Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Werebat 04-03-07, 06:00 PM	...And What Were the Long-Term Effects? 'Nuff said. - Ron ^*^
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 04-03-07, 06:43 PM	No, that is not "nuff said". In fact, this entire topic is utterly worthless.
Alac Luin 04-03-07, 07:30 PM	I think that means "to much said already". :D Or, not enough. Whats actually percieved to be "wrong" with it?
runestar 04-03-07, 10:12 PM	A druid packing venomfire?
Dracomortis 04-04-07, 12:26 PM	Well, I have no idea what the OP was implying, but at level 7 one of those things was out-ninjaing my ninja as the NPC druid's companion. When we finally found out that the druid was evil, I literally sacrificed my life just to kill that damn thing. Had to die with my honor intact, you know?
Werebat 04-04-07, 05:06 PM	Well, I have no idea what the OP was implying, but at level 7 one of those things was out-ninjaing my ninja as the NPC druid's companion. When we finally found out that the druid was evil, I literally sacrificed my life just to kill that damn thing. Had to die with my honor intact, you know? When I ask "Who was smoking what?", I refer of course to whoever gave this abomination the pass-through to be published as an official monster. It wouldn't really be that bad if it were a Magical Beast, but an *animal*? It was clearly designed by a munchkin who likes to play druids. I don't wonder what HE was thinking -- his biggest dilemma was probably debate over whether or not to keep juicing it up with every possible ability that could be justified as being called "Extraordinary", because if he went too far it would raise the CR of the thing and make it harder to get as an animal companion. I can imagine him agonizing over whether or not to give it wings. The balance had to be struck between making it the OMG PWNZ ROXXORZ thing to wildshape into and making it the OMG PWNZ ROXXORZ thing to get for an animal companion. Wings would have raised the CR but not the Hit Dice, making it a better thing to wildshape into but less of an animal companion. I'm sure the creator spent a lot of time making this decision. - Ron ^*^
Werebat 04-05-07, 06:54 AM	A druid packing venomfire? I just read a thread about this nonsense... Sweet Mother of Cheese! I'm sorry, a dinosaur with venomous *claws* that drip *acid*? And a stinger *tail*?!? And it's an *animal*? "Well, why not -- I man, it COULD'VE existed, right? Can you prove it didn't?" Yeah, OK, so MY "animal" companion is a flying Orang-Utang that can change its color so quickly that it is effectively invisible all the time (as an Extraordinary ability), and has sonar and poisonous claw and bite attacks and pounce and, oh, yeah, leap attack as a free feat, and... You can't prove it DIDN'T exist! After all, it's INVISIBLE!!! Nonsense. - Ron ^*^
Azar_of_Faerun 04-05-07, 07:03 AM	Whoa buddy, you're the one smoking the bat opium. Good **** man, pass me another! PRONTO BABYLON! :w00t:
Alac Luin 04-05-07, 07:45 AM	Yea, being an animal is a bit much perhaps :D (I'm not even sure I've seen this creature...)
ZiggZagg 04-05-07, 07:57 AM	Where is exactly is said "uber-broken" creature located? I don't remember ever seeing it's entry.
Dracomortis 04-05-07, 11:14 AM	Monster Manual III. To add insult to injury, it's listed as a dinosaur.
Werebat 04-06-07, 08:55 AM	Monster Manual III. To add insult to injury, it's listed as a dinosaur. 'Cuz Raptors R teh 133t!1!i!1eleven!i! What a travesty... House Rule: All Fleshrakers gain a point of Intelligence, bumping them up to 3 and making them Magical Beasts. They're Magical Beasts, dude. Get over it. - Ron ^*^
Richmud 04-06-07, 09:16 AM	House Rule: All Fleshrakers gain a point of Intelligence, bumping them up to 3 and making them Magical Beasts. They're Magical Beasts, dude. Get over it. You don't need to bump their int to make them magical beasts. It is perfectly legitimate to have a magical beast with an int of 2
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 04-06-07, 09:50 AM	I'm sorry, a dinosaur with venomous *claws* that drip *acid*? And a stinger *tail*?!? It does not have acid claws or a stinger tail. Try again, this time actually bothering to read the creature's entry.
