I was reading up on the roper recently, and I'm a little bewildered.
Ropers used to be these scary monsters that snatched you out of the dark and dragged you into their waiting jaws.
But according to the Bestiary, some things have changed. Specifically, their strands no longer stick. Aside from a single reference to the strands being sticky, it appears a roper just lashes out, weakens you, maybe pulls you 5 feet closer, then withdraws its strand.
There is a provision for severing a strand, but I'm not really sure how you go about this in melee if its not currently connected to a victim, so this is confusing.
Is this the new roper? Has it been weakened to this point? Or is there text missing? Is this an oopsie, like the missing text from the Xill in the 1st printing of the Bestiary? Or is it an intentional weakening?
Any thoughts? Anyone?
===
Taffer
So lets analyze the Roper for a second.
With an average stealth roll of 36 (10+26) vs an average perception roll of 32 (10 +12ranks +2wis +3class skill +5competence) means that it is pretty likely to start the battle hidden from the PCs.
With a +5 initiative bonus (thanks to improved initiative) it is likely it will start higher on the initiative list than most non-Dex build PCs.
So, first we have a surprise round.
Sticky strand attacks at up to 50' and, due to being a +10 touch attack, are likely to hit all but monks and many dex builds.
The fort save is DC 25 vs an expected Fort bonus of +17 for many frontliners (8base +3con +5resistance). While they have a 60% chance of making this save it will not be guaranteed.
Round two, we have 6 sticky strands, all doing the same thing, typically to a single target.
So, assuming the target is getting hit (not a dex build) it is failing some of those fort saves and taking strength damage.
For your typical heavy armor fighter type it is getting hit by all 7 strands and failing the fort save on 35% of them with an average strength damage roll of 3.5 means that fighter type is taking an average of 8.15points of strength damage before taking a single action in the first round.
Next, it pulls the target. Against a person with a decent CMD of 34 (10 +12BAB +7str +2dex +1deflection +1insight) it needs a 12 to pull them. But then the strength damage kicks in.
Summary: focusing on a single target in an equal CR match it can pretty well neutralize and even paralyze that target before it can do anything. Repeat for the next guy.
Yes, it is still a decent encounter.
Edit: regarding the severing strands, that is a relic from 3.5 where the strands used to drag (the predecessor of "pull") the victim stayed attached and functioned more as a grapple.
However, strands were replaced as a free action so all it really did was force a new attack roll next round.
Wow, strands now pull you 1/2 the distance.
You aren't latched on anymore (they pull each round in 3.5 D&D).
I preferred the 3.0 Roper, you can actually sever strands (but they grow back in a few hours so there is an actual point to doing so).
3.5 and Pathfinder's instant regeneration of Strands seems silly.
Also, Pathfinder reduced the SR from 3.5 even.
I think this was intentional weakening.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
He and Mrs. Roper sold their apartment building to Bart Furley and moved to Cheviot Hills.
Thanks for the help everyone. Maybe you can help me figure this one out...
A character 30 feet away tries to move away from the roper (no 5-foot step, no withdraw action, just a move action).
The roper lashes out with a strand, hits, and pulls the offender back 5 feet.
As I understand attacks of opportunity, the sequence of events is this:
1. Character attempts to move out of a threatened square.
2. Attack of Opportunity (and all effects that go with it) occur.
3. Character continues with his action.
However, I am wondering if the roper successfully pulling the character prevents the character from continuing with his move action. It's a bit fuzzy, I think, and could go either way. I know AoOs don't normally "prevent" a provoking action, but there are some instances where it does.
(For the record, I realize the roper's reach is only 10 ft. I am considering that an error, and assuming it should read "Reach 10 ft. (50 ft. with strands)". Hence the AoO at 30 ft.)
===
Taffer