Talk:Rock Worm (3.5e Creature)

Featured Article Nomination

— This article became a featured article! --Green Dragon 05:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Although I do not feel this article is currently featured article material I would like to see it become that (it seems very fun to use and interesting). --Green Dragon 12:31, 5 November 2009 (MST)

Comment — This needs to be checked to make sure it uses the correct capitalization (also please take a look at standards and formatting). --Green Dragon 12:31, 5 November 2009 (MST)

Looks okay to me. --Green Dragon 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment — Links to the SRD need to be added throughout. I would add as many as possible and then edit it to remove the repeat ones. --Green Dragon 12:31, 5 November 2009 (MST)

Links look okay to me. --Green Dragon 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment — Certain areas need to be filled out; such as combat (SRD:Tremorsense, etc) if appropriate. --Green Dragon 12:31, 5 November 2009 (MST)

Looks okay to me, although not all creatures have things such as tremorsense listed. Maybe it is normally only listed in certain circumstances? --Green Dragon 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment — Maybe this could be made stronger - the picture makes this look like a much higher CR then 7. Also take a look at the frost worm (just to say). --Green Dragon

Okay, it has been made stronger (note: balance not checked). I changed the caption on the picture to say that is the picture of an HD advanced (implied) gargantuan one. I think that covers this. --Green Dragon 23:58, 6 November 2009 (MST)

Comment — Maybe the name should be changed to "Rock Worm" (following the SRD)? --Green Dragon 12:31, 5 November 2009 (MST)

Changed it. --Green Dragon 13:37, 8 November 2009 (MST)

Comment — Werp, I think it looks good now. Feel free to comment as you would or state any necessary improvements. -- Jwguy 20:24, 6 November 2009 (MST)

For the record, it looks like its missing a feat. its 1 short. Otherwise looks nice. --Name Violation 23:15, 6 November 2009 (MST)

Couple questions: whats powerslam? it only mentions it in full attack, shouldn't its flat footed ac be 17? its mentioned somewhere your ac cant go up from losing dex mod. Whats the reflex save for burrowing charge? is it the attack roll? Where does the +2 int come from? Shouldn't it be -1, like its dex mod? Also it looks like its missing skill points. It's 1 short if it doesn't get x4 at first, or 5 short if it gets 4 skill points at 1st. shouldnt it have +23 to hit, not 24? -1 for large size. with its 12 con shouldn't it have 43 less hp? shouldn't its grapple be 28, not 29? 17 +7(str)+4(size). Should its single slam be str 1.5, not 1? and shouldn't the saves be 11/9/7 with presented stats and feats? and shouldn't its ac be one point higher, -1 for large not 2? thats all I see off the top of my head... --Name Violation 01:01, 7 November 2009 (MST)

Just for what it's worth, if you notice things wrong with something, you can take the initiative to fix it. I appreciate the time taken to alert others to the problem, especially since it was originally my creation, but when see something that is evidently wrong and know the correct method (Such as things regarding SRD), feel free to actually edit it yourself! It certainly gets more done than simply bringing it up, and more efficiently.

That said, I imagined Powerslam as being a more powerful slam attack. I just wanted to give it a neat name. "Slam x2" is just too bland. Jwguy 09:27, 7 November 2009 (MST)

I just don't like coming in and changing the hell out of someones "baby" with out discussing it. and if I just change things for people they don't learn how to do it right.

Also I just fixed it, and made a few minor changes to make it more of a challenge. Its damage still looks a little low to me though. --Name Violation 16:34, 7 November 2009 (MST)

The irony of this makes me chuckle. ^^ I suppose Green Dragon does have a sufficient reasoning, then, but that is on a different matter.

I have no problem with people editing my articles, so long as they do so in reservation and leave proper reasons on their submission. If I ever have a problem with a good edit, the talk page would be the first place I go. You needn't feel so apprehensive about editing articles, or at least not mine. That said, I appreciate the time you've taken to edit the article. I am slightly embarrassed to say that, because I've never made monsters before, I really assembled this article purely out of an idea, referencing other creatures and simply adding in stats and modifiers that "Look and work well", rather than being SRD-accurate. I try to be so, often, but in this case, I felt that no-harm was no-foul, and anything that came up could be fixed later.

