Fin
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by Fin on Mar 24, 2014 12:05:20 GMT -5
I like this breakdown, with a few minor tweaks:
-- Fin will drop his golden lion statutette and activate it. That gives us another 5 HD critter to help keep the minions busy. -- Azhbar, Tirian and Grimstone should try to close with Mahanath. The more chances to strike and do damage, the better. -- Fin's willing to do an initial Wall of Ice as a block, as that is not an attack and will not break his Invisibility. On the second round, if Mahanath is on the ground he'd try to position for a backstab using Colby's Mitra weapon. If Mahanath is in the air, another Wall of Ice sounds right...or a backstab on a minion, if needed. -- Note also that as many Mitra weapons should be used as possible, even foregoing throwing maces, Holy Avengers, and banana creme pies.
But you're right: if we don't take Mahanath down in a couple of rounds, we're fertilizer.
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Mar 24, 2014 12:52:37 GMT -5
"I believe we left it with one of the columns in the process of transforming into Manahath."
Can the DM confirm that this actually the case? I don't recall that, but there was a lot going on and I might have been in shock from the dimensional shifting. There's a big difference in having 1 extra round to prepare.
Do the unseen sources of light illuminate the entire room? Can we see that there are no minions of set in here? We heard shod feet tromping around, presumably we're hearing it through the door?
Regarding Manahath's melee capabilities, remember that Konah had time to haste himself, and Manahath probably won't. That will work in our favor.
Also, Azhbar has an effective THAC0 of 11, so he'll charge.
A Wall of Ice or Stone might be very effective against the door leading to Pneusset, to keep the minions of Set at bay for a short time.
Colby will probably MM on round 1, to disrupt spells before fighters have closed to melee, and then Hold Monster on round 2. Undead are immune to slow and hold, so I'll use both on him, if possible.
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Mar 24, 2014 12:54:37 GMT -5
IFin's willing to do an initial Wall of Ice as a block, as that is not an attack and will not break his Invisibility. Casting a spell or using an item will break invisibility. It does not have to be an attack. That's why if you're preparing for battle and casting Mage Shield, etc Invisibility would have to be cast last.
|
|
|
Post by venger on Mar 24, 2014 13:23:09 GMT -5
Can the DM confirm that this actually the case? I don't recall that, but there was a lot going on and I might have been in shock from the dimensional shifting. There's a big difference in having 1 extra round to prepare. A horrible voice is intoning dire threats against the party and boasting about its own immortal power. There's a low rumbling sound as a spider-web of cracks and fractures laces the southernmost statue of Set. The statues are 60' tall representations of Set, but their arms are reaching up another 30' or so to support the ceiling at 90'. Do the unseen sources of light illuminate the entire room? Not with any real definition or fine detail. The room is very dim. Anything bright or white is luminescing as an otherworldly purple. Can we see that there are no minions of set in here? We heard shod feet tromping around, presumably we're hearing it through the door? There are definitely armored persons stomping around on the other side of the statues.
|
|
Fin
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by Fin on Mar 24, 2014 17:44:09 GMT -5
Invisibility, pp. 70 - 71, Player's Manual: "The spell remains in effect until it is magically broken or dispelled, or the magic-user or recipient cancels it or until he, she or it attacks any creature. Thus, the spell caster or recipient could open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, etc., but if any form of attack is made the invisible creature becomes visible..."
Definition of the word "attack": "take aggressive action against (a place or enemy forces) with weapons or armed force, typically in a battle or war." Merriam-Webster
Placing a Wall of Ice with the Wand of Frost such that it merely blocks a path or access point neither meets the definition of "attack" nor violates the letter, spirit or intent of the spell. If I were to drop it onto a critter, then that would be an attack. But that's not what I propose to do.
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Mar 24, 2014 19:29:51 GMT -5
Excellent points! Searching through our house rules doesn't yield any spell modifications, only comments that activating magic items remove invisibility. I guess I'll let the DM weigh in.
|
|
Fin
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by Fin on Mar 24, 2014 20:27:08 GMT -5
"Activating magic items breaks invisibility" -- this means invisibility as a spell is essentially useless. A Ring of Protection is a magic item; using its plusses to make a saving throw can be construed as "activating" it. Drinking a Potion of Healing while invisible would also break the spell. Using Boots of Elvenkind while invisible would also break the spell. The list goes on.
