The battle for Gaping Maw is ended. The Prince of Demons has fallen. And the cause of death? Otto's irresistible dance.
Without any defense again mind-affecting effects, Demogorgon fell prey to this insidious 8th-level spell. Of course, the party had to use assay resistance and a wish spell to reduce the demon lord's spell resistance far enough to actually affect him with the spell, but once they finally got it to work, the poor fiend could do nothing but caper about as the party slowly hacked him to pieces. And unfortunately, Belcheresk failed to dispel the powerful enchantment the first time, and with the entire party focusing on him while Demogorgon was indisposed, he didn't get second chance to try.
So, at least in my campaign, Demogorgon is dead, and the savage tide averted. All hail the new Prince of Demons, General Bagromar. Of course, in time the one-headed clone will soon sprout a second head as well, so while Demogorgon may be gone for now, it won't be long until he returns to his once great heights of power. Until then, the party has earned a well-deserved rest. :)
The battle for Gaping Maw is ended. The Prince of Demons has fallen. And the cause of death? Otto's irresistible dance.
Yay! The Prince of Demons doing the Chicken Dance... that must be quite a sight :D
Congratulations to your players, and to you for finishing the AP!
...
But I have to ask, did the dance make it feel anticlimactic?
Congratulations to your players, and to you for finishing the AP!
...
But I have to ask, did the dance make it feel anticlimactic?
Oh, not at all. The players were still terrified of Demogorgon, even while he was dancing. Though he couldn't take any actions, his gaze attacks still could wreak havoc with the group. Indeed, the warmage succumbed to the insanity gaze and had and could have been a major threat to the group had she not rolled the "flee in terror" option. And the first Otto's only was in effect for 2 rounds, so they had to use a second one, in which the spellcaster only beat Demogorgon's SR by 1 point. Very tense, very nervewracking even though the demon lord was only a physical threat for a few rounds. And in the end, very satisfying for the players when the demon lord finally fell!
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
If I picture it as him lurching uncontrollably around, twitching and fitting, totally furious, then it's great. If I picture it with him doing the Charleston, or possibly some kind of 80s robotics/ invisible box/ mime action then it's hard not to giggle.
I mean, it took a wish just the get a few rounds of respite - that's awesome in itself, and even then he wasn't totally neutralized - not by a long shot. Cool!
Awesome. (Avatar picture notwithstanding.)
Otto's Irresistible Dance does not allow a save.
That's why it's so good.
I suppose it wouldn't be entirely unreasonable to allow Demogorgon to have one personality dance while the other acts normally; most monsters do not have two full-round actions to work with, so a full-round action spend dancing allows time for nothing else. However, this would be a house rule specifically designed to neuter one of the PCs' spell choices, so consider carefully before you do so.
One way to deal with it is simply to have Belcheresk and Nulonga try to dispel or disjoin the spell, hopefully tagging a few PC buffs in the process. Naturally, don't have them risk disjoining the Pearl.
Also note that Otto's Irresistible Dance is a [compulsion] effect, so Nulonga's Protection from Law spell hedges it out, even if the caster is not lawful. If he's down, he can still infest one of the dead ghouls, run to the entrance of the showdown chamber, and then do a suicide run to cast Protection from Law on his master.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
No. Protection spells only block charms/compulsions that grant ongoing control, which Otto's does not. Same reason they don't do a lick of good against a hold person.
It's going to be awfully hard to selectively target a disjunction in that area.
Otto's Irresistible Dance does not allow a save.
That's why it's so good.
One way to deal with it is simply to have Belcheresk and Nulonga try to dispel or disjoin the spell, hopefully tagging a few PC buffs in the process. Naturally, don't have them risk disjoining the Pearl.
Also note that Otto's Irresistible Dance is a [compulsion] effect, so Nulonga's Protection from Law spell hedges it out, even if the caster is not lawful. If he's down, he can still infest one of the dead ghouls, run to the entrance of the showdown chamber, and then do a suicide run to cast Protection from Law on his master.
That's awesome braniac! I believe yours Is the first to complete the Savage Tide on here? How did your players enjoy It?
DAve
No. Protection spells only block charms/compulsions that grant ongoing control, which Otto's does not. Same reason they don't do a lick of good against a hold person.
I don't see anything in the Protection from X description that suggests that forcing somebody to dance is not ongoing control of their actions. The caster doesn't get the vast array of choices about how to control the target, as is the case with Dominate X, but the caster does quite effectively insist on the one particular hard-coded action.
Protection from X seems to quite explicitly suppress compulsions.
It's going to be awfully hard to selectively target a disjunction in that area.
