PDA

View Full Version : Shambling Mound?



olelia
2008-04-21, 12:52 PM
Simple question...hopefully. Is there any way to really counter the call lighting + shambling mound trick without banning either of the two?

Solo
2008-04-21, 01:09 PM
Simple question...hopefully. Is there any way to really counter the call lighting + shambling mound trick without banning either of the two?

Tell your players not to be a ****?

leden
2008-04-21, 01:17 PM
I'm sorry for my ignorance, but what does that trick consist of?

obvious pun
2008-04-21, 01:30 PM
Now I've never heard of this trick before, so I checked the SRD for clues.

If I am correct, Shambling Mounds gain 1d4 con every time they get hit by an electric attack, meaning you could call lightning on them (which gives you 10, at max, electric attacks) to get them, at max per casting of call lightning, 10d4 con. So you are asking, "How can I prevent the players from abusing this?"

Simple, don't let it gain more than 1d4 con. If they hit it with more bolts, just have them do nothing. Or, don't let them gain 1d4 con from the first bolt either. I haven't read the entire description of shambling mounds, but last I checked, electricity does not make a plant grow at exponential rates.

Edit: If you're the player asking how to beat these things when the DM uses this trick, just kill/ stop the caster whose fixated on empowering his creature. If the shambling mound IS the caster (Druid using wild shape, Wizard using Polymorph/ Shape change)...

Run for the hills
and run for your life,
'cause as I can tell,
you're gonna die.

Reel On, Love
2008-04-21, 01:36 PM
I haven't read the entire description of shambling mounds, but last I checked, electricity does not make a plant grow at exponential rates.
I hate to tell you this, but they don't usually WALK AROUND, either.

Seriously, don't pull that "hurr it's not realistic durr" stuff.

Jasdoif
2008-04-21, 02:55 PM
I would view this as a case of "bonuses from the same source don't stack". That is, they get the better of the 1d4 or whatever Con bonus from electricity they already have, not they get another 1d4 every time they're hit. So you're talking +4 Con, max.

I'm not sure that's RAW-legal however; most of the stacking rules talk about magical effects and this particular ability is marked extraordinary.

Epinephrine
2008-04-21, 02:59 PM
As DM: change the rules. It's your game - it'd never fly in our games.

As for realism, I agree that it's not a realistic game, but I'd feel comfortable changing that feature without it affecting the flavour of the world. It's an unimportant and frankly idiotic little power. Make it water/light and it might be somewhat reasonable. No beating up plant badguys with blasts of light.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-04-21, 03:41 PM
Honestly, just leave it. A summoned Mound won't last for long enough for it to matter, and a non-summoned one won't come up often enough for it to matter. It doesn't exactly break the game.

Starbuck_II
2008-04-21, 03:45 PM
Honestly, just leave it. A summoned Mound won't last for long enough for it to matter, and a non-summoned one won't come up often enough for it to matter. It doesn't exactly break the game.

What about Shapechange Shambling Mound (I know you can do so much better)?

Jasdoif
2008-04-21, 03:53 PM
Honestly, just leave it. A summoned Mound won't last for long enough for it to matter, and a non-summoned one won't come up often enough for it to matter. It doesn't exactly break the game.The duration of shambler is seven days (or seven months, if you're creating the shambling mounds for guard duty).

Now, suppose you can hire someone to make a permanent, energy-substituted-to-electric wall of fire. It might matter then.

Moff Chumley
2008-04-21, 04:28 PM
Tell your players not to be a ****?

Once again, Solo saves the day.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-04-21, 10:34 PM
Agreed with obvious pun and Jasdoif; I also suggest just making the 1d4 Con increases overlap. So each time it gets hit by lightning, you roll the 1d4 again, and you use the higher one (and, technically, you keep track of the durations separately so if it gets 4 Con at time X, and 2 Con 30 min later, in another 30 min the 4 Con increase will lapse and 2 Con increase will take effect).

Seems appropriate enough. The point of the ability is to make the thing stronger if the PCs hit it with electricity, and that still works, but now you can't abuse it.

Chronos
2008-04-21, 11:08 PM
Way back in 2nd edition, I designed a druid for a high-power campaign who had his stronghold in the middle of a vast swamp. Except it wasn't actually a swamp; it was a shambling mound that had been hit with a truly obscene number of Call Lightnings. See, back then, electricity didn't give them bonus Con; it gave them full bonus HD, complete with increasing size.

Pity I never actually got powerful enough for that...

FlyMolo
2008-04-21, 11:17 PM
Way back in 2nd edition, I designed a druid for a high-power campaign who had his stronghold in the middle of a vast swamp. Except it wasn't actually a swamp; it was a shambling mound that had been hit with a truly obscene number of Call Lightnings. See, back then, electricity didn't give them bonus Con; it gave them full bonus HD, complete with increasing size.

Pity I never actually got powerful enough for that...
AWESOME

And play it the same way the white shakes play it. SilverClawShift et al in the Dustlands Setting. If it hits twice it's regular con score, it explodes.

Simple, and fun.

Devils_Advocate
2008-04-23, 03:49 PM
Hmmm... According to the SRD, only the best effect of two identical spells applies, and modifiers to a check or roll do not stack if they come from the same source, but neither of those seems to apply here. But it's obvious that the same basic restriction should apply, so just go ahead and rule that it does.

This may be a house rule. (I say "may be" because for all I know, there's a more general stacking rule somewhere that I just didn't find.) But there's nothing wrong with that. There's nothing sacred about the RAW. In fact, often the RAW is really dumb. A DM should not have to dig up a RAW justification for disallowing broken stuff. In general, it should be assumed that if a rule or a given application of a rule is ridiculously overpowered, then it doesn't work as written, and the only question is whether it should be banned outright, and if not what sane modification of said rule should actually be used.

Randel
2008-04-23, 10:58 PM
DM: Ahem, just so you don't get any ideas, I'm ruling that every time a shambling mound gains constitution from electricity attacks there is a cumulative chance that the electricity shorts out its brain and causes it to go berserk and attack its creator. Do you still want to cast Call Lightning on it?

Collin152
2008-04-23, 11:02 PM
Ala modern retellings of Frankenstein?