Frankly, the combination of house rules and Unearthed Arcana rules have so skewed AD&D in favor of fighters and against other classes that the balance is out of whack, in my opinion. If acting defensively, not aggressively, whether using magic or not negates invisibility, then thieves are worse than useless -- they're liabilities.
All this borderline hyperbole is for a reason -- I can't believe that using magic items and/or acting defensively should break invisibility: that clearly can't be the intent of the spell in the game. I'm all in favor of aggressive moves breaking invisibility, but defensive moves, even with magic items, have to be allowed.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Greyhawk on Mar 25, 2014 5:50:23 GMT -5
If the Chosen is casting ice storm, he probably can't also set for charge, even if he still gets the other two hands as attacks. Personally, I think that attacking is a stretch, since it would give him 3 activities (spell, breath, and attack) in the same round.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Greyhawk on Mar 25, 2014 6:04:19 GMT -5
If you have the rod of resurrection with you, use it on a living person and see if it restores them to full HP a la Heal. $0.02.
|
|
|
Post by venger on Mar 25, 2014 10:21:34 GMT -5
A Ring of Protection is a magic item; using its plusses to make a saving throw can be construed as "activating" it. Drinking a Potion of Healing while invisible would also break the spell. Using Boots of Elvenkind while invisible would also break the spell. None of these examples would break invisibility. These are all passive effects. Except the potion, I guess, but the spell states eating & drinking is OK. If acting defensively, not aggressively, whether using magic or not negates invisibility, then thieves are worse than useless -- they're liabilities. Invisibility is a 2nd level magic-user spell with an unlimited duration that can be cast on anyone. Other low-level spells replicate thief abilities with no chance of failure- Find Traps, Knock, Comprehend Languages, Spider Climb, Levitate, etc. This, in my opinion, is what makes thieves less useful. All this borderline hyperbole is for a reason -- I can't believe that using magic items and/or acting defensively should break invisibility: that clearly can't be the intent of the spell in the game. I'm all in favor of aggressive moves breaking invisibility, but defensive moves, even with magic items, have to be allowed. Invisibility is broken when: attacking taking damage casting spells using magic items on other people or area of effect If you have a permanent invisibility magic item (cloak, ring, etc) and you are revealed by one of the above, it will reactivate the next round. Improved Invisibility (4th level illusionist spell) allows all of the above. Hide in Shadows is a % roll against the thief ability to hide. If you were to use the wand of frost or cast a spell, there would be another roll to remain hidden.
|
|
|
Post by venger on Mar 25, 2014 11:22:42 GMT -5
Ugh. The more I think about this the more hopeless it seems. The creature will just fly above us and rain down death. Anyone who attempts to close will be hit by at least 4 attacks doing 4d10+14 or something crazy like that. Not even Dariel can withstand that. ... I don't see it lasting much past the 5th round. And we haven't even disturbed the lich. The oppressive gloom of Hades sapping party morale... And when the party is defeated, Pneusset will raise everyone from the dead and kill them all over again.
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Mar 25, 2014 12:19:14 GMT -5
Cheer up! Remember, guys, the thing that we're best at is swarming one big, tough foe.
Do people have Web spells? That could be useful for casting between pillars, for crowd control purposes.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgar on Mar 25, 2014 13:20:40 GMT -5
Hah, just wait until he tries to raise Trommer or Paavo.
With wall of ice you could try catching them in a chord of the circle. Colby at 11th level could make a 11" wall that subtended ~75 degrees (assuming my trigonometry is correct), more than 1/5 of the circle. Depending on where they are located you should be able to catch them all.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgar on Mar 25, 2014 13:22:40 GMT -5
Maybe we should just ignore Manahath and go straight for Pneusset. That is what Dariel would do if he wasn't certain Pneusset was protected by PfG.
