How much would cost to pay a team to capture a red dragon wyrmling?

[AMFV]

Its not about any one decision, its the moment you decide to start pigeon holing your character into specific choices for mechanical benefits that it leaves mid op.

I just agree with this take completely. Picking a race that is obviously a good choice for something is not high optimization. I wouldn't even consider that to be pigeonholed since there are like many many options that would work there. The pigeonhole thing would be when you're starting to look at like again incarnate construct. I would say that high optimization is when you were looking at only the best options or picking only the top options in a particular category.

Mid optimization is when you're maybe glancing at a guy you're picking options that are intuitively good instead of just picking options that are flavor-based. For mid-optimization you have to be considering the mechanical consequences of your character choices. And that includes picking stat choices that are not poor. Low optimization would be picking things for mechanical reasons that aren't the best things or like really not thinking about it too much at all but just kind of picking things that you think are going to be good.

I would say that if you're not considering that at all then you're not optimizing at all you're not in low optimization you're in none.

So picking a Goliath or an orc, or any other race with a strength bonus is not high optimization you're not picking the best option since the best option is fairly obviously the incarnate construct.

I guess the other question to ask is: does making a human fighter ubercharger make them low op? Because I would argue that making an ubercharger at all pushes you to mid op minimum, thus, making an OPTIMAL ubercharger must result in high op.

I would put that at the very end of medium. Like you're picking a choice that standard-wise would be a good one but you're not considering if it's a good one for that build and so that's probably not a low optimization thing... But you're certainly not at the higher end of medium where you're making good choices for your build that aren't necessarily just the best choices.

Remember, just because something is high op, doesnt mean it has to be tier 1 power. A tier 5 character can still be high op

I think that there's a point where you have to be picking mechanically the best options to be considered high OP. Like we're talking again you are picking incarnate construct because it is the best option. You might be picking other options but you're definitely not picking an option that doesn't give you large size


I would say you can make an Uber charger in any range from medium to high it's a little better than low. When we're talking low optimization we're talking not taking leap attack or something. Just power attacking and not taking Spirit Lion. Which is still going to do reasonable charge damage it's just not going to be anywhere near as impressive.

[Unoriginal]

As a DM I would not even take them into consideration, but it's a matter of opinions.

As in, if your players asked you about them you would tell them "I'm not even considering letting those happen at my table"?

[Samael Morgenst]

I would let them try throwing around handfuls of snow in the hope of it sticking to an invisible opponent, sure. But making it work is another matter entirely.

To be fair, I would feel unfair to let invisibility be defeated so easily. Not only for those using invisibility, but also for those who invested in Blind Fighting, Smell, prestige classes with blindsight or tremorsense, ecc.

[Bohandas]

Plus, I would expect that the snow or flour or whatever that stuck to them would disappear like a worn item.

They'd only be 'visible' while the cloud lasted, as an apparent vpid in the cloud

[AMFV]

Plus, I would expect that the snow or flour or whatever that stuck to them would disappear like a worn item.

They'd only be 'visible' while the cloud lasted, as an apparent vpid in the cloud

Yeah, the best way to handle it would be like all circumstantial advantages. The giants get a +2 (or possibly more in more intense snow) bonus to their spot checks to locate the creatures. That would be the reasonable take IMO. Otherwise you're basically making the spells nearly entirely useless in a combat environment.

[Crake]

I would let them try throwing around handfuls of snow in the hope of it sticking to an invisible opponent, sure. But making it work is another matter entirely.

To be fair, I would feel unfair to let invisibility be defeated so easily. Not only for those using invisibility, but also for those who invested in Blind Fighting, Smell, prestige classes with blindsight or tremorsense, ecc.

You know a sack of flour is an actual thing written in an actual dnd book right? Its not some made up idea, its an actually published, official rule for equipment.

Plus, I would expect that the snow or flour or whatever that stuck to them would disappear like a worn item.

They'd only be 'visible' while the cloud lasted, as an apparent vpid in the cloud

As for flour/snow becoming invisible with the creature:
“items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature.”

Worth noting that it doesnt make them completely visible, but it does reduce their concealment from total, to normal, so their square is apparent, but they still get 20% miss chance

And lets not forget that the footprints youre leaving behind in the snow make it super obvious where you are, as per the dmg:
“ Footprints in sand, mud, or other soft surfaces can give enemies clues to an invisible creature’s location.”

[AMFV]

You know a sack of flour is an actual thing written in an actual dnd book right? Its not some made up idea, its an actually published, official rule for equipment.

