New DM Looking for pointers

26 posts / 0 new
Last post
Greetings All,
   Im taking on the role of a DM for the first time since second edition.  We decided on 4th edition and I had some, what I think, great ideas.  Some of these ideas involve combat with a celesial being, angels, and the like.  On of the encounters that was going to take place early on was with a couple of celestial dire lions.  I started flipping through the Monsters Manuals, and didn't see anything I could really use, infact 4th edition seems light on celesital or heavenly monsters in general.  There is a quick couple of angels in MM2, but that was it.  SO...I figured maybe there is a template, I didn't see one for celesitial, angelic, or heavenly anything, in the books I have available.  Does such a thing exist?  If not what pointers do you have for me in creating this template and applying it to a tiger (as I didn't see lion in the MM's either)  Thanks Guys! 
Reskin. Grab any monster whose powers, attributes, level, and such fit mechanically what you imagine fictionally, more or less. Change the names of the monster, the name of its powers, and maybe some damage types or the like (radiant maybe?), and then just say it's "celestial."

No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues.
DMs: Don't Prep the Plot | Structure First, Story Last | Prep Tips | Spoilers Don't Spoil Anything | No Myth Roleplaying
Players: 11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer | You Are Not Your Character     Hilarious D&D Actual Play Podcast: Crit Juice!

Here, Have Some Free Material From Me: Encounters With Alternate Goals  |  Dark Sun Full-Contact Futbol   |   Pre-Generated D&D 5e PCs

Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

just say it's "celestial."

Agreed. However, if desired:
- Dragon Magazine 383 has a "Summon Celestial Lion" Invoker  spell.
- Dragon Magazine 393 has a Celestial Battle Tiger Mount   
- Heroes of the Feywild has a Dire Lion as a Summoned Creature.
- Adventurer's Vault has a Golden Lion Figurine of Wondrous Power.
- MM p.159 has stats for a Celestial Charger
- MM p.245 has stats for Sphinxes and says they "are created by rare and powerful rituals that bind angelic spirits into the bodies of celestial lions".
I was just curious.. did they keep the concept of templates in 4th?

In 3rd edition they had a Celestial template (and other templates) that you add to monsters. The rules were a bit clunky, though.

A good guideline I go by when I personalize monsters is to look at the existing challenge rating of the weak version of the monster you're starting with and find another monster about as powerful as the monster you want to end up with. Most of the powers are based on existing spells, so just swap out the spells for something of an equal level that's more fitting.

With celestials, this is fairly easy... there's a type of devil that is essentially a lion with invisibility. You could re-flavor the invisibility so that it becomes divine radiance... bright lights that are difficult to look at, creating a miss chance equal to invisibility.

And there are plenty of part lion monsters, such as the lammasu and the dragonne to work with.

Most monsters essentially break down into the same 5 things... ac, hp, stats, physical attack ability, magic/special abilities.

Avoid the temptation to make the monsters so terrifying that the players can not hope to defeat them. That's the easiest mistake to make.
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
3rd edition has a book called THE BOOK OF EXALTED DEEDS. It has a lot of ideas for celestials and good creatures. I'm sure a lot of them would work with 4th edition.
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
Yes, 4e has a few monster templates. I don't have any idea why. There's 5148 monsters in 4e. You can just pick one and change the names to protect the innocent.

No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues.
DMs: Don't Prep the Plot | Structure First, Story Last | Prep Tips | Spoilers Don't Spoil Anything | No Myth Roleplaying
Players: 11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer | You Are Not Your Character     Hilarious D&D Actual Play Podcast: Crit Juice!

Here, Have Some Free Material From Me: Encounters With Alternate Goals  |  Dark Sun Full-Contact Futbol   |   Pre-Generated D&D 5e PCs

Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

3rd edition has a book called THE BOOK OF EXALTED DEEDS. It has a lot of ideas for celestials and good creatures. I'm sure a lot of them would work with 4th edition.

What is the name of the invisible devil you mentioned.  I liked this idea, and want to investigate it more.
Pretty sure the invisible lion devil was the Hellcat, back in 3.5e.  Not sure if there's an equivalent critter in 4e, off the top of my head (don't have my Monster Manual at hand to check).
Yes, 4e has a few monster templates. I don't have any idea why. There's 5148 monsters in 4e. You can just pick one and change the names to protect the innocent.


Because some people don't think that way.  Besides, even they say in the explanations for Templates and Themes that they're simply examples.

