What monsters are designed to kill wizards?
Moderator: Moderators
- OgreBattle
- King
- Posts: 6820
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am
What monsters are designed to kill wizards?
Either by intention ("The golem is immune to magic nyeheheh!") or by virtue of how they're built.
Any edition of D&D works.
Any edition of D&D works.
Well, beholders for one. But turned into more of a "fuck everybody" creature.
Koumei wrote:I'm just glad that Jill Stein stayed true to her homeopathic principles by trying to win with .2% of the vote. She just hasn't diluted it enough!
Koumei wrote:I am disappointed in Santorum: he should carry his dead election campaign to term!
Just a heads up... Your post is pregnant... When you miss that many periods it's just a given.
]I want him to tongue-punch my box.
The divine in me says the divine in you should go fuck itself.
- nockermensch
- Duke
- Posts: 1900
- Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:11 pm
- Location: Rio: the Janeiro
There is a monster on BGII (a summon, in fact) that drain prepared spells on each hit. I don't remember if they're also immune or feed on magic cast on them, but they could be a good start.
@ @ Nockermensch
Koumei wrote:After all, in Firefox you keep tabs in your browser, but in SovietPutin's Russia, browser keeps tabs on you.
Mord wrote:Chromatic Wolves are massively under-CRed. Its "Dood to stone" spell-like is a TPK waiting to happen if you run into it before anyone in the party has Dance of Sack or Shield of Farts.
-
Cyberzombie
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 742
- Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 4:12 am
The truth is not a hell of a lot, which is one of the reasons spellcasters are so powerful. Golems technically should be good at beating wizards, but given they have no way to beat flight, illusions or invisibility, they're not all useful.
Beholders are probably the only really good anti-magic creature, since it can be taken out by a mundane bow, but has a way of neutralizing magic. Depending on how your DM handles the AMF cone's target tracking, it may involve the wizard simply taking a move action to get out of it and blasting the beholder before it's able to turn the direction of the cone or the DM may rule that the beholder can target a creature with the cone and automatically turn its sight towards that creature. Given that 3E line of sight rules aren't clarified at all, I've seen it run both ways, and I'm not certain if there is an official ruling there.
Beholders are probably the only really good anti-magic creature, since it can be taken out by a mundane bow, but has a way of neutralizing magic. Depending on how your DM handles the AMF cone's target tracking, it may involve the wizard simply taking a move action to get out of it and blasting the beholder before it's able to turn the direction of the cone or the DM may rule that the beholder can target a creature with the cone and automatically turn its sight towards that creature. Given that 3E line of sight rules aren't clarified at all, I've seen it run both ways, and I'm not certain if there is an official ruling there.
Nishruu & hakeashar : caster eaters. Found in Lost Empires of Faerun
They are good vs low level martials do to make DR, and they negate Magic.
"The first round of swings hit the creature just fine -- after that, though, the weapon is drained & the character must wait the requisite period of time for its magic to return. "
The Monk's Magic strike is actually decent (not the class) since their strike can't be negated.
Now, they don't deal actual damage to creatures so unless you have bling, they are harmless.
They are good vs low level martials do to make DR, and they negate Magic.
"The first round of swings hit the creature just fine -- after that, though, the weapon is drained & the character must wait the requisite period of time for its magic to return. "
The Monk's Magic strike is actually decent (not the class) since their strike can't be negated.
Now, they don't deal actual damage to creatures so unless you have bling, they are harmless.
- RadiantPhoenix
- Prince
- Posts: 2668
- Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 10:33 pm
- Location: Trudging up the Hill
- Avoraciopoctules
- Overlord
- Posts: 8624
- Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 5:48 pm
- Location: Oakland, CA
- Red Archon
- Journeyman
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 4:36 am
Re: What monsters are designed to kill wizards?
Just wanted to say that this makes me chuckle every time I read it.OgreBattle wrote:("The golem is immune to magic nyeheheh!")
Last edited by codeGlaze on Wed Feb 26, 2014 6:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Phlebotinum : fleh-bot-ih-nuhm • A glossary of RPG/Dennizen terminology • Favorite replies: [1]
nockermensch wrote:Advantage will lead to dicepools in D&D. Remember, you read this here first!
Re: What monsters are designed to kill wizards?