Werebat 04-06-07, 06:16 PM	It does not have acid claws or a stinger tail. Try again, this time actually bothering to read the creature's entry. You're right -- the claws "merely" do poison damage. The acid slipped in from reading about the madness of Venomfire applied to these cheeseasaurii. And the tail, which does do damage and delivers poison with the damage, doesn't use the word "sting". Which is worse, really. How exactly is the poison getting into the wound? It just has a poisonous *tail*? Again, who was smoking what? What I didn't mention is that they have an uber-pounce ability that includes the canine's trip ability, as well as rake attacks. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Oh, and they just "happen" to be available as second-tier druid animal companions, ready to make use of the stupid cheesy interpretation of "Natural Bond". - Ron ^*^
Richmud 04-06-07, 06:27 PM	And the tail, which does do damage and delivers poison with the damage, doesn't use the word "sting". Which is worse, really. How exactly is the poison getting into the wound? It just has a poisonous *tail*? Again, who was smoking what? I'm AFB but could it secrete a poison all over its skin, like some frogs do, allowing its tail slaps to poison people
Doomed_Penguin 04-06-07, 10:14 PM	Yeah, there's a whole lot of MMIII that I don't really like. Most of the stuff in there doesn't seem fantasty at all, just weird. Like the writers just made creatures so they would have an excuse to implement these overcomplicated "ubercool" abilities. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of cool stuff in there (namely the eberron stuff), but there's also a lot of strange, and IMO, unecessary creatures there too.
Werebat 04-07-07, 09:25 AM	I'm AFB but could it secrete a poison all over its skin, like some frogs do, allowing its tail slaps to poison people Name one frog that bodyslams its prey in order to poison it. Actually, a "tail" attack specifically does BLUDGEONING damage, and IIRC an "injury" poison has to be administered with a piercing or slashing attack (which is why you don't apply poison to clubs). How does a fleshraker's tail poison even get into the target's system? - Ron ^*^
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 04-07-07, 10:54 AM	Actually, a "tail" attack specifically does BLUDGEONING damage, and IIRC an "injury" poison has to be administered with a piercing or slashing attack (which is why you don't apply poison to clubs). How does a fleshraker's tail poison even get into the target's system? It's called contact poison.
smeagol_lied 04-07-07, 11:03 AM	I apply injury poison to clubs. I know it doesn't work, but i do it anyway. Cos i'm cool like that.
turalisj 04-07-07, 05:59 PM	I think this further proves that WotC is going downhill with their books. Quantity over quality :rolleyes:
Werebat 04-08-07, 02:25 AM	It's called contact poison. Really? It's a *contact* poison? Why, you'd think that if someone grappled a fleshraker, they'd be subject to it then, wouldn't you? And yet it doesn't mention this anywhere. Now that's odd, isn't it? Or does the fleshraker "simply" have a squirting tail that *spurts* poison when it slaps you with it? Because yeah, that isn't dumb at all. Also, the monster description specifically says that it is an "injury" poison. But just coming out and saying that isn't half as fun as ridiculing some hypothetical squirting tail. Especially since you previously called me out on not actually reading the monster description. WHO'S LAUGHING NOW?!?!? :) - Ron ^*^
Dracomortis 04-08-07, 11:53 AM	Troll senses tingling.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 04-08-07, 12:23 PM	Troll senses tingling. Ayup. Plus, bludgeoning weapons will break skin anyways, as anyone who has ever skinned their knee can testify.
Werebat 04-08-07, 01:39 PM	Ayup. Plus, bludgeoning weapons will break skin anyways, as anyone who has ever skinned their knee can testify. There is, actually, no rule in the DMG that specifies that posions needs to be applied to piercing or slashing weapons. Thus, it would seem that BTB you CAN use injury poison applied to a quarterstaff or club. Which seems a little goofy to me -- I mean, I can't think of anything besides the Fleshraker that makes poisoned bludgeoning attacks -- but there you go. Someone thought long and hard about how to fit this goofy thing through every loophole imaginable. What a stupid monster. - Ron ^*^
The_Last_Rogue 04-08-07, 03:55 PM	There is, actually, no rule in the DMG that specifies that posions needs to be applied to piercing or slashing weapons. Thus, it would seem that BTB you CAN use injury poison applied to a quarterstaff or club. Which seems a little goofy to me -- I mean, I can't think of anything besides the Fleshraker that makes poisoned bludgeoning attacks -- but there you go. Someone thought long and hard about how to fit this goofy thing through every loophole imaginable. What a stupid monster. - Ron ^*^ I take it you won't be using it then, huh? :P In all seriousness, I do agree that it is an odd little dinosaur, something I would likely house rule against my druids (if my friends would ever play one, but that is another story) using. As for the tail being poisonous and blunt, I agree that it is a little odd -- I do not have the books on me right now, but are we sure that there is not a stinger or some such implement? Stupid monster may be a bit strong, as there are infinitely more 'stupid' monsters I can think of -- mechanically odd monster, yes.