|
|
Fin
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by Fin on Mar 25, 2014 15:00:59 GMT -5
A Ring of Protection is a magic item; using its plusses to make a saving throw can be construed as "activating" it. Drinking a Potion of Healing while invisible would also break the spell. Using Boots of Elvenkind while invisible would also break the spell. None of these examples would break invisibility. These are all passive effects. Except the potion, I guess, but the spell states eating & drinking is OK. If acting defensively, not aggressively, whether using magic or not negates invisibility, then thieves are worse than useless -- they're liabilities. Invisibility is a 2nd level magic-user spell with an unlimited duration that can be cast on anyone. Other low-level spells replicate thief abilities with no chance of failure- Find Traps, Knock, Comprehend Languages, Spider Climb, Levitate, etc. This, in my opinion, is what makes thieves less useful. All this borderline hyperbole is for a reason -- I can't believe that using magic items and/or acting defensively should break invisibility: that clearly can't be the intent of the spell in the game. I'm all in favor of aggressive moves breaking invisibility, but defensive moves, even with magic items, have to be allowed. Invisibility is broken when: attacking taking damage casting spells using magic items on other people or area of effect If you have a permanent invisibility magic item (cloak, ring, etc) and you are revealed by one of the above, it will reactivate the next round. Improved Invisibility (4th level illusionist spell) allows all of the above. Hide in Shadows is a % roll against the thief ability to hide. If you were to use the wand of frost or cast a spell, there would be another roll to remain hidden.
|
|
Fin
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by Fin on Mar 25, 2014 15:55:17 GMT -5
Well, still haven't figured out this "quote" function. Meant to cut and paste your note about what breaks invisibility.
I'd really like to revisit this house rule, as I believe it significantly degrades the effectiveness of the thief class as a whole. Add the unwritten requirement to be moving silently prior to a successful backstab (this is in neither the DMG, PM or UA), and the already weak thief class is rendered almost useless, in my opinion.
It seems to me that the house rules expanding what breaks invisibility from "attacks" to "attacks, taking damage, casting spells, using magic items on other people or area of effect" goes too far beyond the original intent of the spell. Essentially, an invisible character can do very little beyond standing still or walking slowly along. Examples per this house rule: an invisible MU trips and falls into a pit, taking 1d6 damage. She's now visible. She made no attack; had no hostile intent; yet she's still visible. An invisible cleric casts Cure Light Wounds on himself -- he's also now visible, again, without an attack. An invisible thief uses a wand of detect magic to ascertain if a found item is magical -- and is now visible.
I agree completely with Improved Invisibility...but I'm not arguing to be able to attack and remain invisible using the 2d level Invisibility spell. I'm arguing that defensive measures, including casting spells and using magic items, should not negate Invisibility. I think if the game designers had intended that, they would have spelled it out that way and they very clearly didn't. They even avoided the question in the DMG with the discussion of how intelligent, high HD critters and animals can detect invisibility. I also think the fact that Improved Invisibility exists as a spell is further proof.
Thieves are restricted on the kinds of weapons they can use; have low HD; are restricted on armor to be worn; have lousy saves and worse THACOs -- all for valid reasons. Making them even weaker by further restricting the two big advantages they have -- stealthy movement and backstabbing -- strikes me as not only unbalanced but unfair, given the huge bonuses afforded fighters under UA weapons specialization rules.
In some ways it's harder to play a decent thief than it is a fighter. Let's not make it virtually impossible. Let invisible thieves engage in defensive measures and remain invisible. If you want me to keep moving silently before backstabbing, ok, I can budge on that one. But throw me a bone at least.
|
|
|
Post by Friedrich on Mar 25, 2014 17:31:38 GMT -5
My 2 cents. MT can summon some big bad elemental. I'm not sure how much damage it will be able to do but it should be fun to play for about 2 rounds. The problem is that MT, (along with the rest of the party) is likely to go down at some point. At that point she will no longer have control of the summoned creature. That will also be fun to watch.
Also, I have a feeling that any holy weapons of Mitra will be well used here...given that their whole purpose for existence is to kill Set and his followers.
|
|
|
Post by venger on Mar 25, 2014 19:32:49 GMT -5
I'd really like to revisit this house rule, as I believe it significantly degrades the effectiveness of the thief class as a whole. I disagree. Invisibility is a 2nd level magic-user spell and doesn't have any bearing on the thief class. Not sure why you're equating the two. A 4th level magic-user should not have an all-around better stealth capability than a 10th level thief. This house rule degrades the effectiveness of the spell and makes the actual thief ability Hide in Shadows more useful. If you want to do things while hidden then you'll need to successfully Hide in Shadows. Add the unwritten requirement to be moving silently prior to a successful backstab (this is in neither the DMG, PM or UA), and the already weak thief class is rendered almost useless, in my opinion. Re-reading the house rules document, you're right. Only assassins have to be undetected. The only requirement for a backstab is that the thief be behind the opponent and not being attacked himself. It seems to me that the house rules expanding what breaks invisibility from "attacks" to "attacks, taking damage, casting spells, using magic items on other people or area of effect" goes too far beyond the original intent of the spell. The 2nd level spell has no limit on its duration. It's too powerful. That's why there's a house rule. Essentially, an invisible character can do very little beyond standing still or walking slowly along. I have no doubt you can come up with more creative uses for Invisibility even with the restrictions in place. An invisible cleric casts Cure Light Wounds on himself -- he's also now visible, again, without an attack. By this logic you could cast Invisibility on all the party clerics and they could walk around healing the fighters and casting, prayer, protection from evil, etc. without being targeted by enemies or having their spells disrupted by missile fire. And they'd never break Invisibility. That's not happening.