As for the question that prompted this answer, there are both Monster Templates and Monster Themes.

Templates are used to enhance a creature into a specific role — there's templates for the PHB1 and PHB2 classes, as well as things like "Bodyguard" or "Demagogue" or "Lich;" and they all convert a Standard monster into an Elite, and may even change their role.  You take a monster, and apply the template to the creature from top to bottom.  Thus, any creatures with the same Template will have the same powers, with the differences coming from their base build.

Themes, on the other hand, are used to give disparate creatures complementary powers along a similar idea.  Examples such as Devotee of Darkness, Shadowborn, and Yan-C-Bin follower.  You take any monsters, and apply one attack power and one utility power usually from among several options, many of which are suited to certain roles; it doesn't change any of that sort of thing.  Thus, any creatures with the same Theme will likely have different powers, many of which can work with each other for better team cohesion.

Oh, and here's a list of all the different themes and templates that have been published (and a couple homebrews too).  As a side project, I've been sticking them into my monster builder for quick use, but haven't had time recently to finish it up.
Because some people don't think that way.



What do you mean?

Besides, even they say in the explanations for Templates and Themes that they're simply examples.



I wasn't criticizing it. I simply don't understand why they're necessary.

No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues.
DMs: Don't Prep the Plot | Structure First, Story Last | Prep Tips | Spoilers Don't Spoil Anything | No Myth Roleplaying
Players: 11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer | You Are Not Your Character     Hilarious D&D Actual Play Podcast: Crit Juice!

Here, Have Some Free Material From Me: Encounters With Alternate Goals  |  Dark Sun Full-Contact Futbol   |   Pre-Generated D&D 5e PCs

Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

I know you weren't criticizing.    I didn't mean to imply that you were.

What I meant by "Because some people don't think that way":

The DMG gives the instructions on how to make monsters.  Any monster.  Gives the math for it and everything.  Tells you what the average defenses should be, average damage should be.  Even explains how to make minor adjustments here and there.  And the Rules Update tells you how to use the MM3-and-beyond math, at that.

However, there are still people (such as the OP) who feel the need to open the Monster Manual, look for something that matches what they want, and then when they don't find it ask, "Where can I find this thing?"  Not that I'm speaking ill of him or them, either.  Learning how to be comfortable at unlocking the gate, opening it, and playing beyond the yard is something that can be intimidating to just about everyone.  Hell, it took me a couple years to reach that comfort level myself.

For those people who can't move beyond the yard and feel the need to stick to what is defined, and for people who like to see an example of what it's supposed to look like and see that someone's been there before they can feel comfortable walking down that trail themselves, or even for people who didn't think of the idea to begin with and can take that spark and turn it into something far greater, there's a need to publish these things.   Show people the true modularity of the system.  Understand the power that they, as DM, have in their hands.

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for one day.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

I learned the MM3 math so that I could convert prior adventures into better ones, using the updated system since it was a vast improvement over what came before.  But it wasn't until I sat down and truly began to understand how monster themes worked that I became comfortable about doing so; before, I would simply convert the numbers and keep the stuff.  Now, I feel strong enough about it to take one thing, cut or add what I desire, and turn it into something else; or to build something from scratch and not worry about what it might or might not be.

So that's why they have to publish 5000+ monsters, and a few dozen themes and templates on top of them.  So that people who are capable of doing so can understand the power that they've been given; and for those who aren't capable, they can still DM competently with the rest.
So anyway....

Zallin: What level is your group at?  And how challenging of a fight do you want these celestial lions to be?
@swmabie: Ah, okay. Interesting thought. I wouldn't have considered it, but since you elaborated, I can imagine myself when I converted from 3.5 looking for just that same thing. Reskinning might not have occurred to me either. Let's see that celestial lion then!

No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues.
DMs: Don't Prep the Plot | Structure First, Story Last | Prep Tips | Spoilers Don't Spoil Anything | No Myth Roleplaying
Players: 11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer | You Are Not Your Character     Hilarious D&D Actual Play Podcast: Crit Juice!

Here, Have Some Free Material From Me: Encounters With Alternate Goals  |  Dark Sun Full-Contact Futbol   |   Pre-Generated D&D 5e PCs

Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

Ok.  Until we know the level we need, we won't give it hard numbers.  But we can figure out the rest of the stuff.

I looked up a description of a 3.5 Celestial Dire Lion.  So we'll use that as a basis for the build.