Azar_of_Faerun 04-08-07, 04:04 PM	Whoa buddy, you're the one smoking the bat opium. Good **** man, pass me another! PRONTO BABYLON! :w00t: Bump
Perseus_Stoned 04-08-07, 04:11 PM	Here's an idea to "fix" it. Let druids still be able to select it... keep it at the second-tier for animal companions... just make it a magical beast and require this little feat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm#magicalBeastCompanion) first. Does this seem fair (and more befitting of its power level)?
NineInchNall 04-08-07, 04:29 PM	Or you could just let it in. Seriously, it's not like melee characters can actually keep up with a Druid anyway.
Perseus_Stoned 04-08-07, 04:36 PM	Or you could just let it in. Seriously, it's not like melee characters can actually keep up with a Druid anyway. You're right; since they're already rather obsolete compared to a druid anyways, lets just make them completely obsolete as a parting gift. After all, druids definitely need to keep getting boosts to ensure they can keep up in the Druid/Cleric/Wizard "WHO IS TEH BEST" war anyhow...
Werebat 04-08-07, 09:09 PM	Here's an idea to "fix" it. Let druids still be able to select it... keep it at the second-tier for animal companions... just make it a magical beast and require this little feat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm#magicalBeastCompanion) first. Does this seem fair (and more befitting of its power level)? That's a nice start, although second-tier is still too low... That makes it (supposedly) less powerful than an Ankheg, if you look at the feat you've linked to. Come on, man. (Seriously, making it a Magical Beast fixes everything for me, as it's just a goofy overpowered animal that never existed. Kinda like a dragon, and I've got no problem with them. After that, it's up to the DM whether or not they want to let druids take Magical Beast companions.) - Ron ^*^
Perseus_Stoned 04-08-07, 09:12 PM	That's a nice start, although second-tier is still too low... That makes it (supposedly) less powerful than an Ankheg, if you look at the feat you've linked to. Come on, man. - Ron ^*^ Hmm... well the ankheg actually looks quite underpowered in that position, so I might argue it should be "boosted" up more. Mind you I haven't quite looked at the balancing of this feat.
Azar_of_Faerun 04-08-07, 09:24 PM	Whoa buddy, you're the one smoking the bat opium. Good **** man, pass me another! PRONTO BABYLON! :w00t: Smoking MON! :cool:
Whisper_Swiftblade 04-08-07, 09:25 PM	nah this is how you fix it; just make them realy easy to train, and realy easly availble, then when everyone has one it will be fun again. (this may be one of the worst ideas I have ever posted, but it still sounds fun)
Orbb_was_railed_by_God 04-09-07, 12:50 PM	Maybe it is cullinary advice. Warning: remove tail of fleshraker before adding to stew.
gothmaug 04-09-07, 05:48 PM	I always get a laugh when i read the uber-cheese posts. In my home games players are rarely rewarded for cheezing out thier characters. If one of my druids wanted one of these things, they would actually have to go FIND one. Always hated the whole "unexplained magial appearance" of animal companions. In my campaign if ya want something out of the ordinary, you go find it, and use that skill you have called Animal handling. Don't know about your campaign world, but poisonous dinosaurs aren't very commonplace in mine. And if he does have one, so what? Kill the darn thing if it bothers you that much. Make him have to get a new one. Or play up on its weakness's. Intellect 2 huh? sounds like a prime candidate for ability damage to me. Correct me if im wrong, but an inteligence reduced to 0 puts you in a catatonic state where you essentially cant more or act, right?So zap the darn lizard and then laugh asthe druid gets to spend the rest of the day lugging around its immobilized animal companion. Or have an artic adventure. Or have him go into a city and have the guards impound the ferocious beast. Or have it get hungry and eat the party's picketed horses one evening, and see how long his fellow players let him keep it. Or if your not that cruel :P have its mere appearance panic the party's normal mounts. Just having that large predator nearby would be more than enough to panic normal horses, even wartrained ones. Having to make handle animal checks all day (especially if your the wizard) would be really annoying to your other players. Also...how does he feed the damn thing? Flesh eating dinosaurs dont exactly graze and don't enjoy a good bag of oats off of the pack mule. What does he do, hire an npc to follow them around witha flock of sheep? What innkeeper is going to want that thing in his stables? Essentially dont gripe too much about it, have FUN with the game. A massive venomous flesh eating dino-pet sounds like more trouble than its worth to me.
