Takesasu (from Creatures of Rokugan)

[Nefreet]

I play 3.5 and was wondering if there was either errata or an updated version of the Takesasu from the Creatures of Rokugan (3.0) source book.

Here's the gist of what the creature does:

TAKESASU (small plant)
HD: 1d8+1 (5 hp)
Initiative: +1 (+1 Dex)
Speed: 0 ft.
AC: 12 (+1 size, +1 Dex)
Attacks: Slam 1d4
Face/Reach: 5 ft. by 5 ft./5 ft.
Special Attacks: Paralysis, acid
Special Qualities: Plant
Saves: Fort +2, Will +0, Ref +0
Abilities: Str 11, Dex -, Con 12, Int -, Wis 10, Cha 10, Taint 5
Skills: None
Feats: None
Challenge Rating: 2

The picture is of a bamboo stalk with this little vine twirling towards someone's leg and a small barb impaled in their calf.

Acid (Ex): If the Takesasu's barb remains in a paralyzed creature's flesh, the plant injects an acid into its victim causing 1d6 damage per round until the barb is removed or the creature dies.
Paralysis (Ex): After a successful slam attack the takesasu uses its next action to inject a powerful paralysis toxin (DC 35) into its victim. The effect lasts as long as the barb remains in the creature and for ten minutes thereafter, and will suffer nausea and vomiting for another four hours.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, that's right, a DC 35 Fort save! I know enough about monster conversions to fix the obvious Dexterity problem and adjust the errors in size, space, and attack stats, and so forth, but I'm really wondering if a DC 35 Fort save is appropriate for a CR 2 creature. I'm sure my players could deal with it, especially since most of their ACs are above 20 anyways, but it's the poison I'm primarily concentrating on.

Any info or advice?

Thanks in advance!

[Talya]

I play 3.5 and was wondering if there was either errata or an updated version of the Takesasu from the Creatures of Rokugan (3.0) source book.

Here's the gist of what the creature does:

TAKESASU (small plant)
HD: 1d8+1 (5 hp)
Initiative: +1 (+1 Dex)
Speed: 0 ft.
AC: 12 (+1 size, +1 Dex)
Attacks: Slam 1d4
Face/Reach: 5 ft. by 5 ft./5 ft.
Special Attacks: Paralysis, acid
Special Qualities: Plant
Saves: Fort +2, Will +0, Ref +0
Abilities: Str 11, Dex -, Con 12, Int -, Wis 10, Cha 10, Taint 5
Skills: None
Feats: None
Challenge Rating: 2

The picture is of a bamboo stalk with this little vine twirling towards someone's leg and a small barb impaled in their calf.

Acid (Ex): If the Takesasu's barb remains in a paralyzed creature's flesh, the plant injects an acid into its victim causing 1d6 damage per round until the barb is removed or the creature dies.
Paralysis (Ex): After a successful slam attack the takesasu uses its next action to inject a powerful paralysis toxin (DC 35) into its victim. The effect lasts as long as the barb remains in the creature and for ten minutes thereafter, and will suffer nausea and vomiting for another four hours.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, that's right, a DC 35 Fort save! I know enough about monster conversions to fix the obvious Dexterity problem and adjust the errors in size, space, and attack stats, and so forth, but I'm really wondering if a DC 35 Fort save is appropriate for a CR 2 creature. I'm sure my players could deal with it, especially since most of their ACs are above 20 anyways, but it's the poison I'm primarily concentrating on.

Any info or advice?

Thanks in advance!

Appropriate? Remember, this thing is designed to be fought by a party of 4 level 2 or higher characters. It has 12 AC and a paltry 5 hit points. If it succeeds in its paralysis attack (probably needs very close to a natural 20 with no attack bonus), 95% chance you've got someone who is now paralyzed...for about 10 minutes after the fight.

The DC looks out of place because it probably shouldn't have one, it should simply not allow a save. But the creature itself is a rather weak CR2 encounter.

[faceroll]

The DC looks out of place because it probably shouldn't have one, it should simply not allow a save. But the creature itself is a rather weak CR2 encounter.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, down that path lies madness. Anytime something happens without rolls, it allows for cracking the game wide open. Poison's a commonly resisted thing, though, so it wouldn't be that big a deal to make it "no save, just die".

[Talya]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, down that path lies madness. Anytime something happens without rolls, it allows for cracking the game wide open. Poison's a commonly resisted thing, though, so it wouldn't be that big a deal to make it "no save, just die".

It's not "without rolls." It's a slam attack, +0, for 1d4 damage and DC35 or a very temporary paralysis. 10 minutes of helplessness, and another few hours of sickness, then you're fine. Not even any clerical attention required.

The DC looks odd because it's tough to resist, even at 20. They basically wanted to give it a 5% failure rate, even in the unlikely event its able to hit you.

[faceroll]

It's not "without rolls." It's a slam attack, +0, for 1d4 damage and DC35 or a very temporary paralysis. 10 minutes of helplessness, and another few hours of sickness, then you're fine. Not even any clerical attention required.

The DC looks odd because it's tough to resist, even at 20. They basically wanted to give it a 5% failure rate, even in the unlikely event its able to hit you.

*shrug*
It's bad precedent to make things happen without rolls. That's how we end up with ****e like Freedom of Movement or Maw of Chaos.

[Talya]

*shrug*
It's bad precedent to make things happen without rolls. That's how we end up with ****e like Freedom of Movement or Maw of Chaos.

Again, it's not happening without rolls. It's not a precedent for something to give no saving throw. Hell, there's a few creatures that have Power Word Spell-likes. However, this ability is more like a seriously gimped "ray." Now, when a player casts them, it's a touch attack or the effect happens. No save, but you have to succeed on your touch attack.

This one is a standard attack (with no bonus!), or the effect probably happens (still 5% failure rate.) Removing the save altogether wouldn't be unprecedented, because the +0 attack vs. your AC is still the roll to see if something happens.

[faceroll]

Again, it's not happening without rolls. It's not a precedent for something to give no saving throw. Hell, there's a few creatures that have Power Word Spell-likes. However, this ability is more like a seriously gimped "ray." Now, when a player casts them, it's a touch attack or the effect happens. No save, but you have to succeed on your touch attack.

This one is a standard attack (with no bonus!), or the effect probably happens (still 5% failure rate.) Removing the save altogether wouldn't be unprecedented, because the +0 attack vs. your AC is still the roll to see if something happens.

Meh, use PAO to get a couple of these yourself, then any of the tricks to persist spells you shouldn't be persisting on it, and it'll have a touch attack: yes with a poison that always works.

'Course, it's just poison, so there's no reason to char-op the heck out of it. But look what a level 6 sorcerer with a wand of summon undead and some allips can do to the tarrasque. It's just bad precedent.

[Nefreet]

(just wanted to point out that it should have a +2 to its slam attack, since it's small-sized and it is inferred that it has a +1 from Dex (despite the error of it having no Dex).

So, I suppose nobody knows of any updated 3.5 rules or errata for this source book?

My idea was to place this plant creature as an encounter on an island populated by feral halflings. I plan for them to use the poison, like coated on darts or something, against the party (like tribes of natives in the real world use poison from the skin of dart frogs to catch monkeys and such). That's why I was wondering if the DC of 35 was correct. Usually it would be something low like 11 or 13, and it would state if it was CON-based or something, but it does not. Since the creature is obviously flawed, I figured the DC of 35 was flawed as well.