Keywords: Large Immortal, either Beast or Magical Beast.  Since the 3.5 version has low intelligence, I say "Beast."  I think Elite might be a better option than Standard, but maybe only for the leader of the pride; definitely not a Solo.

Role: Based on this — "A celestial dire lion attacks by running at prey, leaping, clawing and biting as it rakes with its rear claws. It often jumps onto creatures larger than itself." — I'd say it's a Skirmisher more than a Brute or a Soldier.  Skirmishers are mobile combatants, often doing more damage when moving or gaining combat advantage.  Brutes are heavy hitters; Soldiers are more generic fighters.  Skirmisher fits best.

Traits:  Either Low-Light or Darkvision.  Resist Cold, Lightning, and Acid, amount based in part on level.  Probably to Radiant, too?  In fact, might drop the Cold and Acid for Radiant.  Vulnerable to Necrotic, perhaps?  Trained in Stealth and Perception.  Extra damage to grabbed, immobilized, or restrained targets.  Speed 8.

MBA: Rake

Standard Actions: Bite (damage + grab, can be done at the end of a charge, at-will), Pounce (charge & two MBAs on same target, rechargeable 3 or 4 maybe), and Smite (encounter).  Possibly some Mobile Attack where it moves it's speed w/o OAs and makes two attacks in the process; this would be instead of the Pounce listed above.

Move Action:  Shift its speed.

Minor: Roar — close blast, it being large already maybe 5?  Thunder keyword, no damage, targets are dazed until start of next turn.

Any other thoughts?
So anyway....

Zallin: What level is your group at?  And how challenging of a fight do you want these celestial lions to be?



Not too hard just enough to beat them up a little.  It was thinking it would be an oldschool summon monster type trap in all honesty.
 
Ok.  Until we know the level we need, we won't give it hard numbers.  But we can figure out the rest of the stuff.

I looked up a description of a 3.5 Celestial Dire Lion.  So we'll use that as a basis for the build.

Keywords: Large Immortal, either Beast or Magical Beast.  Since the 3.5 version has low intelligence, I say "Beast."  I think Elite might be a better option than Standard, but maybe only for the leader of the pride; definitely not a Solo.

Role: Based on this — "A celestial dire lion attacks by running at prey, leaping, clawing and biting as it rakes with its rear claws. It often jumps onto creatures larger than itself." — I'd say it's a Skirmisher more than a Brute or a Soldier.  Skirmishers are mobile combatants, often doing more damage when moving or gaining combat advantage.  Brutes are heavy hitters; Soldiers are more generic fighters.  Skirmisher fits best.

Traits:  Either Low-Light or Darkvision.  Resist Cold, Lightning, and Acid, amount based in part on level.  Probably to Radiant, too?  In fact, might drop the Cold and Acid for Radiant.  Vulnerable to Necrotic, perhaps?  Trained in Stealth and Perception.  Extra damage to grabbed, immobilized, or restrained targets.  Speed 8.

MBA: Rake

Standard Actions: Bite (damage + grab, can be done at the end of a charge, at-will), Pounce (charge & two MBAs on same target, rechargeable 3 or 4 maybe), and Smite (encounter).  Possibly some Mobile Attack where it moves it's speed w/o OAs and makes two attacks in the process; this would be instead of the Pounce listed above.

Move Action:  Shift its speed.

Minor: Roar — close blast, it being large already maybe 5?  Thunder keyword, no damage, targets are dazed until start of next turn.

Any other thoughts?



I like this I think it makes some sence.  Though I could see brute to, like it pounces then then proceeds to sit on top of the target and maul them sorta thing.  I'm fuzzy on some of your terms though MBA's not sure what that is supposed to mean.  Also Im thinking level10 encounter so would I just apply damage and HP directly out of the book?  I was thinking about 4 lions so maybe to skirmisers and to brutes.  Have the brutes and skirmishers work in tandem the skirmisher pounces and knocks the target down and the brute proceeds to maul them while they are down, freeing up the skimisher to move to the next target?  Any thoughts on that?  THanks.

Ok.  Some answers, and then a repeat of some questions:

MBA: Melee Basic Attack.  (RBA is Ranged Basic Attack.)  This is the default attack for any creature; it's rare for a creature to not have one.  This is the attack used for Opportunity Attacks, unless they have something else specific; it's also the attack used at the end of a charge, unless again there's something else involved.

