View Full Version : Pathfinder What's with a babau's slime?
So babau's slime, in 3.5 did 1d8 damage to a weapon that struck it, ignoring hardness. That works, it will chip away at anything. But then in PF, they changed it. Still 1d8 damage, but now "if this damage penetrates the weapon’s hardness, the weapon gains the broken condition." Okay? So, blades are just immune? The all have minimum hardness 10. Hafted weapon are potential vulnerable, but not really? Mundane ones will get broken 37.5% of the time, but +1 drops that to a 12.5% due to the +2 hardness, and this is after the wielder fails the reflex save the get to avoid this effect.
Did the writer forgot the hardness values of weapons? Is the damage meant to be cumulative, temporarily reducing the weapon's hardness, at least for subsequent applications of the slime? It doesn't say so, that would make the ability a threat. Am I missing something? Is the weapon damaging capabilities of the slime meant to be a near useless feature?
arkieNork
2023-09-29, 07:00 PM
seems a bit extreme on both ends. I think PF1 version is better in terms of balance. 3.5 is more fun for evil DMs.
3.5 version makes Babaus into very expensive enemies to confront. Consider that Babau is meant to be a relatively low level demon - it has weakness to Cold Iron and is CR 6.
Except Cold Iron Longsword still has only 5 HP and a Cold Iron Longsword + 1 has 15. Most groups at levels 3 to 6 confronting this one demon would get to make 1 to 3 attacks each and their weapons are gone.
That's not so much 'chip away' as it is 'your group just lost thousands of gold to kill one creature'.
I am not one for coddling players, but this kind of enemy is going to lead to a lot of bad feels and that means in practice DMs will just skip using it.
For knowledgeable parties, it creates nonsense situation where its better to beat the acid slime demon to death with your fists and heal through the damage, than it is to use an exquisite magical sword and than have to spend a lot of gold to repair the weapon.
So I think the PF1 change is very intentional.
Possibly, but I feel pathfinder went too far in the other direction. They made metal weapons, the majority of weapons wielded by characters, flat out immune, and (assuming its magical, which happens around level 3) even wood based weapons only have a 12.5% chance of being effected, after failing a save, though it is a relatively high one. And even if it does work, its just broken, so -2 to attack potentially nerfing the crit aspect of the weapon. At that point it seems pointless to even include, just have it deal acid damage to anyone who touches the babau.
A good compromise would have been to keep the "1d8 damage, ignoring hardness", but have the weapon just gain the broken condition when reduced to 0 hitpoints, rather than being destroyed. Then the ability could actually matter.
MonochromeTiger
2023-10-01, 11:40 AM
Possibly, but I feel pathfinder went too far in the other direction. They made metal weapons, the majority of weapons wielded by characters, flat out immune, and (assuming its magical, which happens around level 3) even wood based weapons only have a 12.5% chance of being effected, after failing a save, though it is a relatively high one. And even if it does work, its just broken, so -2 to attack potentially nerfing the crit aspect of the weapon. At that point it seems pointless to even include, just have it deal acid damage to anyone who touches the babau.
A good compromise would have been to keep the "1d8 damage, ignoring hardness", but have the weapon just gain the broken condition when reduced to 0 hitpoints, rather than being destroyed. Then the ability could actually matter.
Pretty sure the "compromise" was keeping the ability people recognized at all.
As was stated earlier a Babau is a low level Demon, it isn't going to be the biggest risk and it shouldn't require a massive investment cost just to engage something that's only a couple steps above the weakest Demon. It's a brute that, according to its description, is expected to attack from stealth so a full on engagement is already pushing it out of its comfort zone.
All that said the acid still punishes the players for attacking it with Unarmed Attacks or at range. Natural Attacks and Unarmed Attacks lead to attempting the save or taking 1d8 acid damage, so you've still got a non zero chance of hurting yourself pretty badly just hitting it, and the two classes most likely to try that have Hit Dice that exactly match the damage range. Rangers and bow Fighters meanwhile just flat out lose any ammo that hits it so there's still a material cost involved.
There are some Pathfinder monsters that really don't fit their CR, usually because of a special quality letting them punch above their weight against parties not prepared for it or a lack of abilities making it easy to counter and invalidate. Babaus aren't in that category and that's not really a flaw. Their protective slime is a niche ability that got a well deserved nerf from the 3.5 version but all that really changed is turning it from "know how to engage or your entire party suffers" to "know how to engage or your vulnerable party members suffer."
Rangers and bow Fighters meanwhile just flat out lose any ammo that hits it so there's still a material cost involved.
As oppose to? Baring very specific enchantments or materials, isn't ammunition already automatically destroyed on a hit?
MonochromeTiger
2023-10-01, 01:11 PM
As oppose to? Baring very specific enchantments or materials, isn't ammunition already automatically destroyed on a hit?
The fact that it would technically include those "specific enchantments or materials" is where the material cost comes in. Protective slime doesn't have some cut off on it, it just says "Ammunition that strikes a babau is automatically destroyed after it inflicts its damage." Which means even when the party as a whole is so far past Babaus that they're laughable ranged weapon users still lose some of their special toys just killing the things.
Point is certain playstyles are screwed over just fighting a Babau still. All keeping the old version, or even something closer to it, would do is punish everyone for fighting what a GM put in front of them specifically to fight. That's not good game design, that's someone deciding their players need to learn to stop playing with them.
The fact that it would technically include those "specific enchantments or materials" is where the material cost comes in. Protective slime doesn't have some cut off on it, it just says "Ammunition that strikes a babau is automatically destroyed after it inflicts its damage." Which means even when the party as a whole is so far past Babaus that they're laughable ranged weapon users still lose some of their special toys just killing the things.