Aside, I am curious, is Powerful Charge an SRD feat? Or is this creature specific? I ask because I am unsure of what it is and have not seen it before. It certainly seems a nice addition, though, just by looking at the damage it does. Jwguy 20:48, 7 November 2009 (MST)

I know its in ECS (ebberon) it gives a bonus on non mounted charging damage based on size. d8 for medium, 2d6 for large, ect. greater powerful charge makes you count as a size larger. It might be in other places too, check mm3 maybe, I thought it would work good for this build, but I still think the damage looks low for a CR 11, but then again I'm used to a weird play style. good to know I'm not stepping on toes :) I figure if I explain why changes need to be made I'm helping people learn how to do it rather than just doing it and letting people not learn from why its done. --Name Violation 22:34, 7 November 2009 (MST)

What about giving this a swallow whole ability? Or giving advanced ones (maybe huge or larger) a crush? I still think its missing something, I just don't know what yet... Also any opinions on burrowing charge? Should it be a variable reflex (like I put) or a static (like tremor)?

Last edit to my post (I hope) Powerful Charge- Miniatures Handbook- Medium size or larger, BAB +1 Melee attacks during an unmounted charge deal extra damage (Medium: +1d8, Large: +2d6, Huge: +3d6, Gargantuan: +4d6, Colossal: +6d6) - 1/round., greater has a bab of 4 pre req. --Name Violation 22:40, 7 November 2009 (MST)

I'll put the damage to test in a moment *process*, done; It seems the powerful charge would do ~40 damage to one target, on average. At maximum, it would do ~56 damage. Processing a Fighter's HP at that of level 11 (CON 4) would be... an average of about 104.5, and a maximum of 154. This means a Rock Worm, currently, could knock out about one half or one third of their health with a single, very likely-to-hit attack, considering that the Rock Worm also has Tremor and Burrowing Charge to it's benefit. Looking at a level 11 fighter (STR 4) who trying to damage it with a... let's say +2 Greatsword... they potentially can do an average of 40.5 damage, or a maximum of 60, but they lose 10 of that damage due to damage reduction. This assumes that they make each attack against the worm (At level eleven, they have three if using full attack, +11, +6, +1), which may not be likely, considering the last is +1. There's also the fact that the worm has a bit of an advantage on it's side: Not only does it have multiple attacks that can reduce enemies to prone, thereby making them incur Attacks of Opportunity, possibly, it also has attacks that can lengthen the distance between itself and others if it gets too overwhelmed (Awesome Blow), and it can travel underground at high speeds, and strike enemies as if they were flat-footed (Burrowing Charge). So, considering the command rating is 11, and four level elevens should have a decent challenge against it, if the DM uses it appropriately, or so I would think. It has decent damage, and it supplements that with defense and maneuverability.

It's also possible to make them tag-team parties under odd circumstances, as well. A Orcish Ranger with a pet Rock Worm and Charm Monster? Sweet bajeesus. Even so, back to your questions and suggestions.

I like the idea of swallow whole and crush, but I think we should limit those to the more powerful, reproachful versions of the creature, myself. After all, then it's more inclined to skip the whole "Beat-it-up-then-eat-it" instinct, having more weight to throw around. I've also been thinking about the Burrowing charge attack. Considering that the Worm is essentially bursting out of the ground beneath them, I suppose it should be variable that includes the Worms' size and possibly a stat into consideration, as well as perhaps forcing those it comes under into either grapple or pushing them backwards. Jwguy 23:16, 7 November 2009 (MST)

Since this doesn't have the earthglide ability, it does make hole, and can decimate a battlefield with 10ft holes... it should use that to its advantage. maybe up int/wisdom to reflect that? Also its will save almost guarantees any caster is dominating this thing, if area effects don't bring it down. I think it needs a bump to wis just to make the saves better. --Name Violation 00:16, 8 November 2009 (MST)

I'm gonna revert burrowing charge back. 1/2 grapple modifier is a weird mechanic that I've never seen anywhere. --Name Violation 17:50, 8 November 2009 (MST)