While I understand what you're wanting with the brute/skirmisher thing, it probably won't work out like that.  Complementary tactics are one thing; dependent tactics are another entirely.   Having them do extra damage to grabbed targets does effectively the same thing — it doesn't say that they have to be the one doing the grabbing, only that the target is grabbed — so you can have the first one grab and then the rest swoop in and out.  If everything's self-contained, then the pack — since these are pack hunters — isn't completely screwed when one of them goes down, no matter which it is; they are all interchangeable.  Besides, while roles are guidelines, they aren't limitations; skirmishers can still do big damage, they just tend to be more fluid in their tactics.  Think Rangers and Avengers.

Now, I'll ask again, because it is important to know these things. 

(1) How many PCs are in the group?
and (2) What level are they?

Once I know what level the PCs are, based on what you have already said, I can come up with the rest of it fairly quickly.
Ok.  Some answers, and then a repeat of some questions:

MBA: Melee Basic Attack.  (RBA is Ranged Basic Attack.)  This is the default attack for any creature; it's rare for a creature to not have one.  This is the attack used for Opportunity Attacks, unless they have something else specific; it's also the attack used at the end of a charge, unless again there's something else involved.

While I understand what you're wanting with the brute/skirmisher thing, it probably won't work out like that.  Complementary tactics are one thing; dependent tactics are another entirely.   Having them do extra damage to grabbed targets does effectively the same thing — it doesn't say that they have to be the one doing the grabbing, only that the target is grabbed — so you can have the first one grab and then the rest swoop in and out.  If everything's self-contained, then the pack — since these are pack hunters — isn't completely screwed when one of them goes down, no matter which it is; they are all interchangeable.  Besides, while roles are guidelines, they aren't limitations; skirmishers can still do big damage, they just tend to be more fluid in their tactics.  Think Rangers and Avengers.


Now, I'll ask again, because it is important to know these things. 

(1) How many PCs are in the group?
and (2) What level are they?

Once I know what level the PCs are, based on what you have already said, I can come up with the rest of it fairly quickly.



5 level 10 characters
To touch on an earlier point (and because I don't think it's a good idea to use them anyways), 4e Templates just don't work. They fiddled with math too much that it strayed from expected number averages from PC to monsters, adjust things that shouldn't be adjusted, and did little to alter a creature that simply adding in some basic powers and or traits wouldn't have done just as well to begin with. They exist, but they are old, outdated, and generally a bad idea to use as presented anymore. At best, just take powers from a template and add to an existing monster as needed. Don't use the template in its entirety, and NEVER adjust the HP and defense values according to a template's instructions.

That being said, themes work great. They have minimal instructions, a variety of powers and features that work with how the math is codified, and best of all, the pieces you use are completely optional. No need to take all powers of a theme if just one would do the trick.

Role: Based on this — "A celestial dire lion attacks by running at prey, leaping, clawing and biting as it rakes with its rear claws. It often jumps onto creatures larger than itself." — I'd say it's a Skirmisher more than a Brute or a Soldier.  Skirmishers are mobile combatants, often doing more damage when moving or gaining combat advantage.  Brutes are heavy hitters; Soldiers are more generic fighters.  Skirmisher fits best.



Not necessarily. A soldier, for example, could keep foes pinned in a prone state to prevent movement, thereby prioritizing attention from one creature. Such a concept would work well in the regard if you ask me. For brutes, they could utilize multiple simpler attacks to throw out larger damage numbers. Heck, you could even make one of these guys a Lurker if you gave it some stealth abilities and had enough cover providing terrain for it to utilize.

Resist Cold, Lightning, and Acid, amount based in part on level.  Probably to Radiant, too?  In fact, might drop the Cold and Acid for Radiant.  Vulnerable to Necrotic, perhaps?


Too many resists can slow combat down quite a bit. Instead, consider a trait that gives the lion temp HP when hit with a certain damage type while they have no temp HP. Vuln to Necrotic is a nice idea though, since there are a lot of necrotic powers that often don't see much love.

Pounce (charge & two MBAs on same target, rechargeable 3 or 4 maybe)


Recharge 4 for standard versions. At will 1/round on Elite and higher.

Minor: Roar — close blast, it being large already maybe 5?  Thunder keyword, no damage, targets are dazed until start of next turn.


Bad idea to use in bulk. Maybe for the leader of the pack as an encounter power, but the standards shouldn't have such an option. An immobilizing power might work better across the board though, since it give the Lions free access to the earlier suggested extra damage option.