If they have reusable ammunition, which is not often. So basically against the majority of melee fighters (metal weapon) the slime does nothing, and the vast majority of ranged fighters (who don't bother to make their ammunition to survive a hit) the slime does nothing.
Seems the compromise when too far in the other direction and could have dropped the last 2 sentences with no effect on 95% of encounters. That's not a good rule in my book, when the payoff is nothing spectacular.
icefractal
2023-10-01, 03:12 PM
I think if I were trying to make the ability meaningful but not rust-monster-tier, I might do something like:
"The slime sticks to weapons, giving them -1 to attack and damage, which stacks up to -5. It can be wiped off as a move action which deals 1d8 acid damage if using a hand, or melts the cloth if using a cloth"
Raven777
2023-10-02, 08:49 AM
Point is certain playstyles are screwed over just fighting a Babau still. All keeping the old version, or even something closer to it, would do is punish everyone for fighting what a GM put in front of them specifically to fight. That's not good game design, that's someone deciding their players need to learn to stop playing with them.
As opposed to a CR3 Rust Monster?
spectralphoenix
2023-10-02, 12:58 PM
As opposed to a CR3 Rust Monster?
The Rust Monster also got nerfed in PF. The first hit only makes the item broken, it no longer affects metal weapons that hit it, and the save is easier.
Tzardok
2023-10-02, 01:13 PM
I think if I were trying to make the ability meaningful but not rust-monster-tier, I might do something like:
"The slime sticks to weapons, giving them -1 to attack and damage, which stacks up to -5. It can be wiped off as a move action which deals 1d8 acid damage if using a hand, or melts the cloth if using a cloth"
Alternatively one could reduce the damage (to 1 per hit, maybe?) but have it still overcome hardness?
MonochromeTiger
2023-10-02, 05:56 PM
As opposed to a CR3 Rust Monster?
As Spectralphoenix mentioned Rust Monsters got nerfed, but beyond that there's the matter of identity.
Babau: Demonic assassin, sucks to fight but its identity in story is just "low tier demon, really cruel killer, kind of sucks to fight."
The protective slime only factors into the last part and while not as extensive as it was it still fulfills that quota. It was just toned down from "the only way to fight this thing without suffering is to only use magic and hope you beat Spell Resistance" to "don't punch it and don't use your special stuff, oh and still have to beat Spell Resistance." PF devs took something that sucked to deal with and made it "less bad." They didn't remove the identifying feature but they also didn't make it so a GM could randomly decide "you know the players have things too good I'm throwing 50 of these at them in close quarters and letting fate decide who's keeping their +4 flaming burst greataxe or not."
Rust Monster: one of the iconic examples of Gygaxian "players suffering is hilarious" mentality, literally exists just to break all the nice shiny gear they worked so hard on. No really, it's legitimately not even supposed to be hostile if you don't have any metal on you according to some of its descriptions. It's just very hungry and adventurers happen to be carrying what it wants to eat straight to it, the fight that ensues is because you're wearing and holding its food not because it wants to kill you.
Aside from a nerf to its ability there is no way to make an appreciable change to this without undermining the entirety of its purpose. I'd personally argue its purpose is terrible and I never use the things without 5 miles of narrative warning signs spelling out "stash your metal gear and money" but then I'm also not in the habit of trying to take away players' toys just to laugh when they get upset. Pathfinder devs, again, couldn't exactly get rid of its identifying feature; in this case however the identifying feature is also the only feature short of making it something completely different. "Less bad" still ended up at "pretty bad" and Rust Monster became one of Pathfinder's examples of monsters where the CR isn't a comfortable fit just because of the problems they cause.
PF devs took something that sucked to deal with and made it "less bad."
Except they did more than that, they made it irrelevant to the major of weapon users, which then raises question why the majority of the ability's description is dedicated to how it (doesn't really) interact with weapons.
I think if I were trying to make the ability meaningful but not rust-monster-tier, I might do something like:
"The slime sticks to weapons, giving them -1 to attack and damage, which stacks up to -5. It can be wiped off as a move action which deals 1d8 acid damage if using a hand, or melts the cloth if using a cloth"
Alternatively one could reduce the damage (to 1 per hit, maybe?) but have it still overcome hardness?
These for example are both ways the slime can matter to weapon wielders, without feeling as bad as the 3.5 version.
loky1109
2023-10-03, 12:07 AM
Let's slime, if doesn't cause damage, decrease weapon's hardness by 1. Maybe temporary.
Let's slime, if doesn't cause damage, decrease weapon's hardness by 1. Maybe temporary.
That good too, largely meaningless most of the time, but it is an effect, one that players will likely react to, no one likes their weapon losing hardness, even if it just takes an hour and a few gold coins to fix, and could matter if the location doesn't allow for that.
Interestingly 5e completely dropped the babau's protective slime. Its still in the creatures picture, but no mechanics, instead they got an enfeebling gaze as a free action when they full attack.
loky1109
2023-10-04, 04:40 PM
That good too, largely meaningless most of the time, but it is an effect, one that players will likely react to, no one likes their weapon losing hardness, even if it just takes an hour and a few gold coins to fix, and could matter if the location doesn't allow for that.
And this lets slime to break even steel weapon, just need more applications.
Monsters like the babau were meant to interact with the resource management minigame present in older editions, and function as a puzzle encounter; deadly unless you know the trick and trivial otherwise.
It doesn't really work in 3.x where there are no resource management mechanics for things like weapon costs and encumbrance to tie into, and the system requires the PC's to have a dragons hoard of magical equipment just to remain relevant.
