Page 4 of 4
Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2013 6:12 pm
by Username17
The Kocrachon was one of the worst examples of CR abuse when it came out. It's CR 6 and has blasphemy once per day. If you're a 6th level party, that no-save paralyzes the entire party for 1d10 minutes. Just to drive the point home, the creature is described as preferentially fighting with its spell-likes and then torture murdering people who are helpless.
It's not any better in the 3.5 revision, the blasphemy goes off at caster level 12, so you're still auto-killed unless you're 8th level or higher.
-Username17
Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:57 pm
by Red_Rob
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:Ghargatulas are boring, big stupid monsters
I misread that as Gargantula at first. I was most disappoint that it wasn't a giant spider demon. But it did make me want to run a scenario where a Colossal Monstrous Spider attacks the city called Attack of the Gargantula!
Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:28 am
by Xaos
Starmaker wrote:Count Arioch the 28th wrote:I'm sure there's already some way to determine bestiality that's clearer:
*pic*
Yeah, I'm using the ponified version. Rarity's sexier
It bothers me that someone shopped in Rarity but did not fix the typo.
Here's an improved version.
Um...SHOPPED IN?
I'm pretty sure
that's a typo.
Just sayin'
Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 7:10 am
by Starmaker
Xaos wrote:Um...SHOPPED IN?
I'm pretty sure that's a typo.
Just sayin'
No, it isn't.
Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 11:54 am
by icyshadowlord
FrankTrollman wrote:The Kocrachon was one of the worst examples of CR abuse when it came out. It's CR 6 and has blasphemy once per day. If you're a 6th level party, that no-save paralyzes the entire party for 1d10 minutes. Just to drive the point home, the creature is described as preferentially fighting with its spell-likes and then torture murdering people who are helpless.
It's not any better in the 3.5 revision, the blasphemy goes off at caster level 12, so you're still auto-killed unless you're 8th level or higher.
-Username17
How the hell did nobody notice that before the book came out?
Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 1:04 pm
by fectin
Why would anyone? There's no playtest for it to come up in, and "thinking really hard" isn't actually a good detection method.
Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 8:33 pm
by nockermensch
I'm sad and disappointed that you went over the magic items chapter and didn't mention the nipple clamp of exquisite pain.
Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 9:18 pm
by RobbyPants
nockermensch wrote:I'm sad and disappointed that you went over the magic items chapter and didn't mention the nipple clamp of exquisite pain.
I forgot about those. They had some interesting implications, but they were crazy expensive.
Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 9:48 pm
by Prak
They had interesting implications and were crazy expensive for, pretty much, the same reason- they didn't use slots. You could seriously have three or four tongue studs of hellsbreath, and wearing a flesh ring of scorn doesn't preclude nipple clamps of exquisite pain or piercing needles of pain.
Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 3:56 am
by Slade
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:
This chapter introduces the "corrupt" spells. These spells are available to any prepared spellcaster, because fuck you for playing a sorcerer. They have a drawback: typically some form of ability damage (with special cases mentioned). Also are new spell components: fiend, devil, demon and undead. To cast those spells you have to be a fiend or an undead. This was actually a pretty neat idea that they really should have expanded (and the most logical powergaming answer actually makes an interesting story; the wizard that in his quest to learn the secret magics of dragons/undead/demons/abberations/your mum had to become one to learn it. Another wasted opportunity...) Other spells require a trapped soul, or requires you to be suffering from a certain disease or high on some sort of drug. I find that an interesting take on components.
It would be nice is that was how they worked.
See you need to qualify every spell component: thus you need to be Undead and Fiend to cast some spells (Lichfiend?).
Page 83 makes no exceptions.
The Authors didn't think things through.
Without that issue, the spells can be neat.
Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 2:30 pm
by Xaos
Starmaker wrote:Xaos wrote:Um...SHOPPED IN?
I'm pretty sure that's a typo.
Just sayin'
No, it isn't.
Oh. Photoshop.
Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 2:38 pm
by Lago PARANOIA
Shouldn't that Count/Starmaker exchange be going in the WoD threads?
...