What is the specific rules text for that? Can you cite the source?

As for flour/snow becoming invisible with the creature:
“items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature.”

This isn't an "item picked up" though. So the rules may be different for something held in the hands as opposed to something that covers you.

Worth noting that it doesnt make them completely visible, but it does reduce their concealment from total, to normal, so their square is apparent, but they still get 20% miss chance

I'd be curious as to where exactly this is coming from. I'd love to see the flour source.

And lets not forget that the footprints youre leaving behind in the snow make it super obvious where you are, as per the dmg:
“ Footprints in sand, mud, or other soft surfaces can give enemies clues to an invisible creature’s location.”

A clue to the location sounds like a circumstance bonus or potentially roll twice for the random location thing and take the better result.

[Crake]

What is the specific rules text for that? Can you cite the source?

https://web.archive.org/web/20161031...40921a&pf=true

Rules of the game article. Also covers specifics on tracking creatures through snow and other such conditions, basically says, in fresh snow, it lets you pinpoint the location until the snow becomes trampled and muddied by combat.

[AMFV]

https://web.archive.org/web/20161031...40921a&pf=true

Rules of the game article. Also covers specifics on tracking creatures through snow and other such conditions, basically says, in fresh snow, it lets you pinpoint the location until the snow becomes trampled and muddied by combat.

It's worth noting that this is not actual official rules but rather Skip's interpretation. Which is usually quite good, but sometimes is not as good.

Also worth noting:

an unseen creature's tracks probably will betray its location, at least during the first few rounds of a fight (before all the snow becomes thoroughly trampled).

As you can see by my added emphasis, Skip doesn't say that's a hard fast rule. Only that it will probably happen. So that's not exactly ironclad there even in that circumstance.

Surfaces or conditions that don't leave clear tracks still might give you a bonus (the DM can decide how big) in Spot checks to notice or locate unseen creatures. You might get a Spot bonus in areas covered with tall grass, undergrowth, dust, or running water (assuming the unseen creature is wading and not submerged; see next section).

Which sounds like what I was advocating for. Sure in perfect conditions you might know, but I would otherwise give a circumstance bonus.

Toss the bag of flour just like a splash weapon. A direct hit leaves an invisible creature smeared with flour, which reveals the creature's location. An invisible creature caught in the flour's splash effect can attempt a Reflex save (DC 20) to avoid getting covered with flour. A creature can shed its outer clothing (at least a full-round action) and be rid of the flour. Otherwise, it must bathe or wait for the flour to wear off on its own (which takes an hour or two in dry conditions).

I think this is kind of Skip making a houserule. Unless it occurs somewhere in the actual rules. Also notably he doesn't say that you lose full concealment only that your location is known. It's not unreasonable, but I do think that it really invalidates invisibility or makes it considerably less effective and that has some significant gameplay implications.

[Crake]

It's worth noting that this is not actual official rules but rather Skip's interpretation. Which is usually quite good, but sometimes is not as good.

I mean, the guy DID write the core 3.5 rulebooks. Worth noting that web articles are generally considered official rules, especially considering there is actual content in the web articles that is very frequently used.

You can almost imagine them as a precursor to the "official rulings on twitter" that we have for 5e these days.

Also worth noting:



As you can see by my added emphasis, Skip doesn't say that's a hard fast rule. Only that it will probably happen. So that's not exactly ironclad there even in that circumstance.

Sure, because not all circumstances are going to be identical.

Which sounds like what I was advocating for. Sure in perfect conditions you might know, but I would otherwise give a circumstance bonus.

The conditions outlined there are not equivalent to snow. Tall grass and dirt don't leave such obvious footprints and tracks as fresh snow does.

I think this is kind of Skip making a houserule. Unless it occurs somewhere in the actual rules. Also notably he doesn't say that you lose full concealment only that your location is known. It's not unreasonable, but I do think that it really invalidates invisibility or makes it considerably less effective and that has some significant gameplay implications.

I think that's a kind of gamist approach to take honestly. "Invisibility is a 2nd level spell, and so must only be countered by things of at least equal degrees of power". But it's also not like it's completely invalidating invisibility as a whole, it's just taking into account the environment, and how it would affect invisibility. Even in lord of the rings, gollum uses frodo's footprints to locate him while he had the ring on in mount doom, and that was FAR less idea of a circumstance than fresh snow, so it's not like using footprints to locate invisible creatures is completely foreign.

