and summoning don't function.
- Game is using the automatic bonus progression rules

Thanks!

Scarab Sages

Erik Keith wrote:

Greetings Tmeister,

#39771 appears to be an inactive number. Just rereport the event with your number and you should be fine!

- Erik Keith

Ok Thank you

Scarab Sages

tmeister wrote:
On 4/1/2014 I GM'd Scenario #4-07 and gave the society number 39771 as my own. I misplaced a number and it is actually 39971. The players who played should still all be fine for credit, but I wanted to know if I could correct this for both the GM credit and the character credit (39971-3 instead of 39771-3).

Event code was 1213

Scarab Sages

On 4/1/2014 I GM'd Scenario #4-07 and gave the society number 39771 as my own. I misplaced a number and it is actually 39971. The players who played should still all be fine for credit, but I wanted to know if I could correct this for both the GM credit and the character credit (39971-3 instead of 39771-3).