Talk:Bagheera (3.5e NPC)

Sweet!

I really like this NPC -- great job Sledged! Do you think the headband changes its HD to Magical Beast HD or doesn't change the numbers (much like the SRD:Fiendish Creature template)? --Aarnott 10:21, 4 January 2008 (MST)

Y'know, of all the NPCs I've written up. This one is one of my favorites. I think it's because it's unconventional and it has halflings as favored enemy. To the best of my knowledge, no one ever selects halflings as a favored enemy. Not even DMs who create custom NPCs. I think that was the only reason I selected halflings. —Sledged (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2008 (MST)

Thanks! Glad you like it.

As for HD, from what I can tell, the HD size changes only when the effect causing the type change explicitly say so. This idea is reinforced by augmented subtype description: "A creature with the augmented subtype usually has the traits of its current type, but the features of its original type." The term "features" refers to HD size, BAB, BSBs, and skill points. —Sledged (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2008 (MST)

What would you think of a creature without an intelligence score putting on the headband? I'm thinking a vermin. Would it gain intelligence? How about feats? This especially applies to Summon Monster spells with the celestial and fiendish templates... --Aarnott 11:11, 4 January 2008 (MST)

I think so... --Sam Kay 11:21, 4 January 2008 (MST)

An ability score of "—" is not the same as an ability score of "0." The headband of intellect increases your Int score. Vermin don't have an Int score, so there's nothing to increase. It be like putting an amulet of health on a lich. —Sledged (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2008 (MST)

Cool cool... I'm sorta glad it works that way. I still don't know what to do about the templates though, because "Intelligence is at least 3". Though is having no intelligence score mean that it is lower than a 3 intelligence? Or can you not compare and the creature keeps its intelligence of "—"? Time to make a super Legendary Bear... --Aarnott 11:57, 4 January 2008 (MST)

Intelligence "—" is less than three. So it would gain an intelligence score of 3. Then you could apply a headband of intellect... Just a thought, could you use that to get an int score of 10 or more on a spider? --Sam Kay 12:06, 4 January 2008 (MST)

No, it's not. Ability scores are qualitative values, not quantitative. Saying that an Int "—" is less than an Int 3 is like person A having a piece of butterscotch and person B having a piece of butterrum, and person A saying, "My butterscotch piece is bigger than yours." That statement would have no meaning because person B would respond, "I don't have a butterscotch piece." However, person A could say, "I have one more butterscotch piece than you do," but that's a quantitative comparison, not a qualitative. Person A could, also, say, "My butterscotch piece is bigger than your butterrum piece." That's a qualitative comparison, but it would be like comparing Int to Wis. —Sledged (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2008 (MST)

But someone who has, say, a glass of water could claim that he or she had more water than someone who had not got a glass of water perfectly correctly. Therefore an intellingence 10 human could claim correctly to have more intelligence than a monstrous spider, correctly. --Sam Kay 12:52, 4 January 2008 (MST)

But comparing two amounts of water is a quantitative comparison, comparing ability scores is qualitative. You're trying to compare apples to oranges. (Had to throw that last cliche in.) —Sledged (talk) 12:59, 4 January 2008 (MST)

Actually, now I think of it, I'm not sure vermin should be int "—". Int "—" is the inability to make concious decisions, ect. But spiders, scorpions, ect. have been proven to make concious decisions: one test they did is put a number of spiders in individual boxes so that they spun a web inside the box, and then placed a prey item on (near enough) the exact same spot on their webs each day. The result was that they changed the shapes of the webs that they spun to center around the location that the prey item was always placed to maximise catching ability. That is adaptation, the very quality upon which intelligence is based. I never liked the monstrous spider rules, and I have just found yet another thing to dislike about them. --Sam Kay 13:39, 4 January 2008 (MST)

And then there is the test where they took spiders into space, and they managed to adapt to build webs in 0g. --Sam Kay 04:43, 5 January 2008 (MST)

I think the point of an "—" int is not to say that the creature is a vegetable. Otherwise constructs would be called statues... I think the point is that they are effectively not logical thinkers. For example, sure a spider can adapt its web in space, but can you teach it tricks? Maybe I don't understand the concept correctly. Really though, I would say that a dog has intelligence. It can be taught tricks and conditioned. Does it really make sense that an army ant can be charmed? I think that intelligence implies all the humanly traits that we value so much -- love, hate, jealousy, greed... I don't think insects and arachnids have the capability to have those traits. They are basically mindless (though all creatures will adapt to survive). --Aarnott 14:51, 5 January 2008 (MST)

A spider can be greedy... er, sort of. You see, a spider will hoard prey items or be teratorial, both forms of greed. And according to Drow of the Underdark, monstrous spiders can learn tricks... --Sam Kay 12:48, 6 January 2008 (MST)

→Reverted indentation to one colon

You could put together a variant rule for fractional Intelligence scores. (Personally, I've always thought dolphins should have Intelligence scores at least comparable to humans. House-rule them as magical beasts.) —Sledged (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2008 (MST)

or possibly fractional ability scores:

House Spider:

Hd: 2/10(1/4 d8-5) Hp: 2/10

Str: 1/10 Dex: 20 Con: 2/10 Int: 9/10 Wis: 10 Cha: 2

"creatures with fractional con scores treat non-lethal damage from creatures two sizes larger than themselves as lethal damage"

Like that? --Sam Kay 07:33, 13 January 2008 (MST)

Yeah. Something like that. —Sledged (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2008 (MST)