Saying that, if you don't have a specifically designed counter to invisibility, that it should be completely undefeatable is, in my opinion, completely antithetical to the whole notion of ttrpgs in the first place. They are a space where creativity and ideas should be rewarded. If we wanted to play in a very rigid framework of gameplay, computer games provide us with that.

[AMFV]

I mean, the guy DID write the core 3.5 rulebooks. Worth noting that web articles are generally considered official rules, especially considering there is actual content in the web articles that is very frequently used.

Web Articles that provide class features are... I wouldn't consider this kind of clarification to be under normal circumstances. And even if they are they get pretty muddy here. I like Skip. That's why I said "He's usually pretty good" or something to that effect.

Sure, because not all circumstances are going to be identical.

Yeah, but I would say "invisibility always loses to snow" is just probably not correct. "Invisibility is made more difficult by snow" would be.

The conditions outlined there are not equivalent to snow. Tall grass and dirt don't leave such obvious footprints and tracks as fresh snow does.

Actually he outlines several situations in which snow might not be that way. If there are lots of footprints in an area being by far the most common.

I think that's a kind of gamist approach to take honestly. "Invisibility is a 2nd level spell, and so must only be countered by things of at least equal degrees of power". But it's also not like it's completely invalidating invisibility as a whole, it's just taking into account the environment, and how it would affect invisibility. Even in lord of the rings, gollum uses frodo's footprints to locate him while he had the ring on in mount doom, and that was FAR less idea of a circumstance than fresh snow, so it's not like using footprints to locate invisible creatures is completely foreign.

Saying that, if you don't have a specifically designed counter to invisibility, that it should be completely undefeatable is, in my opinion, completely antithetical to the whole notion of ttrpgs in the first place. They are a space where creativity and ideas should be rewarded. If we wanted to play in a very rigid framework of gameplay, computer games provide us with that.

Using a strategy that has existed in books since the 1970s is NOT you being creative. Like it's not. Most players have read about that in multiple books and likely read about it in TTRPG books. I reward creative solutions.

[Crake]

Actually he outlines several situations in which snow might not be that way. If there are lots of footprints in an area being by far the most common.

Yeah, I made that distinction too, "in fresh snow, it lets you pinpoint the location until the snow becomes trampled and muddied by combat."

Using a strategy that has existed in books since the 1970s is NOT you being creative. Like it's not. Most players have read about that in multiple books and likely read about it in TTRPG books. I reward creative solutions.

Using the "everything is derivative" argument doesn't make player ideas any less creative. The point was that stepping outside of the rules framework is a feature, not a bug.

[AMFV]

Yeah, I made that distinction too, "in fresh snow, it lets you pinpoint the location until the snow becomes trampled and muddied by combat."

In fresh snow on a clear day, sure that's not an unreasonable way to run things.

Using the "everything is derivative" argument doesn't make player ideas any less creative. The point was that stepping outside of the rules framework is a feature, not a bug.

Stepping outside the rules framework is a feature. Allowing things just because they are outside the rules framework... is not. There's a wide space between "Rule of Cool" DMs that basically make the rules not matter. And I think that is a spectrum, but everybody falls a little different on it. I wouldn't appreciate monsters using Flour to always break my invisibility as a player. And generally if that's a workable solution, enemies should know about it too. To be fair Skip suggests a Reflex save against it and it only reveals location (in his ruling).

Edit:

Also my argument isn't "everything is derivative" it's "doing something derivative is less likely to get a free pass from me.

[Crake]

Stepping outside the rules framework is a feature. Allowing things just because they are outside the rules framework... is not. There's a wide space between "Rule of Cool" DMs that basically make the rules not matter. And I think that is a spectrum, but everybody falls a little different on it. I wouldn't appreciate monsters using Flour to always break my invisibility as a player. And generally if that's a workable solution, enemies should know about it too.

Sure, it would be absurd if EVERY enemy just happened to have sacks of flour on them to counter your invisibility, but I'm more referring to using the environment. The enemy might not have a sack of flour on them, but if they were in a muddy environment, they might try and take a ready action to sling mud at you when you give away your location somehow, by either making an attack (if you were using greater invis), or opening a door, or even if they just make a lucky DC20 spot check to pinpoint your location.

Or if you were fighting in a barn, just grabbing hay from the loft and raining it down on a fight that's happening below, or maybe if you had a vial of ink because you're a writer, you might use that to splash an invisible foe.

Hell, maybe your character is a milk drinker, and they have a bottle of milk that they can use!