Hope this helps. Happy gaming
Ok.  First, we're using the version of the rules from the Rules Update of the DMG.  That will give us the MM3 version of the numbers, where the math was fixed, as opposed to the original math for 4e which wasn't.  When using the damage charts, you can figure out what the average damage would be (for example, the damage at Level 10, 2d8+9, would be an average of 18 damage, so would convert to 4d6+4, 2d10+7, and so on.

But to make things easier on me, though, I'm just using the Monster Builder, but it's pretty much the same principle for everything, plus put it in a pretty picture.

You want to beat them up a little, but not too much, so let's go in the Level 10-11 range.  That puts the XP Budget around 2500 to 3000.  Let's lean toward the upper end of that, for the moment.

Option 1:  Simple fight, 5 or 6 Level 10 Standard creatures.  So 5 or 6 Celestial Dire Lions.  Fiddling with some of the other stuff, I've come up with the following....

Celestial Dire Lion



I almost forgot: Smite Prey is Melee 2.
Also almost forgot skill training: Perception should be +12, Stealth +14.


You could stop there if you wanted.   Me, I think I'd set up a slightly different encounter.....

1 Celestial Dire Lion King (1000 xp)
3 Celestial Dire Lions (500 xp each)
4 Celestial Lions (125 xp each)

Celestial Dire Lion King



Forgot Skill Training: Perception should be +12, Stealth +14, Intimidate +12.



Tactics:
Celestial Dire Lions are true pack hunters, and will focus fire whenever possible; first to attack will grab the most threatening target, and the rest will move past and slash at it.   They may split up into pairs, but they always work as a team whenever possible.  When either half the pack is dead or the entire pack is bloodied, they will retreat; they may retreat sooner if it is obvious they are at a tactical disadvantage.

Celestial Dire Lion Kings will aid their packmates by staying toward the center of things.  If possible, he too will grab a dangerous target so that his packmates can swoop past; he'll smite his grabbed target as much as possible after having grabbed it.  He will release a target in order to roar, and he will not roar unless enough of his pack is hurt that the roar will raise their morale and terrify the enemy.  Actually a coward, he will flee when Bloodied.

Celestial Lions are not as skiled as their cousins at taking down an enemy.  They are also less courageous, and will target weaker members of the enemy in twos or threes, bypassing the true threats as much as possible.
Thanks a lot for all your hard work.
All this has led into a follow up question.  I was planning on makeing this a trap.  So if they disable the trap should the players receive the same amount of xp they would have for defeating the lions?  Or should it be less.  I assume less, but at the same time I could see awarding the same amount cause the players were on their toes and avoided the combat.
Generally speaking, the consequences of failing a skill challenge — and, if we really get to the nuts and bolts of it, that's what bypassing a trap would be — should be approximately the same XP value as success would have been.  (Though I've commonly seen published adventures reward half XP for the failed skill challenge.)

Anyway, so the skill challenge to bypass the trap should, in theory, be the same XP value as the encounter they're trying to avoid.  In which case I'd drop the XP budget down to 2500 (instead of the 3000 I'd been using before), and probably go with the "simpler" encounter as the failure option (5 celestial dire lions, instead of using the other two types).

To calculate that, you take the level of the challenge (usually, but not always, ideally the level of the PCs involved), and multiply it by the complexity of the challenge (which can quickly be figured as the number of successes required, divided by 2, less 1).  Complexity is usually on a scale of 1 (4 successes before 3 failures) to 5 (12 successes before 3 failures); I've never heard of one higher than that, though I wouldn't rule it out either.

So, simplest version would be a Level 10 (DCs of 13/18/26), Complexity 5.  You could go with higher level (Level 11, for example, is 600 XP per), for fewer successes required (Complexity 4, if you do that); if the amount isn't exact, it won't hurt anyone, 2400 is close enough to 2500 to be essentially the same thing.

Now, how DMs run skill challenges is one of the more... varied things; ask 10 people, you'll likely get 20 different answers.  Simplest, most free-form way, though, would be:

• Allow players to use any skill which they can justify.  If the justification is stretching it, make it Hard, otherwise the DC ought to be Medium.
• If the skill usage makes sense to be directly involved in bypassing the challenge, then it's a Primary Usage; success counts as a Success, and failure as a Failure, or have some other negative consequence (healing surges being most common).
• If the skill usage makes more sense to be indirectly involved, then it's a Secondary Usage; success can either give the next Primary attempt an extra +2 or even negate a previous Failure, and failure would count as a -1 or even maybe a -2 to the next Primary attempt.
• Some people like to let the PCs know that it's a skill challenge (under the belief that they would know if it was a Combat challenge, and there's a Heightened Risk involved, so they would be aware of the tension raised).  Others think it goes smoother if they aren't told.  I am of the former camp, but I definitely acknowledge the other works for some people.  Do whatever you feel comfortable with.