Dracomortis 04-09-07, 06:47 PM	I always get a laugh when i read the uber-cheese posts. In my home games players are rarely rewarded for cheezing out thier characters. If one of my druids wanted one of these things, they would actually have to go FIND one. Always hated the whole "unexplained magial appearance" of animal companions. In my campaign if ya want something out of the ordinary, you go find it, and use that skill you have called Animal handling. That's how we usually handle it in our group as well. It goes for druid & ranger animal companions as well as the paladin's special mount. It works out pretty well, since you don't wind up with a druid in an arctic environment with a tyrannosaurus companion.
Perseus_Stoned 04-09-07, 06:59 PM	Or play up on its weakness's. Intellect 2 huh? sounds like a prime candidate for ability damage to me. Correct me if im wrong, but an inteligence reduced to 0 puts you in a catatonic state where you essentially cant more or act, right?So zap the darn lizard and then laugh asthe druid gets to spend the rest of the day lugging around its immobilized animal companion. Why stop there? Why not even use that cheesy ice spell (sorry, can't remember the name) to sap all of the party fighter's strength? Why not get pixies to steal all equipment of the party? (I followed your first points; don't allow it if you don't want it, but to allow it then completely screw the druid for it... thats not so cool)
Werebat 04-09-07, 07:23 PM	Why stop there? Why not even use that cheesy ice spell (sorry, can't remember the name) to sap all of the party fighter's strength? Why not get pixies to steal all equipment of the party? (I followed your first points; don't allow it if you don't want it, but to allow it then completely screw the druid for it... thats not so cool) Agreed, especially when what you propose could be used to screw over many reasonably powered druids and rangers as well. There's not much mentioned that couldn't be applied to a dire wolf, too, and a dire wolf isn't really cheesy. - Ron ^*^
gothmaug 04-09-07, 07:43 PM	Well after my initial post, i was trying to convey a bit of sarcasm. Guess it doesnt translate so well into print. Essentially what i was trying to get across, is that if your so concerned about your players cheezing out thier characters, theres 2 ways to handle it. You handle it through the game itself (as i usually do) with making the pc's work for thier rewards, or you can fight fire with fire. If your campaign is the type where its purely "kick open the door, kill stuff" where everyone is crunching numbers and metagaming beyond compare, then as a DM, there's nothing wrong with you doing that as well. As i said initially, i personally handle things through Rp and story progression, but if all your players are cheese-weasels, and you like that style, then go ahead and get out the boomstick.
gothmaug 04-09-07, 07:53 PM	There's not much mentioned that couldn't be applied to a dire wolf, too, and a dire wolf isn't really cheesy. - Ron ^*^ Very True, But then again those ARE the disadvantages of choosing a major predator as an animal companion. Not many people think about it, but the city guards wouldn't let an unrestrained dire wolf through the gates, peasants would run screaming at the sight of it, and most farmers given half a chance would try and kill it. Oh and yes, dire wolves get hungry too. But thats the price you should pay for such a creature following you around. There ARE advantages to having a dog or horse as an animal companion. They are just not as apparent in some campaigns. Gothmaug P.S. If you've ever read the "Songs of Ice and Fire" series by Martin, you can see some of the probelms inherent with keeping dire wolves as pets :P
NineInchNall 04-09-07, 08:08 PM	You're right; since they're already rather obsolete compared to a druid anyways, lets just make them completely obsolete as a parting gift. After all, druids definitely need to keep getting boosts to ensure they can keep up in the Druid/Cleric/Wizard "WHO IS TEH BEST" war anyhow... Well, pretty much. What really needs to happen is for melee characters to be revised so that they can totally eclipse the Druid's animal companion at any level. When you get right down to it, a fleshraker is a CR 2 creature. CR 2 for crap's sake. A level two [melee character class] should be its match in combat, and a level five [melee character class] should whip six ways from Sunday. If this is the case, then the fleshraker is fine as an animal companion for a fourth level Druid. If it is not the case, then either the CR for the fleshraker is off or the power of the [melee character class] is off. If a class is underperforming, then it is the problem, not the fleshraker. Improve the underperforming class. EDIT: To be fair, the fleshraker is slightly undervalued in terms of CR. It is essentially a better leopard. It's a leopard with an extra HD, more AC, poison, and an extra effect on its pounce. It's probably more accurately CR 3, which makes it more appropriate as a 7th level companion.
Dracomortis 04-09-07, 08:14 PM	I would say with some confidence that the fleshraker is overpowered. Maybe it was just getting consistently lucky on all of its rolls, but that thing was outshining our party at 6th level, and the other three members of our group are what I would consider powergamers.