There are tonnes of ways you can do it without it having to be contrived, but while also simultaneously rewarding careful gameplay by the invisible person to not actually give away their position in the first place, rather than just making invisibility a blanket "i win" spell if the enemies lack a counter.

As a side note, since invisibility does make currently worn/attended items invisible when cast, a re-cast of invisibility would also once more hide your character when coated in such a way.

To be fair Skip suggests a Reflex save against it and it only reveals location (in his ruling).

Reflex save for the splash yeah, not for a direct hit. In fairness, kicking up a wave of snow wouldn't have a "direct hit" option, so I can imagine it allowing a save as well.

[Samael Morgenst]

You know a sack of flour is an actual thing written in an actual dnd book right? Its not some made up idea, its an actually published, official rule for equipment.

A sack of flour, I can accept. Doing the trick throwing around snow or dirt, no.

[Crake]

A sack of flour, I can accept. Doing the trick throwing around snow or dirt, no.

Is there a reason why flour would work but snow/dirt would not?

[Samael Morgenst]

From a game balance / fairness perspective, buying a flour sack and carrying it is a minor expence and a weight burden for a low level group, so it deserves to work.

From a realism perspective, flour powder is sticky, fine and light while snow is not likely to work the same way or to be as easily thrown on a wide area.

[AMFV]

From a game balance / fairness perspective, buying a flour sack and carrying it is a minor expence and a weight burden for a low level group, so it deserves to work.

From a realism perspective, flour powder is sticky, fine and light while snow is not likely to work the same way or to be as easily thrown on a wide area.

From a realism perspective throwing a bunch of flour into an area that has a lot of open flames is likely to be a big problem.

[Samael Morgenst]

Eheheh, true, I didn't thought about that.

[Crake]

From a game balance / fairness perspective, buying a flour sack and carrying it is a minor expence and a weight burden for a low level group, so it deserves to work.

From a realism perspective, flour powder is sticky, fine and light while snow is not likely to work the same way or to be as easily thrown on a wide area.

I exclusively care about realism, so I never make rulings based on "game balance". Personal opinion, but simulationism is far more important to me than "game balance".

So with that in mind, snow and mud, being wet, are probably MORE sticky than flour would be.

That said, a fistful of mud probably wouldn't have the splash effect of a sack of flour, and would require a direct hit, while a wave of snow would have the opposite, lacking the ability for a direct hit, but allowing a reflex save, or alternatively, a snowball would offer much the same effect as slinging mud, being direct hit only. Neither are as effective as a sack of flour, and both are limited by environmental availability, so if you want "game balance" I guess you can consider that as a limiting factor.

[Samael Morgenst]

Unrelated question.

It would be feasible to use the Clone spell, or a variant, to artificially harvest dragon meat / scales / bones / blood / fangs / claws?
And would it be ethically acceptable?

[Inevitability]

Unrelated question.

It would be feasible to use the Clone spell, or a variant, to artificially harvest dragon meat / scales / bones / blood / fangs / claws?
And would it be ethically acceptable?

Yeah, clone is silly like that. You'd have to pay the material component and possess the focus, you'd have to wait 2d4 months, but it should work. D&D already thinks it's ethically acceptable to harvest the corpses of living breathing (non-good) dragons; doing so to inanimate dragon corpses should be especially fine. As far as I know, the only rule against harvesting living creatures for parts is in the BoED, where it only covers good creatures.

[Samael Morgenst]

Woah. 1000 gp of material components and 2d4 months of wait to get the raw material for a fullplate, an indeterminate number of bows (I guess four, one for limb) , a shield and twelve weapons, all dragoncraft.

It's a good deal. It could become a profitable industry.
I wonder how much would ask a great wyrm for 1 cubic inch of his flesh to start the enterprise.

[Inevitability]

I wonder how much would ask a great wyrm for 1 cubic inch of his flesh to start the enterprise.

The great wyrm is the one running the enterprise. Where else are you going to find high-level sorcerer casting in combination with a love for money and ready access to dragonflesh?

[AMFV]

Unrelated question.

It would be feasible to use the Clone spell, or a variant, to artificially harvest dragon meat / scales / bones / blood / fangs / claws?
And would it be ethically acceptable?

Ethics is really culturally variable. I think that if that were possible in real life you'd have probably 50 different answers to it. At least in the case of D&D Clones explicitly don't have souls or really intellect of their own. So it just depends on your views on body autonomy which is going to be different for every society.

[Crake]

corpses of living breathing (non-good) dragons;

"Corpse"... "living breathing"...