While there are plenty of examples of the PF devs not understanding their own rules, in this instance I suspect it is a deliberate stealth nerf of the monster; Keeping the iconic abilities intact so the game stays recognisable, but rendering them largely irrelevant to the average adventuring party.
Zombimode
2023-10-11, 02:53 AM
Monsters like the babau were meant to interact with the resource management minigame present in older editions, and function as a puzzle encounter; deadly unless you know the trick and trivial otherwise.
It doesn't really work in 3.x where there are no resource management mechanics for things like weapon costs and encumbrance to tie into, and the system requires the PC's to have a dragons hoard of magical equipment just to remain relevant.
I very much disagree with your take-away that monsters like the babau do not fit into 3.5 - not because it wouldn't follow from your reasoning (lack of resource management mechanics) but because I think that reasoning is the wrong way of looking at things.
Fact is: the babau slime can't destroy a magic weapon with just one hit. So even if you don't know the monster your first hit is pretty much just a warning: "if you keep hitting this thing with your melee weapon the weapon WILL be destroyed". So with that knowledge you can go "ah, since this weapon has a market price of 32000 GP doing so would be a very bad idea". And what to do? Adjust your strategy.
And adjusting your strategy to the threats you face is a core principle in 3.5 - much more so then in 5e.
And you have to adjust to the opposition all the time, the babau is nothing special in this regard:
The enemy is shooting at you from a hard to reach position? Adjust your strategy.
The enemy is sporting save-or-die gaze attacks? Adjust your strategy.
The enemy is doing hit-and-run tactics with the likes of Spring Attack, Flyby Attack or just good-ol-horsearchery? Adjust your strategy.
The enemy has lots of energy resistances? Adjust your strategy.
MesiDoomstalker
2023-10-11, 09:29 PM
I very much disagree with your take-away that monsters like the babau do not fit into 3.5 - not because it wouldn't follow from your reasoning (lack of resource management mechanics) but because I think that reasoning is the wrong way of looking at things.
Fact is: the babau slime can't destroy a magic weapon with just one hit. So even if you don't know the monster your first hit is pretty much just a warning: "if you keep hitting this thing with your melee weapon the weapon WILL be destroyed". So with that knowledge you can go "ah, since this weapon has a market price of 32000 GP doing so would be a very bad idea". And what to do? Adjust your strategy.
And adjusting your strategy to the threats you face is a core principle in 3.5 - much more so then in 5e.
And you have to adjust to the opposition all the time, the babau is nothing special in this regard:
The enemy is shooting at you from a hard to reach position? Adjust your strategy.
The enemy is sporting save-or-die gaze attacks? Adjust your strategy.
The enemy is doing hit-and-run tactics with the likes of Spring Attack, Flyby Attack or just good-ol-horsearchery? Adjust your strategy.
The enemy has lots of energy resistances? Adjust your strategy.
Save for the fact that adjusting strategy mid-combat... fails. Because specialization is highly rewarded. Even for popular Tier 1 prepared casters, adjusting mid-combat is a matter of predicting the right spells needed to adjust ahead of time, which is not a guarantee. Even less for the kind of characters who actually care about the Babau Slime. Fighter doesn't want his weapon to be destroyed? Sure he could break out his longbow and start plinking, but without significant build resources for a combat style he doesn't plan on using frequently, he's taking large penalties, having to deal with firing while in melee, into melee, etc. That's not only frustrating, its ineffectual.
It's not like you can't use a Babau (or a rust monster, sea hag, or nilbog) in a 3.x game, you absolutely can.
But they aren't a good fit for the mechanics, assumptions and expected game play loop.
As such, successfully using those kinds of monsters is complicated, and there's more chance of their inclusion falling flat.
It's not like you can't use a Babau (or a rust monster, sea hag, or nilbog) in a 3.x game, you absolutely can.
But they aren't a good fit for the mechanics, assumptions and expected game play loop.
As such, successfully using those kinds of monsters is complicated, and there's more chance of their inclusion falling flat.
I dunno, Zombimode laid out a pretty coherent play pattern that absolutely works:
Player hit babau with weapon
Weapon starts to fizz
Player realizes that whilst weapon is okay now, it might not be if they continue to hit babau with it
Player / party switch tactics, and need to get mending cast on their weapon at some point
This seems relatively fool proof. How do you see it falling flat? The player ignores the warning of their weapon being slowly corroded? That's not really a babau problem
Save for the fact that adjusting strategy mid-combat... fails. Because specialization is highly rewarded. Even for popular Tier 1 prepared casters, adjusting mid-combat is a matter of predicting the right spells needed to adjust ahead of time, which is not a guarantee. Even less for the kind of characters who actually care about the Babau Slime. Fighter doesn't want his weapon to be destroyed? Sure he could break out his longbow and start plinking, but without significant build resources for a combat style he doesn't plan on using frequently, he's taking large penalties, having to deal with firing while in melee, into melee, etc. That's not only frustrating, its ineffectual.
Eh, whining that an encounter happens to not pair well with your characters skills is generally not a good look in most groups, unless its a reoccurring event. I remember running a juju zombie against a caster whose offensive capabilities were from burning hands, magic missile and some ray attack that dealt electric damage. They just accepted that they were going to suck in that encounter when the monster was ID.