Slightly off topic, but because it is hilarious: A fight between a CR 10 clay golem and 4 level 10 characters. A wizard, a rogue, a druid and a barbarian (guess which one can't do jack, before you read it)OgreBattle wrote:Either by intention ("The golem is immune to magic nyeheheh!") or by virtue of how they're built.
Any edition of D&D works.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/gs/20011207a
Last edited by ishy on Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:25 am, edited 2 times in total.
Gary Gygax wrote:The player’s path to role-playing mastery begins with a thorough understanding of the rules of the game
Bigode wrote:I wouldn't normally make that blanket of a suggestion, but you seem to deserve it: scroll through the entire forum, read anything that looks interesting in term of design experience, then come back.
- OgreBattle
- King
- Posts: 6820
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am
Re: What monsters are designed to kill wizards?
WotC wrote: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/gs/20011207a
Rogue: "I use a magic potion to turn invisible"
Wizard:"I use magic to make myself invisible!"
Barbarian: "I humiliate myself in melee"
Druid: "I turn into a rhino and do what the barbarian failed to do"
Jesus, that's... such a clear, clear illustration of disparity. They even had the wizard make fun of the barbarian for sucking before he proceeded to suck again.
-
Pseudo Stupidity
- Duke
- Posts: 1060
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 3:51 pm
"I humiliate myself in melee" is going to be the new way I declare attacks against obvious closet trolls.
sandmann wrote:Zak S wrote:I'm not a dick, I'm really nice.Zak S wrote:(...) once you have decided that you will spend any part of your life trolling on the internet, you forfeit all rights as a human.If you should get hit by a car--no-one should help you. If you vote on anything--your vote should be thrown away.
If you wanted to participate in a conversation, you've lost that right. You are a non-human now. You are over and cancelled. No concern of yours can ever matter to any member of the human race ever again.
[Krusk makes the trip attack but fails miserably.
Krusk goes down like a ton of bricks,
ROARRRR! KRUSK NOT WASTE ALL OF HIS BARBARIAN RAGE ON STUPID DOOR AFTER ALL!!
PC (Krusk): GRARRRRGHHH!!!! STUPID GOBLIN WILL PAY FOR MAKING KRUSK LOOK FOOLISH!
This entire series seems to just be mockery of the barbarian.PC (Krusk): Stupid gobo uses Mounted Combat against Krusk's attack again?
-
Tumbling Down
- Journeyman
- Posts: 133
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:47 pm
- NineInchNall
- Duke
- Posts: 1222
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Ah, but he thinks the dungeon is out to get him, when in reality it is the system that has it in for him. The DMF players never seem to recognize the systemic problem.
Current pet peeves:
Misuse of "per se". It means "[in] itself", not "precisely". Learn English.
Malformed singular possessives. It's almost always supposed to be 's.
Misuse of "per se". It means "[in] itself", not "precisely". Learn English.
Malformed singular possessives. It's almost always supposed to be 's.
- Midnight_v
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 629
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 10:27 pm
- Location: Texas
That shit is super sad.
It really shouldn't be like that, ever.
Like, literally, NOT playing D&D would be better.
It really shouldn't be like that, ever.
Like, literally, NOT playing D&D would be better.
Don't hate the world you see, create the world you want....
...If only you'd have stopped forever...Dear Midnight, you have actually made me sad. I took a day off of posting yesterday because of actual sadness you made me feel in my heart for you.
Golems were the immediate thing that came to my mind, based on last night's encounter.
For a minute, I used to be "a guy" in the TTRPG "industry". Now I'm just a nobody. For the most part, it's a relief.
Trank Frollman wrote:One of the reasons we can say insightful things about stuff is that we don't have to pretend to be nice to people. By embracing active aggression, we eliminate much of the passive aggression that so paralyzes things on other gaming forums.
hogarth wrote:As the good book saith, let he who is without boners cast the first stone.
TiaC wrote:I'm not quite sure why this is an argument. (Except that Kaelik is in it, that's a good reason.)
Your sarcasm meter is on the fritz, actually sarcasm levels were 0%.