|
|
Fin
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by Fin on Mar 25, 2014 19:57:01 GMT -5
Hmm. I admit I had not considered the possibility of invisible clerics as you outline...but simply add a couple of guard dogs to the bad guy list and they can sniff out said clerics. Then add paper or skin bags full of dust or flour. Or molotovs. Bust one on or near an invisible cleric that a dog points on and voila, soon you have a bunch of dead, invisible clerics. If you have high intelligence or HD baddies, you don't even need the dogs.
That said, the reason I equate invisibility with thieves is that it is the one class that benefits most from the spell. Invisible paladins? Not so useful. Invisible MUs? Become visible as soon as they crank off the next fireball, and rightly so. But invisible thieves? 1001 Arabian Nights, The Hobbit and HG Wells cover it all pretty well.
Anyway, the ruling has been made and the overarching takeaway for me here is: in future, be very circumspect in deciding whether or not to play thieves. All they really have going for them is stealthy movement and backstabbing. Without the former, they're not much more than poorly armored targets.
I appreciate you giving it some thought. Now that it's out of the way, guess we should be getting back to how quickly we'll all be turned into Alpo. I say in about 4 rounds.
|
|
|
Post by venger on Mar 25, 2014 20:28:48 GMT -5
Anyway, the ruling has been made and the overarching takeaway for me here is: in future, be very circumspect in deciding whether or not to play thieves. All they really have going for them is stealthy movement and backstabbing. Without the former, they're not much more than poorly armored targets. I'm still not really following. Thieves haven't lost any aspect of their stealthy movement. And I cannot think of any thief abilities that would break Invisibility when used except backstab. In this campaign, thieves use their skills as well as fighters fight or spellcasters spell. Move Silently is undetectable. Hide in Shadows is better than Invisibility. There is no defense against Pickpockets. Climb Walls works on completely sheer surfaces. Etc. They get UA thief-acrobat as a bonus at 7th level. I will give every amount of leeway possible for a thief using thief abilities. Not so much for Invisibility spells.
|
|
Fin
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by Fin on Mar 26, 2014 7:26:52 GMT -5
What I'm not getting is that Hide in Shadows is better than Invisibility. Unless the house rules give it some advantages I'm not aware of, it isn't. Examples: Invisibility is effective against infravision and ultravision; Hide in Shadows is not. Invisibility does not need a check every so often to stay invisible; Hide in Shadows does. You can go invisible in broad daylight; you can't hide in shadows where there are none. Hide in Shadows can also mean staying still and blending into the background; hard to cast defensive spells, use magic items or move into backstab position if you're trying to remain motionless.
As the spell is written, you can cast defensive spells, use magic items and move into backstab position while invisible -- it has risks, and you can still be detected, but it's far more effective for the lone thief than Hide in Shadows. I am well aware that Fin won't last if he moves silently while invisible to backstab -- and misses. Or gets detected. He's then visible, alone and at the mercy of the bad guys, with a paltry 25 HP (but a decent AC, usually pretty rare for thieves). But that's all part and parcel of being a thief.
I submit that one of the major reasons the game has Invisibility as a spell is precisely because of thieves. No other class can use invisibility as effectively or gets as much of a bonus from it. It's not an accident; there's a reason the burglar Bilbo found a ring of invisibility: neither the dwarves nor Gandalf could get as much use out of it as Bilbo could. By restricting the spell more than the game designers intended, thieves are further limited. And that detracts from the game, in my opinion, making it more unbalanced towards 'hey-diddle-diddle, straight up the middle' fighters and 'blast 'em now and let the gods sort 'em out' MUs.