MesiDoomstalker
2023-10-12, 10:04 PM
Eh, whining that an encounter happens to not pair well with your characters skills is generally not a good look in most groups, unless its a reoccurring event. I remember running a juju zombie against a caster whose offensive capabilities were from burning hands, magic missile and some ray attack that dealt electric damage. They just accepted that they were going to suck in that encounter when the monster was ID.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm directly responding to the idea that a Babau's Slime encourages adjusting strategy mid-combat and pointing out how the broader mechanics abhors and actively rejects that kind of play. I'm not talking about a specific player being singled out, I'm talking in the broad context.
It's not like you can't use a Babau (or a rust monster, sea hag, or nilbog) in a 3.x game, you absolutely can.
But they aren't a good fit for the mechanics, assumptions and expected game play loop.
As such, successfully using those kinds of monsters is complicated, and there's more chance of their inclusion falling flat.
Let me expand a bit on this, since people seem confused.
Earlier editions were designed primarily for dungeon crawling. If the PC's found a monster they didn't want to fight they could run away, block the doors, go find something else to do.
A modern game or published adventure has less provisions for that.
This also meant that the PC's were rarely on a strict time limit. Waiting a few days to recover ability damage, or taking a detour to the local temple to reverse stoning or repair gear wasn't a big deal.
A modern game is often on a time limit.
The PC party had a more consistent ability set. there were fewer classes, fewer spells, less variability in the way classes played. The party could be reasonably expected to have healing magic prepared if a nilbog showed up or move earth for a clay golem.
The PC party was expected to have a retinue of hirelings, to help cover the PC's weaknesses, carry backup gear, and function as backup PC's should someone fall or otherwise become unplayable. Someone rolling low to a sea hags gaze and getting dazed for 3 days wasn't that big a deal when there were followers to carry the body around and a cohort, almost as skilled as the missing PC to play.
Gear was less critical, a PC waking up in jail could grab a weapon from the guard or improvise a few spell components and be at nearly full effectiveness. And broken kit didn't represent the loss of multiple levels of advancement. A monster damaging gear didn't make a character unplayable in quite the same way it does in 3.5.
monsters are also complex. The GM might not even notice an ability that makes a monster far more difficult or dangerous to fight (such as the chaos beasts requirement of a cleric with restoration preped) until the dice are already rolling.
And yes, as others have already described, specialisation was less important in earlier editions.
All of this conspires to make using puzzle and resource draining monsters more difficult in 3.x than say AD&D. Or even 5e.
spectralphoenix
2023-10-13, 12:31 AM
I mean, death can be fixed for a few thousand gold pieces. A powerful item could cost tens of thousands, and in 3.5 couldn't be repaired at all. At higher levels, permanently destroying an important magic item is more damaging in the medium-to-long-term than simply killing someone. There's a reason PF cut down on those effects across the board (also to make Sunder slightly less terrible.)
icefractal
2023-10-13, 10:50 AM
A Babau is not that tough an enemy aside from the slime (especially if you're at the level where gear loss is worse than death), so it should be possible to beat without using your most effective fighting style. An improvised weapon (a pole, say) may be -4 to hit, but it means you can still do 2H Power Attack if that's your thing.
Also, I would say that if having to use a different fighting style makes your character totally ineffective (and this is a bad thing rather than an intentional weak point you put in), then go back to the drawing board and make a better character. "Well I'm a Fighter though" - first off, Fighters don't have to be one-note, and second, nobody is forcing you to play a Fighter. 3.x has many classes to choose from.
I think the bigger problem is full-attack, where some GMs may not give feedback in the middle of it. Hit a bunch of times in one round and your weapon could be gone before you even realize the slime is a problem.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm directly responding to the idea that a Babau's Slime encourages adjusting strategy mid-combat and pointing out how the broader mechanics abhors and actively rejects that kind of play. I'm not talking about a specific player being singled out, I'm talking in the broad context.
But its not true. You are encourage to switch tactics. Not using your primary weapon against the babau will mean you will be less effective for that 1 encounter. Using your primary weapon against a babau and losing it will make you less effective for more than 1 encounter. Seems like a pretty simple and obvious choice.
All of this conspires to make using puzzle and resource draining monsters more difficult in 3.x than say AD&D. Or even 5e.
But the babau isn't a puzzle monster, and as Zombimode, it also isn't a resource monster as long as you stop using your weapon when you hit it the first time and it starts fizzing. Its an encounter that requires you to change tactic, and as Zombimode mentioned, there are plenty of those in the game. Flying/immunities, immunises, save or die stuff you character can't tank, ect ect
MesiDoomstalker
2023-10-14, 11:23 AM
But its not true. You are encourage to switch tactics. Not using your primary weapon against the babau will mean you will be less effective for that 1 encounter. Using your primary weapon against a babau and losing it will make you less effective for more than 1 encounter. Seems like a pretty simple and obvious choice.
You are ignoring my argument. I'm not saying you can't switch. I'm saying you are strongly discouraged by the base mechanics. you go from being competent to being utterly incompetent the second you step out of your self-defined style. So the option is 'lose your weapon' or 'be ineffectual' which isn't a choice, its a kick in the nethers. Its unfun. Less effective is being charitable, at best.
My argument boils down to if your given a choice between 'very bad option' and 'unfun option', and 'unfun option' is the only logical option, then its poor design. A problem with the larger design of the game, where immunities and hard-counters to any given playstyle make unfun for anyone wanting to use them. Which makes the options with less prevalent, common or easy hard-counters/immunities better by virtue of higher efficacy. Combined with the inflexibility of being able to switch your tactics in any reasonable capacity and still remain effective at either your original style or the new one style, you get 'trick' monsters like the Babau where if you don't already specialize in a style that is effective, you're just out of luck. Which is Unfun.