Demogorgon's first action is to seize the Pearl by Telekinesis and swallow it. Once inside Hethrediah's stomach, the Pearl has total cover, which blocks line of effect for the burst of the Disjunction. Similarly, a PC swallowed by the Tyrannosaur back in Here There Be Monsters will be unaffected by any Fireballs cast at the Tyrannosaur by the other PCs.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
I don't see anything in the Protection from X description that suggests that forcing somebody to dance is not ongoing control of their actions. The caster doesn't get the vast array of choices about how to control the target, as is the case with Dominate X, but the caster does quite effectively insist on the one particular hard-coded action.Protection from X seems to quite explicitly suppress compulsions.
Ongoing control means you can continue to influence and guide them. Putting someone under a complusion to freeze in place (hold), act randomly (confusion), laugh uncontrollably (Tasha's), dance (Otto's) or be brainless (feeblemind) is not ongoing control. Being able to dictate their actions by further command is, like charm and dominate. You're trying to elevate a first level spell up to having a fair chunk of the powers of mind blank.
No, the [compulsion] tag exists for a purpose, and that purpose is to identify spells that give the caster ongoing control over the target. The word is specifically called out, defined, and tagged in the spell descriptions for the specific purpose of short-circuiting this sort of rules wank. Magic A is Magic A. Protection from X works against compulsions, because it specifically and explicitly calls out enchantment[compulsion] effects by name.
Besides, controlling their actions is controlling their actions. Why would you think it might matter if the set of options you have is a large set (all legal actions by the target) or a small set (one specific legal action by the target)? Works just fine against Hold Person, and by RAW it works just fine against Feeblemind, even though one could argue that the [compulsion] tag on that one doesn't make logical sense.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
No, the [compulsion] tag exists for a purpose, and that purpose is to identify spells that give the caster ongoing control over the target. The word is specifically called out, defined, and tagged in the spell descriptions for the specific purpose of short-circuiting this sort of rules wank. Magic A is Magic A. Protection from X works against compulsions, because it specifically and explicitly calls out enchantment[compulsion] effects by name.
Besides, controlling their actions is controlling their actions. Why would you think it might matter if the set of options you have is a large set (all legal actions by the target) or a small set (one specific legal action by the target)? Works just fine against Hold Person, and by RAW it works just fine against Feeblemind, even though one could argue that the [compulsion] tag on that one doesn't make logical sense.
This turns out not to be the case. If you read the Magic Overview section in the Player's Handbook, it explains the situation quite well:
A compulsion spell forces the subject to act in some manner or changes the way her mind works. Some compulsion spells determine the subject’s actions or the effects on the subject, some compulsion spells allow you to determine the subject’s actions when you cast the spell, and others give you ongoing control over the subject.
Notice the last sentence, which breaks down the types of compulsions. Dominate gives you ongoing control over the subject, the same phrase used in the protection spells. A number of other compulsion spells do not grant ongoing control, and are thus unaffected by protection spells.
Does that clear it up?
I'm going to chime in with Russ here. protection from X spells grant one immunity to all charms and the sub set of Compulsions that grant ongoing control, of which the various forms of dominate spells are the exemplars.
A compulsion spell forces the subject to act in some manner or changes the way her mind works. Some compulsion spells determine the subject’s actions or the effects on the subject, some compulsion spells allow you to determine the subject’s actions when you cast the spell, and others give you ongoing control over the subject.
Also, the description on spells like dominate person and magic jar explicitely says that protection from spells, while on Otto's irresistible dance it does not.
Well, either way, Nulonga was gone for good before the party managed to get the enormous fiendish oyster open...after coming back three times, the party used a wish spell to make sure he stayed dead (yes, they had multiple wishes: they came prepared). So no protection from law equals no defense against Otto's. And as I said, Belcheresk tried to dispel the effect, but he rolled poorly and was subsequently beat down for his troubles. By the way, my version of Belcheresk was a balor advanced by 2 HD and with 4 levels of fighter. The Demonomicon article featuring Demogorgon mentions Bel as an "advanced balor fighter 4," and I only advanced him 2 HD to keep his modified level check in light with what the module says (+34, IIRC).
At any rate, my players thoroughly enjoyed not only the last encounter but the entire adventure path as a whole. With a great storyline and scores of memorable NPCs, it is easily the greatest series of adventures I've run. Kudos to everybody who contributed to its creation, and what a great sending off for Dungeon magazine.
Now, to check out that Pathfinder .pdf that just showed up. :D
I suppose it wouldn't be entirely unreasonable to allow Demogorgon to have one personality dance while the other acts normally; most monsters do not have two full-round actions to work with, so a full-round action spend dancing allows time for nothing else. However, this would be a house rule specifically designed to neuter one of the PCs' spell choices, so consider carefully before you do so.
Given that he acts twice (and can even move and stuff in that time), I would probably have just /assumed/ it worked like this myself, but since the party sank a lot of planning and effort into pulling the spell off (wishes, et al.), and it made for a good game and a great story, I would probably have quietly pulled a "DM Fiat" to make it work as brainiac did. (Different line of thinking, same end result.)
Hats off! Sounds like you've pulled off a classic finale!