But that does seem to fit our style of play, come to think of it.
|
|
|
Post by venger on Mar 26, 2014 9:59:27 GMT -5
What I'm not getting is that Hide in Shadows is better than Invisibility. Unless the house rules give it some advantages I'm not aware of, it isn't. Invisibility requires a magic-user to memorize and cast a 2nd level spell. Hide in Shadows can be done at any time. Examples: Invisibility is effective against infravision and ultravision; Hide in Shadows is not. I'm saying Hide in Shadows is effective against these. Mostly because nobody uses them. It even says in the DMG as long as there is a heat source or a light source. Which there almost always is. Invisibility does not need a check every so often to stay invisible; Hide in Shadows does. 95% or better success rate, like most thief abilities, isn't a difficult check. Fighters have to roll to hit. They can always fumble. You can go invisible in broad daylight; you can't hide in shadows where there are none. Batman can. Hide in Shadows is like Batman. He just disappears inside a well-lit bank vault. I'm OK with that as long as your character is wearing a cloak or something. Hide in Shadows can also mean staying still and blending into the background; hard to cast defensive spells, use magic items or move into backstab position if you're trying to remain motionless. I feel like you're making a case for spellcasters, not thieves. Thieves can't cast defensive spells. And I've already said they can use magic items or move into position to backstab if they make another successful Hide in Shadows to remain hidden. As the spell is written, you can cast defensive spells, use magic items and move into backstab position while invisible Even with the house rule limitations on Invisibility I don't see why you couldn't move into position to backstab while invisible. I submit that one of the major reasons the game has Invisibility as a spell is precisely because of thieves. No other class can use invisibility as effectively or gets as much of a bonus from it. I submit that clerics and magic-users get more benefit from Invisibility than thieves if they can cast defensive/healing spells while invisible. See above, re: thieves can't cast spells. A thief can sneak up invisibly to backstab, pickpocket, etc. with the house rules without breaking invisibility. Or the thief can Hide in Shadows and do the same 95% of the time without needing a magic-user to cast an Invisibility spell. You're arguing that a thief should be able to use magic-user class abilities (casting spells, using wands of frost) while invisible. I'm not agreeing with you. It's not an accident; there's a reason the burglar Bilbo found a ring of invisibility: neither the dwarves nor Gandalf could get as much use out of it as Bilbo could. I'll indulge this. If Gandalf could wear the One Ring and walk around invisible casting defensive spells and using magic items, I think that would be more useful than Bilbo wearing it doing basically nothing. Also that's a Ring of Invisibility and arguably more powerful than a 2nd level Invisibility spell. By restricting the spell more than the game designers intended, thieves are further limited. You're telling me that the class is "further limited" if they don't have a magic-user available to cast Invisibility all the time or the DM doesn't hand out Rings of Invisibility to every thief. I don't agree...
|
|
Fin
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by Fin on Mar 26, 2014 10:53:57 GMT -5
It's clear we're not going to see eye to eye on this. At the end of the day, it's just a game and you're the DM with the final call. If this is the way you want to play Invisibility, so be it.
That said, you'll note on Fin's character sheet that I've deliberately not put extra points into Hide in Shadows. This is because Invisibility as I understood it was available and I also did not view Hide in Shadows as effective as you do.
Would you willing to let Fin get a one-time thief skill adjustment to improve Hide in Shadows, then? I'd propose taking 5 or 10 percent off climb walls, find/remove traps and open locks respectively and add them to Hide in Shadows.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgar on Mar 26, 2014 21:50:32 GMT -5
Does the setting seem a little odd to anyone else? Why are there Minions already here? Do they just always hang out in this hall in case some group of adventures breaks through the Dark Tower? If they were recently summoned, then why is Manahath in the process of breaking free? Why not do all the prep while we fighting Konah? Or why not just teleport in while we are trying to kill Konah? Either he knows what's happening in the Dark Tower or he doesn't. Which is it? Probably not going to get a straight answer from him on this.
So anyway... more random thoughts. -did the gnomes come armed with Holy Weapons of Mitra? -the gnomes are at least 1 hit dice, so that means the Minions can only kill 2 per round. No great sweeps. So we got that going for us. -how many gnomes can a lammasu fly around with? -Maybe we should put Mary and Youssef on the lammasu to keep them out of melee -we could pile a bunch of people on Murkey and he could just stay out of combat while we go after Manahath -storm giants can levitate 30,000 gp in weight. does that have to be something they are holding? -does it have to be a single object? -could Vashir just move everyone up 2" to get them out of melee range of the Minions? -can you use levitate to force a flying creature to the ground? -Mary probably won't be able to summon an elemental. at least according to Q1. -For a similar reason, I don't think Succor will work to bring Fizzi to our aid. I could be wrong on both counts. -In theory Dariel can be killed permanently on this plane. Does that change his strategy? -Before Manahath breaks free of the column Colby could try using the Earth gem to Sink him.