Tzardok
2023-10-14, 12:48 PM
Do people really specialize so much that they instantly become incompetent when switching weapons? I've only seen that a single time in all my games, namely in my very first game when the barbarian hadn't taken a ranged weapon and became useless against the one flying enemy we encountered. Other than that, people generally tried to have multiple abilities.
You are ignoring my argument. I'm not saying you can't switch. I'm saying you are strongly discouraged by the base mechanics. you go from being competent to being utterly incompetent the second you step out of your self-defined style. So the option is 'lose your weapon' or 'be ineffectual' which isn't a choice, its a kick in the nethers. Its unfun.
You're entitled to your opinion, and "being less effective for a single combat is unfun to the point of being a problem with the game design" is certain an opinion, and one not common in my experience. If it happens repeatedly then sure, but in my experience players are neutral to positive on facing enemies that don't mesh well with their skills, as it changes play patterns.
loky1109
2023-10-14, 01:21 PM
You are ignoring my argument. I'm not saying you can't switch. I'm saying you are strongly discouraged by the base mechanics. you go from being competent to being utterly incompetent the second you step out of your self-defined style. So the option is 'lose your weapon' or 'be ineffectual' which isn't a choice, its a kick in the nethers. Its unfun. Less effective is being charitable, at best.
Do you know what is really unfun? Always win without any risk or loss.
Dropping your +3 Axe and trying to kick babau with bare legs is fun in my book.
icefractal
2023-10-14, 03:15 PM
I'm saying you are strongly discouraged by the base mechanics. you go from being competent to being utterly incompetent the second you step out of your self-defined style. If that's true - and you don't want it to be true (because intentional weak points are a thing) - then you have failed at character-building. Go back to the drawing board and make a more robust character, because it's definitely possible to do so in 3.x.
Now sure, you can make the argument that it shouldn't be possible to fail at character-building. Which is a legit point, but a much larger one that applies to all areas of the game, not things like the Babau specifically. In fact, a fully unoptimized character probably doesn't see as much loss of effectiveness when they switch tactics.
So, IMO, if you think that "sword-n-board Fighter is weak" is acceptable, then "ubercharger with no backup plan is weak (in some circumstances)" should also be acceptable. Robustness and endurance are equally valid measures of optimization as raw power.
JNAProductions
2023-10-14, 03:20 PM
If that's true - and you don't want it to be true (because intentional weak points are a thing) - then you have failed at character-building. Go back to the drawing board and make a more robust character, because it's definitely possible to do so in 3.x.
Now sure, you can make the argument that it shouldn't be possible to fail at character-building. Which is a legit point, but a much larger one that applies to all areas of the game, not things like the Babau specifically. In fact, a fully unoptimized character probably doesn't see as much loss of effectiveness when they switch tactics.
So, IMO, if you think that "sword-n-board Fighter is weak" is acceptable, then "ubercharger with no backup plan is weak (in some circumstances)" should also be acceptable. Robustness and endurance are equally valid measures of optimization as raw power.
The issue, to me, is not "You can't build a versatile character in 3.X," and more that "Characters (especially martial characters) are strongly encouraged to specialize to the extreme."
loky1109
2023-10-14, 03:42 PM
The issue, to me, is not "You can't build a versatile character in 3.X," and more that "Characters (especially martial characters) are strongly encouraged to specialize to the extreme."
Even strongly specialized martial could be good enough with free walking stick instead of costly magical weapon.
Yes, it isn't good option against enemy with CR=ECL+2 at higher levels, but in the case of babau it isn't issue at all. In case of babau actually his SLAs are issue, not his slime.
Let me expand a bit on this, since people seem confused.
Earlier editions were designed primarily for dungeon crawling. If the PC's found a monster they didn't want to fight they could run away, block the doors, go find something else to do.
A modern game or published adventure has less provisions for that.
This also meant that the PC's were rarely on a strict time limit. Waiting a few days to recover ability damage, or taking a detour to the local temple to reverse stoning or repair gear wasn't a big deal.
A modern game is often on a time limit.
The PC party had a more consistent ability set. there were fewer classes, fewer spells, less variability in the way classes played. The party could be reasonably expected to have healing magic prepared if a nilbog showed up or move earth for a clay golem.
The PC party was expected to have a retinue of hirelings, to help cover the PC's weaknesses, carry backup gear, and function as backup PC's should someone fall or otherwise become unplayable. Someone rolling low to a sea hags gaze and getting dazed for 3 days wasn't that big a deal when there were followers to carry the body around and a cohort, almost as skilled as the missing PC to play.
Gear was less critical, a PC waking up in jail could grab a weapon from the guard or improvise a few spell components and be at nearly full effectiveness. And broken kit didn't represent the loss of multiple levels of advancement. A monster damaging gear didn't make a character unplayable in quite the same way it does in 3.5.
monsters are also complex. The GM might not even notice an ability that makes a monster far more difficult or dangerous to fight (such as the chaos beasts requirement of a cleric with restoration preped) until the dice are already rolling.
And yes, as others have already described, specialisation was less important in earlier editions.
All of this conspires to make using puzzle and resource draining monsters more difficult in 3.x than say AD&D. Or even 5e.
But the babau isn't a puzzle monster, and as Zombimode, it also isn't a resource monster as long as you stop using your weapon when you hit it the first time and it starts fizzing. Its an encounter that requires you to change tactic, and as Zombimode mentioned, there are plenty of those in the game. Flying/immunities, immunises, save or die stuff you character can't tank, ect ect
I respectfully disagree, but at this point we're splitting hairs.
Monsters can be considered as puzzle or logistic challenges as I described.
And such challenges are harder to include in a 3.x game operating under the assumptions of published adventures and organised play than something more straightforward.
