I thought we could have a post where the errors in Blackwall could be listed and addressed, either by readers or, hopefully, the Dungeon staff.
I'll start out with my question regarding the timeline.
From Adventure Background:
"About two years ago, a sudden blight of ravenous worms ..."
"She is in fact the one responsible for the worms ten years ago..."
"Not long after the lizardfolk attacks ceased two years ago..."
So, did these worms show up two years ago or ten years ago?
|
When I see conflicts like this I tend to go with the one that is mentioned more often. In this case that would be two years. Logically ten years does not make as much sense as the lizardfolk would have probably attacked the keep far sooner since they were not producing any new children. Here is mine:
"If the PCs watch, they see eight groups of five lizardfolk..." (Thats a total of 40 enemies)
"There are thirty lizardfolk besieging Blackwall Keep"
Later on in the stat blocks they list only 28 mook lizards and two tougher leader types. This seems to confirm the 30 lizardfolk idea, but I was just wondering if the missing 10 matter.
Here's something else I find confusing:
Kyuss Spawnling, damage 1d3-3 plus poison. But that means there will never be any damage from the "tiny, razor-sharp teeth", thus there will never be any "injecting [of] a burning toxin into the victim's blood."
What am I missing? These creatures should do at least one point of damage on an attack. This really isn't a situation where the stats are where they are because later there will be increased damage dice because of increased size, etc. As far as I can tell, RAW, these little buggers can't hurt the PC's.
Thanks for responses.
Kyuss Spawnling, damage 1d3-3 plus poison. But that means there will never be any damage from the "tiny, razor-sharp teeth", thus there will never be any "injecting [of] a burning toxin into the victim's blood."
James Jacobs started a weird game rules thread a while back. I think it's somewhere in the D&D general section.
I think this one definitely qualifies!
So, did these worms show up two years ago or ten years ago?
In my manuscript all the references are "two years." Perhaps they were fiddling with the timeline and decided to go back to the original and missed one of the references.
BTW I don't have my author copies yet so I can't compare anything to printed version at this time.
Later on in the stat blocks they list only 28 mook lizards and two tougher leader types. This seems to confirm the 30 lizardfolk idea, but I was just wondering if the missing 10 matter.
That's my fault; all of my final calculations were for _six_ groups, but for some reason I left the intro text as _eight_ groups (I think I may have originally planned for eight groups, but the CRs/ELs of the siege ended up too high for the PCs involved, and I reduced it to six so the PCs wouldn't be killed outright). So (as James said) there never were 40 liz, just 30.
And as for the Kyuss spawn, yes, the damage from an attack can never be reduced below 1 points by a modifier, so unless the critters get a bull's strength spell cast on them they're pretty much limited to 1 point of damage plus poison. Note that I created a variant rule for that situation:
http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/philathansrule.html
Kyuss Spawnling, damage 1d3-3 plus poison. But that means there will never be any damage from the "tiny, razor-sharp teeth", thus there will never be any "injecting [of] a burning toxin into the victim's blood."
I seem to recall reading that an attack wouldn't do less than 1 from an adjustment like this, so it would still do 1 dmg. However if something were to buff it up and give it a +2 dmg, it would still have a -1.
Sean Mahoney
Note that I created a variant rule for that situation: http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/philathansrule.html
Okay, checked the varient rule, and I do like it. But, one quick question. I don't have the dungeon in which this thread is discussiong at this point (yet), but would the poison still apply?
I mean, if the creature's claws aren't strong enough to puncture the skin and therefore only deal non-lethal damage, then the poison in the claw isn't able to be injected, right?
I mean, if the creature's claws aren't strong enough to puncture the skin and therefore only deal non-lethal damage, then the poison in the claw isn't able to be injected, right?
Just throwing in two cents: a real-life black widow certainly does no damage with its bite, but the poison still gets injected.
Regards,
Jack
Just throwing in two cents: a real-life black widow certainly does no damage with its bite, but the poison still gets injected.
Ditto for a syringe...oops, that's another thread. ;)
Ditto for a syringe...oops, that's another thread. ;)Just throwing in two cents: a real-life black widow certainly does no damage with its bite, but the poison still gets injected.
Heh heh heh....
So yeah, even using the Phil Athans Rule you should apply special effects to attack damage. For example, you can still catch "cat scratch fever" from a cat scratch even though the attack does only nonlethal damage in D&D.
Here's something else I find confusing:
Kyuss Spawnling, damage 1d3-3 plus poison. But that means there will never be any damage from the "tiny, razor-sharp teeth", thus there will never be any "injecting [of] a burning toxin into the victim's blood."
What am I missing?
From the PHB, Page 134, under Damage
Minimum Damage: If penalties reduce the damage result to less than 1, a hit still deals 1 point of damage.
Give gold kataa a break i think he/she gets it about the 1d3-3
Didn't think we were giving him/her a hard time, some people like to have a source to a ruling and not just 'I think it works like this" or "It says somewhere".
Of course... the cool thing about this rule is the neat fact that a common housecat has a really good chance of killing the 1st-level party wizard in two rounds.
Well, one of my house cats does have a breath weapon...
Add in "Pounce" and "Rake" Special Abilities, and I'd only give the wizard one round.
ASEO out
Of course... the cool thing about this rule is the neat fact that a common housecat has a really good chance of killing the 1st-level party wizard in two rounds.
Didn't say it was a good rule :) Sometimes as a DM were better off using common sense. Subdual just doesn't cover the reality either, the cat isn't much more likely to knock said wizard unconcious than it is to kill him. As A DM I'd rule that it did no damage but might inflict a -1 penatlty to skill checks for 1 minute.
But the reason the poison works is because these little critters, unlike house cats do real damage, at least in my game :) (which starts next week)
Of course... the cool thing about this rule is the neat fact that a common housecat has a really good chance of killing the 1st-level party wizard in two rounds.
Hey man, cats can be nasty. Have you ever seen an enraged housecat? I'd bet on him over the librarian in a fight any day of the week. ;)
Of course... the cool thing about this rule is the neat fact that a common housecat has a really good chance of killing the 1st-level party wizard in two rounds.Hey man, cats can be nasty. Have you ever seen an enraged housecat? I'd bet on him over the librarian in a fight any day of the week. ;)
Which reminds me of something:
They ought to rename the Toughness feat to Won't Be Killed by Cleaning Raingutters or Small Mammals feat.