Finally, there are some who have come up with Other Ways of handling Skill Challenges, modifying to one degree or another the methods that have been officially published.   If you look up FourthCore (specific examples would be in The Crucible of the Gods), they have added Gambits (high risk skill checks which have special Advantages as rewards) and Trumps (secret things which, if done, make things easier or harder, as the case may be).  Living Divine, on the other hand, has separated Skill Challenges into different types, each with their own quirks (Puzzles, Investigations, Hazards, and Skill Challenges); if you download their Gamemaster's Guide, you'll see some examples.  Don't be afraid to go with something that you think might work for you, or make things "better."
     Ok thanks.  So as far as the trap is concerned I was thinking perception of 30 to find the trap and a disable dc of 26 for theivery, or 22 for arcane as the spell is magical in nature.  
     I have also toyed around with the idea of not letting rogue typ chracters disable purely magical traps.  Not cause I want to foil the rouge outright, but because it doesn't make sence that a rogue, who has no arcane training what so ever would be able to counter a spell or disable a trap created by a spell.  
    If the trap had some sort of machinery or workings to it sure, that's all rogue, but if its a spell place by a wizard, I don't see how the rogue would be able to disarm this, outside of simply triggering it.

Does this seem game breaking?   
I have no problem with Thievery being used.   Presumably, it's common for there to be arcane wards that are commonly used to keep people out.  Much as a modern safecracker would have to have some knowledge of electronics, computers, and the like in order to bypass security systems (Want a good example of this?  Watch Leverage....), I figure a thief in a world where magic is prevalent would learn enough to recognize such things and try to circumvent them.  Not to mention the use of Thievery as physical manipulations — changing a rune here or there, or altering the physical framework of the ward, would be defensible uses of the skill, I'd think.

In fact, while I hate using "It's Tradition!" when it comes to justifying anything in D&D, it's always been common for Thieves and Rogues to have the ability to pick up the use of magic items and such; it's perfectly reasonable, then, to apply this to 4e to some degree.  I'm not saying that they can use Thievery to cast a ritual; but they probably have learned, at some point in their careers, how to circumvent such things.

As for the rest:  I think the numbers you use are a few points too high — 22 is Moderate & 30 is Hard at Level 15, which is 1200 XP — but you know your group's skills better than I, so just be aware of what the percentages are and take that into account.  If I did use those number, I'd make the Complexity a 2 (6 successes vs 3 failures).  I also wouldn't restrict the use of any justifiable skills; you'd be surprised how creative players can be, when they are challenged, and using other skills — Insight or any of the Knowledge skills most likely, but I'm sure imaginative people could come up with more options with more time.
@swmabie: Ah, okay. Interesting thought. I wouldn't have considered it, but since you elaborated, I can imagine myself when I converted from 3.5 looking for just that same thing. Reskinning might not have occurred to me either. Let's see that celestial lion then!




I didn't even consider it until coming onto these forums.
"The real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development." -Albert Einstein Resident Left Hand of Stalin and Banana Stand Grandstander Half of the Ambiguously Gay Duo House of Trolls, looking for a partner Wondering what happened to the Star Wars forums?
Show
Star Wars Minis has a home here http://www.bloomilk.com/ and Star Wars Saga Edition RPG has a home here http://thesagacontinues.createaforum.com/index.php
Show
141722973 wrote:
And it wasn't ****. It was subjectively concensual sex.
57036828 wrote:
Marketing and design are two different things. For instance the snuggy was designed for people in wheel chairs and marketed to people that are too incompetent to operate a blanket.
75239035 wrote:
I personally don't want him decapitated.
141722973 wrote:
And do not call me a Yank. I am a Québecois, basically your better.
And the greatest post moderation of all time...
58115148 wrote:
I gave that (Content Removed) a to-scale Lego replica. (Content Removed) love to-scale Lego replicas. (ORC_Cerberus: Edited - Vulgarity is against the Code of Conduct)