Exactly how a specific monster should be categorised isn't all that important, and an objective categorisation might not even be possible.
And such challenges are harder to include in a 3.x game operating under the assumptions of published adventures and organised play than something more straightforward.
And yet people have been using and enjoying such monsters since the edition dropped. You can find plenty of them in published adventurers, so I'm unsure what you mean by "operating under the assumptions of published adventures".
"3.5 encourages specialisation" is likely true, but that in no way means you should not run into monsters who don't match up with your specialisation.
And yet people have been using and enjoying such monsters since the edition dropped. You can find plenty of them in published adventurers, so I'm unsure what you mean by "operating under the assumptions of published adventures".
It's not like you can't use a Babau (or a rust monster, sea hag, or nilbog) in a 3.x game, you absolutely can.
And we've come full circle.
I think this debate has run its course.
And we've come full circle.
I think this debate has run its course.
Or you could explain what you mean by the next sentence you said there "But they aren't a good fit for the mechanics, assumptions and expected game play loop."
Because it to me it seems you're saying you CAN use them, but they aren't a good fit for the game, even though there's a lot of them in the game and published adventures use them. Which, okay is a take, but seems to be you saying 3.5 is a poorly designed game. Which is an opinion I've heard argued before, but this reason is new.
blackwindbears
2023-10-16, 08:00 AM
The issue, to me, is not "You can't build a versatile character in 3.X," and more that "Characters (especially martial characters) are strongly encouraged to specialize to the extreme."
The character creation mini-game encourages specialization and monsters like the Babau are a countervailing force discouraging overspecializing. (Defining overspecializing here as being useless outside of using your one most valuable weapon)
That's good game design!
Without design like that every fight would just boil down to doing the exact same thing. By adding dangers to specialization you keep players from focusing on bigger numbers over everything.
Is D&D a great tactical combat game?
No.
But, a real quick way to make it a worse one is take out things like the Babau.
Or you could explain what you mean by the next sentence you said there "But they aren't a good fit for the mechanics, assumptions and expected game play loop."
I gave a detailed breakdown of my reasoning here:
Let me expand a bit on this, since people seem confused.
Earlier editions were designed primarily for dungeon crawling. If the PC's found a monster they didn't want to fight they could run away, block the doors, go find something else to do.
A modern game or published adventure has less provisions for that.
This also meant that the PC's were rarely on a strict time limit. Waiting a few days to recover ability damage, or taking a detour to the local temple to reverse stoning or repair gear wasn't a big deal.
A modern game is often on a time limit.
The PC party had a more consistent ability set. there were fewer classes, fewer spells, less variability in the way classes played. The party could be reasonably expected to have healing magic prepared if a nilbog showed up or move earth for a clay golem.
The PC party was expected to have a retinue of hirelings, to help cover the PC's weaknesses, carry backup gear, and function as backup PC's should someone fall or otherwise become unplayable. Someone rolling low to a sea hags gaze and getting dazed for 3 days wasn't that big a deal when there were followers to carry the body around and a cohort, almost as skilled as the missing PC to play.
Gear was less critical, a PC waking up in jail could grab a weapon from the guard or improvise a few spell components and be at nearly full effectiveness. And broken kit didn't represent the loss of multiple levels of advancement. A monster damaging gear didn't make a character unplayable in quite the same way it does in 3.5.
monsters are also complex. The GM might not even notice an ability that makes a monster far more difficult or dangerous to fight (such as the chaos beasts requirement of a cleric with restoration preped) until the dice are already rolling.
And yes, as others have already described, specialisation was less important in earlier editions.
All of this conspires to make using puzzle and resource draining monsters more difficult in 3.x than say AD&D. Or even 5e.
You obviously disagree with my assessment, let's agree to disagree.
I gave a detailed breakdown of my reasoning here:
You obviously disagree with my assessment, let's agree to disagree.
I feel you're claim of "operating under the assumptions of published adventures" is less agree to disagree and more in the provably wrong territory, since published adventures do use such puzzle monsters, so they are in fact in line with the assumptions of published adventures.
As for 3.5 being different to AD&D or 5th (poor 4e), sure, but it is a different edition, so differences would be expected, and multiple people on this thread have said babau and such monsters are important aspects of the game, as pattern disruptors.
Beni-Kujaku
2023-10-17, 09:07 AM
Just to put another coin in the blender, there was an attempt to "fix" the rust monster, by WotC themselves, in a Web enchancement here (https://web.archive.org/web/20201112020740/http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060714a), which changes the Rust ability to "-2 AC to armors, -2 att and damage for weapons, fades after 10 minutes unles the rust monster takes 5 minutes to completely rust and destroy the object". The point was obviously to make it not as "all or nothing" while keeping the flavor and still being a threat to fighters in a team battle. A good adaptation of the Babau slime would be similar (the slime sticks to the weapon, rendering it less wieldy and applying a -2 penalty to hit and damage, can be washed with water but deals 1 damage per minute to the weapon if not washed. Several applications of the slime stack for both menalty and damage.)
A Babau is not that tough an enemy aside from the slime (especially if you're at the level where gear loss is worse than death), so it should be possible to beat without using your most effective fighting style. An improvised weapon (a pole, say) may be -4 to hit, but it means you can still do 2H Power Attack if that's your thing.
Also, I would say that if having to use a different fighting style makes your character totally ineffective (and this is a bad thing rather than an intentional weak point you put in), then go back to the drawing board and make a better character. "Well I'm a Fighter though" - first off, Fighters don't have to be one-note, and second, nobody is forcing you to play a Fighter. 3.x has many classes to choose from.