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Mar 27, 2014 10:31:44 GMT -5
Maybe the Minions just hang out here, waiting to be summoned to other planes?
The line the DM used previously was that Pneusset would wonder why Avvakris hadn't made the sacrifices to Set that he was expecting today and send Manahath and a boatload of demons/devils to investigate. He probably knows that Vendrill was summoned and vanquished a few days ago, and that something was up at the Dark Tower. I'd suspect that's the limit of his knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by venger on Mar 27, 2014 12:10:57 GMT -5
It's clear we're not going to see eye to eye on this. At the end of the day, it's just a game and you're the DM with the final call. If this is the way you want to play Invisibility, so be it. Well, in fairness, most of the house rules are a legacy of the previous campaign/DM. When I first joined the group, I thought Invisibility worked as you did. My first character was a magic-user and he broke Invisibility casting a defensive spell. If a magic-user wanted to research a better Invisibility spell (3rd level) that had the functionality you want, but still no attacking, I'd probably be open to the idea. That said, you'll note on Fin's character sheet that I've deliberately not put extra points into Hide in Shadows. This is because Invisibility as I understood it was available and I also did not view Hide in Shadows as effective as you do. Would you willing to let Fin get a one-time thief skill adjustment to improve Hide in Shadows, then? I'd propose taking 5 or 10 percent off climb walls, find/remove traps and open locks respectively and add them to Hide in Shadows. Sure. I think I'd let a thief respec for training costs anytime he leveled as well. Does the setting seem a little odd to anyone else? Why are there Minions already here? Do they just always hang out in this hall in case some group of adventures breaks through the Dark Tower? If it helps set the scene, they're hissing in a song-like or ritual manner as they march around the circular hall. I imagine them like the honor guard for the Emperor in Star Wars, those red dudes... or really more like the serpent-armored goons from Stargate who stomp around endlessly. why is Manahath in the process of breaking free? Why not do all the prep while we fighting Konah? Extreme arrogance. Also intimidation factor. Or why not just teleport in while we are trying to kill Konah? Apparently bringing Manahath to the Prime Material Plane is a big deal. Either he knows what's happening in the Dark Tower or he doesn't. Which is it? Probably not going to get a straight answer from him on this. Any NPC can remind the party -- there were "two pairs of giant insect-like eyes" which stared out of the cloudy door as they turned black. "A low chuckling [was then] heard". (The eyes are those of Manahath the Chosen ... His chuckling will alert Konah the Dissenter in room K-18.) -did the gnomes come armed with Holy Weapons of Mitra? There aren't enough to go around. -how many gnomes can a lammasu fly around with? 3 at most. -we could pile a bunch of people on Murkey and he could just stay out of combat while we go after Manahath Murkey will give anybody a round to climb aboard before he takes off, but he's doing his claw, claw, bite dragon attacks while flying. -storm giants can levitate 30,000 gp in weight. does that have to be something they are holding? -does it have to be a single object? -could Vashir just move everyone up 2" to get them out of melee range of the Minions? -can you use levitate to force a flying creature to the ground? It's a Levitate spell, like 2nd level magic-user. He can Levitate any creature or object within range of the spell up to 30,000GP weight. Unwilling recipients get a savings throw. A flying creature will easily escape a Levitation spell assuming it has more than 1" round of movement. Like Telekinesis. -In theory Dariel can be killed permanently on this plane. Does that change his strategy? "KAPLAH! Today is a good day to die."
|
|
|
Post by Bolo on Mar 27, 2014 18:45:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Trommer on Mar 31, 2014 7:51:15 GMT -5
Didn't the sons of set have magic resistance? If so then charging to melee might be best.
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Mar 31, 2014 10:45:25 GMT -5
I think they had low (20% or so) MR, but I can't really recall.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgar on Mar 31, 2014 12:40:14 GMT -5
Minions have MR of 10% according to DDG. The Sons (Vrednii, Konah) we have faced have had higher MR.
|
|