Campaign was Dragonlance, setting was War of the Lance era, adventure was Skullcap, party was a few of the Heroes of the Lance and a few original PCs, all around level 9, Golem was a Grisgol (CR15, MM3, final boss of dungeon), Raistlin, the only wizard present, could really do fuck-all against the golem with the spells he had prepared. He cast literally the one buff he had prepared, Haste, and then hung in the back literally twiddling his thumbs for the rest of the fight while the warrior-types and the alchemist-fire chucking rogue carried the day. Even though a Grisgol releases horrible clouds of death-dust specifically designed to fuck warrior types whenever it actually gets hit by something, and even though it has the rather hard-to-get-around DR 10/magic and piercing. Caramon and company slowly whittled it down by power-attacking for all he was worth with wyrmslayer, taking a bunch of Con damage in the process.
Not really sure where I'm going with this, except that I agree with whoever said Golems aren't so much "fuck-Wizards" monsters as they are "fuck-everyone" monsters. But in this encounter the fucking flask chucking rogue was contributing more than the wizard without so much as sneak attack, and it was noteworthy and bizarre. Raistlin is generally making most other characters feel small in the pants because most creatures aren't flat-out-go-fuck-yourself immune to magic.
Campaign was Dragonlance, setting was War of the Lance era, adventure was Skullcap, party was a few of the Heroes of the Lance and a few original PCs, all around level 9, Golem was a Grisgol (CR15, MM3, final boss of dungeon), Raistlin, the only wizard present, could really do fuck-all against the golem with the spells he had prepared. He cast literally the one buff he had prepared, Haste, and then hung in the back literally twiddling his thumbs for the rest of the fight while the warrior-types and the alchemist-fire chucking rogue carried the day. Even though a Grisgol releases horrible clouds of death-dust specifically designed to fuck warrior types whenever it actually gets hit by something, and even though it has the rather hard-to-get-around DR 10/magic and piercing. Caramon and company slowly whittled it down by power-attacking for all he was worth with wyrmslayer, taking a bunch of Con damage in the process.
Not really sure where I'm going with this, except that I agree with whoever said Golems aren't so much "fuck-Wizards" monsters as they are "fuck-everyone" monsters. But in this encounter the fucking flask chucking rogue was contributing more than the wizard without so much as sneak attack, and it was noteworthy and bizarre. Raistlin is generally making most other characters feel small in the pants because most creatures aren't flat-out-go-fuck-yourself immune to magic.
Last edited by Neurosis on Sat Mar 01, 2014 6:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
For a minute, I used to be "a guy" in the TTRPG "industry". Now I'm just a nobody. For the most part, it's a relief.
Trank Frollman wrote:One of the reasons we can say insightful things about stuff is that we don't have to pretend to be nice to people. By embracing active aggression, we eliminate much of the passive aggression that so paralyzes things on other gaming forums.
hogarth wrote:As the good book saith, let he who is without boners cast the first stone.
TiaC wrote:I'm not quite sure why this is an argument. (Except that Kaelik is in it, that's a good reason.)
Also Arcane Ooze, MM3. It eats your spell slots just by being within 60 feet of it IIRC. (Random thought: MM3 is my favorite monster manual.)Red Archon wrote:Balhannoth (MMIV p.15) has blindsense that sees magic, it's surrounded in Dimensional Lock and has Antimagic Grapple, which does pretty much what it says.
Mageripper Swarm (MMIV p. 98) dispels and drains spell slots.
For a minute, I used to be "a guy" in the TTRPG "industry". Now I'm just a nobody. For the most part, it's a relief.
Trank Frollman wrote:One of the reasons we can say insightful things about stuff is that we don't have to pretend to be nice to people. By embracing active aggression, we eliminate much of the passive aggression that so paralyzes things on other gaming forums.
hogarth wrote:As the good book saith, let he who is without boners cast the first stone.
TiaC wrote:I'm not quite sure why this is an argument. (Except that Kaelik is in it, that's a good reason.)
It has been my experience that primary casters have an easier time with Golems than other characters. Just use stuff that isn't subject to spell resistance.
Grease is usually enough to solve most of your Golem woes. Fucker falls down and fails balance checks to move.
Or just go invisible and bypass it. Or invisible and do funny things to its surrounding area (stone shape, whatever).
Really a lot of staple wizard spells solve golems handily.
Grease is usually enough to solve most of your Golem woes. Fucker falls down and fails balance checks to move.
Or just go invisible and bypass it. Or invisible and do funny things to its surrounding area (stone shape, whatever).
Really a lot of staple wizard spells solve golems handily.