I think the bigger problem is full-attack, where some GMs may not give feedback in the middle of it. Hit a bunch of times in one round and your weapon could be gone before you even realize the slime is a problem.
A Babau has 19 AC and is CR 6. A fighter has a minimum +6 AB if it's an equal level encounter. Align a stack of arrows for 50 babau killing improvised daggers. Easy. Add greater magic weapon for more fun and durability.
I feel you're claim of "operating under the assumptions of published adventures" is less agree to disagree and more in the provably wrong territory, since published adventures do use such puzzle monsters, so they are in fact in line with the assumptions of published adventures.
The post I link every time you asked for clarification must be unclear somehow.
Let me rephrase the original argument (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25887986&postcount=23) again in simpler language.
D&D 3.x, at least when in comes to published adventures operates under certain assumptions:
1) the PC's are expected to fight the monsters placed in their path
2) The PC's are usually on a time limit and often don't have time to prepare for or recuperate from a difficult fight
3) Due to a wide variety of available builds, the PC party can't be expected to have access to any specific powers or ability.
4) Fights are expected to be CR appropriate, therefore the PC's require gear of approximately WBL to be effective.
As such WBL worth of loot will be provided at each level throughout the adventure.
5) The PC party is not expected to adventure with an extensive retinue of followers.
In case you haven't understood let me spell it out:
None of these assumptions have Anything to do with whether or not a specific writer chooses to include puzzle monsters in a specific adventure.
arkieNork
2023-10-18, 04:40 PM
Possibly, but I feel pathfinder went too far in the other direction. They made metal weapons, the majority of weapons wielded by characters, flat out immune, and (assuming its magical, which happens around level 3)
You have a point about perhaps going too far. My proposed compromise on PF1 version is to allow the slime to do critical damage to a weapon if the attacker rolls a natural 1 on the reflex save.
If you roll that reflex save every time your weapon connects, that danger is not inconsequential. +3 Weapons are still immune, +2 weapons are almost immune, +1 and normal weapons are at risk of getting damaged but unlikely to get broken in one fight.
icefractal
2023-10-18, 07:23 PM
I think the issue is that we're having two different conversations, depending on whether you assume the GM will be clear and explicit about the slime's effect (and thus players will stop using their important melee weapons after the first hit) or not (in which case probably someone loses a weapon).
From a wizard perspective, it's like the difference between "this creature is immune to most magic" - a perfectly reasonable challenge from time to time - or "this creature makes your spellbook half-melt, lose the higher-level half of your spells until you get a replacement" - only appropriate for a major threat and even then many players would hate it.
IMO, if the GM is clear and explicit, this is a perfectly reasonable challenge that a competent martial should be able to handle. It'd get annoying if you kept fighting Babaus for a whole extended arc, but otherwise suck it up and use an improvised weapon if necessary.
But if it's more like "vague description which doesn't sound that much different than the more-common 'acid blood that hurts creatures, not weapons' and then suddenly someone permanently loses their vorpal sword" then I see why people would be against that, and I doubt I'd like it much myself.
The post I link every time you asked for clarification must be unclear somehow.
Let me rephrase the original argument (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25887986&postcount=23) again in simpler language.
D&D 3.x, at least when in comes to published adventures operates under certain assumptions:
1) the PC's are expected to fight the monsters placed in their path
2) The PC's are usually on a time limit and often don't have time to prepare for or recuperate from a difficult fight
3) Due to a wide variety of available builds, the PC party can't be expected to have access to any specific powers or ability.
4) Fights are expected to be CR appropriate, therefore the PC's require gear of approximately WBL to be effective.
As such WBL worth of loot will be provided at each level throughout the adventure.
5) The PC party is not expected to adventure with an extensive retinue of followers.
In case you haven't understood let me spell it out:
None of these assumptions have Anything to do with whether or not a specific writer chooses to include puzzle monsters in a specific adventure.
1) The DMG explicitly says it's ok to run away
2) See #1. Failure is OK. If all anyone does is succeed at everything then their experiences aren't really varied.
3) See #s 1 & 2. Of course they can't be expected to fill every hole. It's an RPG. Kind of the point in having multiple roles and limited resources.
4) DMG says to provide a variety of encounter difficulties. It states that 1 in 20 should be encounters that parties should run from with 3 in 20 being encounters that parties might have a strong need of running from.
5) Of course not, but at the same time it is a convenient way to handle loot and other things. Bags of holding are quite inconvenient to fight with after all.
1) The DMG explicitly says it's ok to run away
2) See #1. Failure is OK. If all anyone does is succeed at everything then their experiences aren't really varied.
3) See #s 1 & 2. Of course they can't be expected to fill every hole. It's an RPG. Kind of the point in having multiple roles and limited resources.
4) DMG says to provide a variety of encounter difficulties. It states that 1 in 20 should be encounters that parties should run from with 3 in 20 being encounters that parties might have a strong need of running from.
5) Of course not, but at the same time it is a convenient way to handle loot and other things. Bags of holding are quite inconvenient to fight with after all.
Sorry what? What does the DMG have to do with any of this?
Sorry what? What does the DMG have to do with any of this?
You're talking about "the mechanics, assumptions and expected game play loop" of the game. The DMG seems relevant for this, to me and Darg at least.
I think the issue is that we're having two different conversations, depending on whether you assume the GM will be clear and explicit about the slime's effect (and thus players will stop using their important melee weapons after the first hit) or not (in which case probably someone loses a weapon).
From a wizard perspective, it's like the difference between "this creature is immune to most magic" - a perfectly reasonable challenge from time to time - or "this creature makes your spellbook half-melt, lose the higher-level half of your spells until you get a replacement" - only appropriate for a major threat and even then many players would hate it.