NineInchNall 04-09-07, 08:21 PM	CR measures impact on a single encounter. Thus one melee creature of CR X should have roughly equivalent impact as another melee creature of CR X. A fleshraker (CR 3, IMO) with no equipment should be roughly equivalent to a fully-equipped level three melee character, since they are both CR 3 and have no noncombat abilities to speak of.
Perseus_Stoned 04-09-07, 11:19 PM	Well, pretty much. What really needs to happen is for melee characters to be revised so that they can totally eclipse the Druid's animal companion at any level. When you get right down to it, a fleshraker is a CR 2 creature. CR 2 for crap's sake. A level two [melee character class] should be its match in combat, and a level five [melee character class] should whip six ways from Sunday. If this is the case, then the fleshraker is fine as an animal companion for a fourth level Druid. If it is not the case, then either the CR for the fleshraker is off or the power of the [melee character class] is off. If a class is underperforming, then it is the problem, not the fleshraker. Improve the underperforming class. EDIT: To be fair, the fleshraker is slightly undervalued in terms of CR. It is essentially a better leopard. It's a leopard with an extra HD, more AC, poison, and an extra effect on its pounce. It's probably more accurately CR 3, which makes it more appropriate as a 7th level companion. The problem here (as I see it) is you're measuring things in pure mechanical advantage. If you're playing an optimized campaign, I'd agree with everything you said, but you can not assume all campaigns will be optimized.
Werebat 04-09-07, 11:20 PM	Well, pretty much. If a class is underperforming, then it is the problem, not the fleshraker. Improve the underperforming class. EDIT: To be fair, the fleshraker is slightly undervalued in terms of CR. It is essentially a better leopard. It's a leopard with an extra HD, more AC, poison, and an extra effect on its pounce. It's probably more accurately CR 3, which makes it more appropriate as a 7th level companion. You seem to be saying that if a CR 2 fighter can't consistently match a CR 3 monster, then the fighter class needs to be improved. That can't be what you mean, because it makes no sense unless you are an advocate for power creep. I like your analogy of the fleshraker as a "better leopard". It is consistently better than the leopard and as such does not belong in the second tier of animal companions, if it is allowed as an "animal" in the first place. My primary problem with the cheesasaurus is that it was essentually made up to be a sort of "kewl raptor ninja" that 12-year-olds would get all pumped over. It has no ties to reality whatsoever, although then again almost all of the dire animals are in the same boat (and even the dire wolf was nowhere near as big as it is in the game). Horrid animals are even more outrageous, but also labelled "animals" and allowed as druid animal companions, and curiously I never had much of a problem with them (animals with alignments, now?) So, my first reaction is to ban the thing as an animal companion by making it into a magical beast (like an owlbear), but maybe the answer IS just to goose it up to the 3rd tier of animal companion availability. Of course then you still have the Venomfire issue... And why aren't Horrid animals magical beasts, either? An owlbear seems like more of an "animal" than a horrid ape, which has an alignment and acid-dripping claws. - Ron ^*^
A_Villainous_Sidekick 04-10-07, 01:12 AM	My primary problem with the cheesasaurus is that it was essentually made up to be a sort of "kewl raptor ninja" that 12-year-olds would get all pumped over. Um, actually you have no way of knowing this is true, unless you personally know the person who created said monster. Just thought I would bring that up. In reality, your primary problem with the 'cheesasaurus' is that YOU assume it was essentially made up to be a sort of 'kewl raptor ninja' that 12-year-olds would get all pumped over. Now I could be wrong, you could know the actual designer . .. but I doubt, especially considering your feelings towards the dino. I am not trying to be mean, Werebat, I just find it amusing that you point out all of these inconsistencies in the Fleshraker simply because of an assumption you have made. This creature could have been made because the creator really likes dinos or was big into running jungle campaigns that needed powerful beasts running round. Or you could be right . . .i guess the world will never know.
Mister_Sinister 04-10-07, 03:11 AM	One thing that bears mentioning in this thread is the Oberoni Fallacy. Many people are advocating using Rule 0 to kill the 'cheese-o-saurus', but that doesn't mean it isn't objectively, mechanically broken. Druids are already powerful as they are. They didn't need this boost. This makes them a lot better. This is bad. All of these are objective, factual and mechanically-related statements that cannot be said to be wrong. Everyone who posts so-called 'cheese threads' is actually doing us a service by pointing this out. Instead of yelling 'Rule 0, n00bz0rzzz!' at the first possible instance, actually accept that a) this thing is broken, b) it needs fixing because it is broken and c) it did not need to be printed. That's really all that's needed.