Grapple seems to be something that would scale with size and strength, and I didn't want it to be too high. Even so, I like the idea of giving it some weakness, at least, whether that be magic or not. Though, I would think it should at least be 'below-average', relative to it's supposed level, even so, and not abyssmal. The holes thing is something that will likely occur anyways, but it could be a good idea; I don't think boosting it's wisdom anymore is a good idea. These are mostly instinctive beasts, after all. That's just me, though. --Jwguy 00:46, 9 November 2009 (MST)

I changed this quite a bit. I upped the size so the attack could be okay (based of creature creation in the MM) and fixed (hopefully) all the numbers to fit the rules of creature creation. I also changed the numbers to reflect the new size. I also changed blind around so it is disregarded when in contact with the ground because of tremorsense. If all the numbers are correct the only things I think which need to be looked at are the special abilities - are there any rules for when and which special abilities need to be written out when? And I feel, although maybe this would change the treasure, another interesting ability (like Burrowing Charge) needs to be added. Any ideas? --Green Dragon 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess the break down of its abilities should be removed and just say "dc is strength based" to make it more standard. I think the damage and ac feels a little low for a CR 11. Also I think grapple is off. 17+8 Str+ 8 Size is 33. Init should be +3, also adding the bonus damage for powerful charge would be convenient so we don't have to look it up (I'm glad i added it here or I'd forget the numbers :P). Also one of the feats needs the subscript b for a bonus feat. Also, GD, did you change the numbers for hide to account for the new size? And the description of its size should change, it says its 40 ft long and 5 ft wide, thats not standard for huge at all, its just fluff but its still odd imho. And finally maybe bump up the Cha and or Wis, the 2 Cha is just asking for a stat drain and its down for. A single ego whip would kill this thing. --Name Violation 02:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

Changed to be "Strength based". Fixed the grapple. Why is the Initiative +3? I have not checked this time however last time I checked I remember getting +2. Could you elaborate please? I agree the attack and AC seem low. Although that is already at the max for the chart; that's why I said this needs something "else" present in my opinion to counter it. Do you have any ideas of something which would make this have a stronger attack and be more interesting too? And do you mean burrowing charge for powerful charge? Yes, I forgot to change hide for size. Changed. And if you think playing around with the abilities would help improve this thing please give it a shot. Personally I am of the opinion that this needs something "else" - for example another interesting special ability. --Green Dragon 03:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Init -1 dex, + 4 improved init=3, also its to hit seems of. It's too high for numbers presented, should be like +23 to hit. --Name Violation 04:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The flavor size is actually the same as the Frost Worm which is Huge sized as well. "... for powerful charge? ..." Or how is powerful charge factored into this? Attack: 17 (BAB) -2 (size) +8 (Str mod) =23 (true — or am I wrong)? Initiative: -4 (Dex mod) +4 (Improved Initiative) =0. Or where are you coming from? Where was I coming from? And about the feat: 17/3=5.66 (does one round up or down) up: 6+1=7 — no bonus feat is needed. down: 5+1=6 — a bonus feat is needed. Finally do you have any ideas of something else to add to this? --Green Dragon 05:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

its dex is 8 thats - 1, where are you getting -4? also i'm pondering things to add, and traditionally I think you're suppost to round down. i still think an improved grab and swallow whole would make it more powerful, but if the stomach has dr 10 it'll be hell to cut your way outwith a light weapon--Name Violation 05:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh. By -4 I was looking at Int and thinking it was Dex. Whatever. Fixed it. And how does the bonus feat work then? With what rules can this creature get it? I thought about swallow whole and improved grab as well however those seem so standard for worms; I want this to be more unique then it is now. Unless you can't think of anything else or those as well. I don't know. Your thoughts? --Green Dragon 06:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I just figured give the thing a bonus feat. It says in the MM you can give monsters bonus feats, and a lot of things get bonus feats (normally alertness or weapon finesse or something). I figured make improved initiative a bonus feat since it should get the drop on players in the surprise round with a burrowing charge, or alternatively make powerful charge a bonus feat, but as it stands one feat has to be a bonus feat or one has to be dropped or it needs 1 more HD. --Name Violation 06:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I will note a bonus feat for now however adding one more HD could make the most sense. We'll see. Do you have any ideas for a great special ability? --Green Dragon 06:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

a "beath weapon" or spewed rock maybe? idk, i'll sleep on it and get back to you --Name Violation 07:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