[Inevitability]

"Corpse"... "living breathing"...

If you know a better word for 'corpse that was once alive, as opposed to a corpse that was never alive', I'd love to hear it.

[rel]

Since the thread seems to have moved from 'how much should Fantasy Mr Johnson be offering the PC's to bring in a dragon, alive and unspoiled' to 'how effective should flour be against invisibility' for some reason I guess it's time to weigh in again.

From memory complete Scoundrel provides an alchemical item, Torchbug Paste, which functions much like a mundane faerie fire grenade and sells for about 20gp / shot.
I'd rule flour, correctly prepared and packaged should work as a less reliable version of that; Only partially effective, possible to brush / wash off with an action and maybe a skill check. Eventually dispersing after the orc guard has hit the wizard trying to play scout over the head a few times, that sort of thing.

[Crake]

If you know a better word for 'corpse that was once alive, as opposed to a corpse that was never alive', I'd love to hear it.

Corpses are, by definition "dead" bodies, thus meaning they are, by requirement, needing to be of creatures that were once alive. "Remains" probably fits better for the leftovers of a nonliving creature.

[Samael Morgenst]

Weird thoughts...

from the Draconomicon:

MOUNTAIN LANDWYRM
Colossal Dragon
Hit Dice: 40d12+440 (700 hp)
Initiative: +3
Speed: 30 ft. (6 squares), burrow 10 ft.
Armor Class: 31 (–8 size, –1 Dex, +30 natural), touch 1, flat-footed 31
Base Attack/Grapple: +40/+72
Attack: Bite +48 melee (4d18+16/19–20)
Full Attack: Bite +48 melee (4d18+16/19–20) and 2 claws +46 melee (4d6+8)
Space/Reach: 30 ft./20 ft.
Special Attacks: Frightful presence, snatch, thunderous roar
Special Qualities: —
Saves: Fort +33, Ref +21, Will +29
Abilities: Str 43, Dex 8, Con 32, Int 13, Wis 25, Cha 20
Skills: Climb +46, Concentration +31, Diplomacy +45, Gather Information +7, Hide +23*, Intimidate +25, Knowledge (local) +21, Knowledge (nature) +21, Listen +27, Sense Motive +27, Spot +47, Survival +31
Feats: Awesome Blow, Blind-Fight, Cleave, Great Cleave, Improved Bull Rush, Improved Critical (bite), Improved Initiative, Improved Overrun, Improved Sunder, Multiattack, Power Attack, Snatch, Stealthy, Track
Environment: Temperate mountains
Organization: Solitary, pair, or cluster (3–6)
Challenge Rating: 22
Treasure: Standard
Alignment: Usually lawful evil
Advancement: 41–48 HD (Colossal)
Level Adjustment: —
The mountain landwyrm spends most of its days in slumber, hidden away in a secret cave in the heart of a great peak. But when awake, it is one of the fiercest creatures to walk the planet. At first glance, a mountain landwyrm appears to be a craggy mass of rock. In fact, it is possible to walk right past one (despite its size) and never suspect it was there. However, once it is awakened, its tread shakes the ground. Mountain landwyrms subsist primarily on a diet of stone, occasionally venturing forth for a meal of a few dire bears or stone giants. They have no true enemies, since even the eldest red dragon knows better than to pick a fight with such a creature. Still, they have been known to interact peacefully with creatures that offer the proper gifts and obeisance. Mountain landwyrms speak Draconic, Dwarven, Giant, and Common.

Combat: A mountain landwyrm opens combat with its thunderous roar and frightful presence, and then picks off injured opponents with patient skill. Once angered, a mountain landwyrm does not rest until it has destroyed its foes, tracking them for days if necessary.

Frightful Presence (Ex): 200-ft. radius, HD 39 or fewer, Will DC 35 negates.

Snatch (Ex): Against Large or smaller creatures, bite for 4d8+16/round or claw for 4d6+8/round.

Thunderous Roar (Su): Once per day a mountain landwyrm can emit a thunderous roar. This is the equivalent of a greater shout spell. Caster level 20th.

Skills: *Mountain landwyrms have a +4 racial bonus on Hide checks when in mountain terrain. This bonus on Hide checks increases to +8 when the landwyrm is immobile.

Let's imagine an half-dragon (red) Mountain Landwyrm.

Would it find relatively easy to "adopt" / become the guardian of a newly hatched true dragon wyrmling?

Also, would red dragons treat such a creature with more or less contempt than usual?