IMO, if the GM is clear and explicit, this is a perfectly reasonable challenge that a competent martial should be able to handle. It'd get annoying if you kept fighting Babaus for a whole extended arc, but otherwise suck it up and use an improvised weapon if necessary.
But if it's more like "vague description which doesn't sound that much different than the more-common 'acid blood that hurts creatures, not weapons' and then suddenly someone permanently loses their vorpal sword" then I see why people would be against that, and I doubt I'd like it much myself.
That's a fair distinction, the DM needs to be explicit here "Your weapon is fizzing as the acid eats it. It won't break from this alone, but cit can't take much more of the creature's slime". And yeah, I feel they should be, but I have heard of some DMs not referencing regeneration, so I guess it could happen.
Raven777
2023-10-19, 10:57 AM
You guys never steal or burn or have guards confiscate spell books and holy symbols?
Tzardok
2023-10-19, 12:00 PM
Happened to me once. It became a sideplot to get it back from the bandits.
icefractal
2023-10-19, 12:47 PM
You guys never steal or burn or have guards confiscate spell books and holy symbols? I've seen it happen, though not often (and weapons/gear often get taken too). But that's the equivalent of a "being helpless" situation, not something that can happen incidentally in a fight the PCs are winning.
Also IME, for every *one* "society has ****ed you over" situation like that, the GM needs to include like ... five or more "society is a good thing actually" situations if they don't want a party of paranoid murderhoboes.
Thunder999
2023-10-19, 05:23 PM
The 3.5 Babau slime is just terrible designed, and Rust Monsters would improve the game by being removed entirely.
"This monster destroys your vitally important gear, because **** you." is not good enemy design even if Gygax thought it was hilarious.
Rust monsters are really easy to deal with. Pelt them with ammunition from range (they get destroyed anyways), always carry a club, use a net/bolas, etc. There are a plethora of ways to deal with them. I don't see how the game would be improved with their removal. Any gear loss is designed to be replaced eventually. Ultimately by the time it could cause actual serious threat to a player's wealth, the amount of avenues to countering them have climbed so high that if you do lose your items it's pretty deserved at that point.
Raven777
2023-10-20, 09:25 AM
This thread makes me realize how divorced my perception of the game is from some other DMs / players.
To me, getting all your gear stolen in the first fifteen minutes of the game, then having to fight your first wolf pack with sticks and stones or having to figure out you can use a fire poker as an improvised weapon, or bull rushing an animated armor off the third floor's mezzanine as the best way to dispatch it, or finding a new Holy Symbol on a servant's makeshift grave in the garden, is splendid, not bad, scenario design.
(yes I have been running a spruced up Death House (https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/Curse%20of%20Strahd%20Introductory%20Adventure.pdf ) conversion, 'tis the season).
Bohandas
2023-10-20, 09:52 AM
Armed fighters can have resist energy cast on them, which explicitly extends to their equipment
Unarmed combatants can have either protection from energy or resist energy cast on them.
Both spells should be available to a level 6 party
loky1109
2023-10-20, 10:00 AM
Rust Monsters would improve the game by being removed entirely.
Removing options rarely is positive.
This thread makes me realize how divorced my perception of the game is from some other DMs / players.
To me, getting all your gear stolen in the first fifteen minutes of the game, then having to fight your first wolf pack with sticks and stones or having to figure out you can use a fire poker as an improvised weapon, or bull rushing an animated armor off the third floor's mezzanine as the best way to dispatch it, or finding a new Holy Symbol on a servant's makeshift grave in the garden, is splendid, not bad, scenario design.
(yes I have been running a spruced up Death House (https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/Curse%20of%20Strahd%20Introductory%20Adventure.pdf ) conversion, 'tis the season).
I think some people are brainwashed by common modern design philosophies or soured by poor execution of regressive progression. Our lives are defined by opposites. The worse the bad is the better the good is and vice versa. Minimizing the pain of something negative likewise minimizes the joy of the positive.
Bohandas
2023-10-20, 11:43 AM
I think some people are brainwashed by common modern design philosophies or soured by poor execution of regressive progression. Our lives are defined by opposites. The worse the bad is the better the good is and vice versa. Minimizing the pain of something negative likewise minimizes the joy of the positive.
Did anybody else immediately think of Hellraiser after reading this?
EDIT:
Do you know what is really unfun? Always win without any risk or loss.
And this one made me think of The Twilight Zone
As icefractal said, there might be two groups talking sideways, as the people saying babau is bad design seem (to me at least) to be imagining it resulting in an expensive weapon break, but none have confirmed they also thing the following would be a bad play experience:
DM: Ahead you spot a humanoid with dark flesh, skeletally thin, dripping red slime.
Fighter: Okay I charge at at, swinging my longsword
DM: You hit, cutting it not as much as you would have hoped, but it definitely felt that. However some of the red slime sticks to your sword, and appears to be quite acidic as the weapon is fizzling. It won't break form this alone, but you shouldn't expose it to too much more of the slime. It then counter attacks, slashing you for 6 points of damage
Fighter: Okay, I take a 5ft step back and sheath the blade, drawing my backup weapon
(several combat rounds later)
DM: With the wizard's spell the creature goes down, the body disappearing in a cloud of black smoke. Your backup weapon was destroyed, and you examine your greatsword. It took some damage and will be a little more vulnerable to sundering until its fixed, but it is other perfectly functional
Fighter: Okay, need to get my sword fixed ASAP, and another backup weapon in case we run into more of those things
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.