How about "Earth Mastery (Ex): A Rock Worm gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls if both it and its foe are touching the ground. If an opponent is airborne or waterborne, the elemental takes a –4 penalty on attack and damage rolls. (These modifiers are not included in the statistics block.)". nothing major for it, but its flavorful. i was also thinking of the Trample (Ex) ability and possibly the added bonus of adding ist powerful charge damage and power attacking to the trample effect for a total of 2d8+3d6+12 with out P.A or 2d8+3d6 =22 with P.A. damage, possibly adding a +2 racial bonus on the save for trample. this makes it a formitable skirmisher and can keep a party on its toes. but the CHA deffinately needs to come up, ts way too easy to deal 2 points of cha damage to take it out.--Name Violation 06:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with giving a bonus when touching the ground. A rock worm is already not getting the penalties of being blind when a creature is touching the ground and when a target is airborne, etc they are getting the penalties of being blind.

A trample, breath weapon of spewed rock could be interesting. What are your thoughts on a miniature earthquake effect where the rock worm can lunge up then down to the ground making people prone, throwing rocks and debris in directions dealing damage, etc? Dunno. Your thoughts? --Green Dragon 01:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually really like that idea. similar to an idea I was toying with of bursting from the ground, bite, grapple, slam them into ground. as it stands it has some zone controlling and skirmishing abilities, and the quake idea is along those lines. also, what about an ability to quake w/o poping out of the ground? it basically burrows underneath people causing either reflex of balance to not fall down. --Name Violation 08:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean what's already in place, Tremor? If you would not mind would you implement this quake idea and I will take a look at it? --Green Dragon 01:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

Should we put a tactics section? I kinda wanna do like they did with the last couple MM's and explain a few rounds of tactics, like burrow a network of passages and then earthquake to collapse them on a group, ect. --Name Violation 03:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Also we need to decide a consistent way to capitalize. We got rock worm Rock worm and Rock Worm. Lets pick 1 and stick with it. --Name Violation 04:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Rock worm or rock worm (depending on sentence layout) is correct. If you would not mind please make sure this follows Help:When to Italicize and Capitalize.

Every ten minutes on a level 8 spell is overpowered. What do you think about twice a day? I imagine giving this spellcasting progression. I guess the question is does 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 2, 1 (wizard spellcasting for level 11) kind of equate to 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2 (only level 8 spells at 2/day)?

And please add a tactics section. I merged the old on onto the top of the combat section but please feel free and I will see how we can keep this creature format style (or we could switch to stablock2 - but I prefer this one). --Green Dragon 04:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is every ten minutes overpowered? Combat is unlikely to last ten rounds in most instances, so for all intents and purposes the rock worm will be able to earthquake once and the party will kill it (and let us be honest, as an unintelligent monster its sole purpose for existing is to be killed by the PCs. Even if combat were to last, say 50 rounds, it still wouldn't be able to use the ability twice. The frequency is only relevant if the PCs have no way of attacking, in which case it's a really stupid challenge, unless its using earthquake and then not attacking, which is poor design again. Furthermore, at 17 AC, even with DR 10/-, this thing will be killed awfully quick (at CR 11) should it make itself available to hit. Burrowing is one way to counter that, but with said statistics a barbarian/fighter/psywar (just for an example of moderate optimization) could reasonably expect to charge with Shock Trooper and hit twice (psionic lion's charge), dealing about 7.5 base, 3 magic, 14 Strength, and then 33 Power Attack with Leap Attack (and that's not even that extensive as far as optimization is concerned), that's about 100 damage (80 after DR). Rogue/swashbucklers will probably do slightly less, as they depend on TWFing, but a scorching ray blaster can throw around 18d6 (empowered) and 12d6 (quickened; also, assume arcane thesis) with relative ease, which comes out to 105 or so. My point is, looking at the defensive statistics, this is a rather underpowered example of a CR 11 creature. -- Jota 05:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree fully with jota. --Name Violation 07:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, earthquake has an instant kill problem. I agree that earthquake is very hard to use in combat since it has to be entirely underground to use it (and unless retreating will not be). Is this creature underpowered? It follow the creature rules almost to the letter (with the damage upped to max allowed for size) and has a few special things (such as DR and a level 8 spell). Is it underpowered? I don't know. Seems okay to me. I guess I would like to ask you, other then with the above example, why is this underpowered in particular using the rules for making creatures? --Green Dragon 06:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is under powered anymore. Earthquake just fits this things flavor so well, and it gives players a real run for its money. its more there for flavor, and I figure once this pops out the players have it dead in a round or 2. the saves against EQ are still relatively low, and plenty of options exist to avoid it by the level the players should be when they fight this. Also any thoughts on the Dust ability I added? --Name Violation 07:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The obvious solution would be to lower the CR, since its a completely arbitrary number (yes?), and then it wouldn't be underpowered. Or give it more natural armor, since I believe that is the same, though I could be wrong. Other issues:

1. Is the tunneling self-closing?
2. Earthquake twice per day is potential less balanced than every 10 minutes, as a recharge time allows for recovery, otherwise the 'smart' worm would quake twice before starting combat. Also, earthquake isn't that powerful of a spell. Its damage output isn't great, the saves are low, and the save or die effect only has a 25% chance of taking, and even then only on the right terrain.
3. Why does the worm have reach equal to its space? Many appendage-less creatures have reduced reach, which makes sense given said lacked parts (see orca, remorhaz, gelatinous cube, etc).
4. Doesn't have Swallow Whole because?

There's probably a bit more, but that's what I've got for now. I like the Dust ability. Also, the rules aren't perfect. The current system is widely considered flawed if that's any indication of writers' ability to create balanced material (said issues are also one of the driving forces behind homebrew material), so there's no reason to assume following the rules will create level-appropriate challenges (see celestial dire lion). -- Jota 16:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"The simplest and quickest way to estimate your monster's Challenge Rating is to compare it to similar monsters in an appropriate CR range." See the frost worm and the purple worm. Although things like the remorhaz do make this seem a little weak. Maybe decreasing the CR to 10 or adding swallow whole?

Were not going to make creatures which do not adhere to the creature creations rules Featured Articles. Creature balance, obviously, stems from that and creating an arbitrary deviation from that is not balanced. For example should creatures be balanced to Pun-Pun? One can play such a person however that would tip the balance scales. Do you see what I am saying?

"When moving through hard materials it leaves behind a usable tunnel about 5 feet in diameter."

There is no 'smart worm' so we need to come up with a system which works for all. Do you agree with: Most likely, out of fear, the rock worm will do an earthquake before combat to scare it's opponents. If they stand their ground it will probably attack thinking they are in its territory. If it gets overwhelmed it will retreat to fight underground. Casting earthquake if it cannot even manage that. I don't know. Or do you think 3/day would be better?

"Why does the worm have reach equal to its space?" Where does it state the opposite on the examples you listed? I do not think other worms have that problem though. This should follow the other worm's reach rules.

The Celestial Dire Lion is SRD on SRD... Unless you do not trust the makers of this game.

And I agree. Maybe one more not to powerful ability would really top this off. Can you think of something else which would just add some nice flavor to this? --Green Dragon 17:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as i know this doesn't have swallow whole because its a played out ability. And as for the tunnels, I would hope they stay, so it can use its 30 ft. speed to retreat then, not its 15 ft. speed to slink away. Also tunnels + earthquake is a nice combo. And EQ 3/day works I guess. I just keep figuring this thing is guaranteed dead within 15 rounds of the PC's realizing it exists, so the point is moot anyway. --Name Violation 19:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

Point by point:

1. I'm not necessarily sure that those monsters are a capable examples of what a CR 11 creature is. I'd trend more toward the DMG's 'an NPC is an encounter equal to its level' and then try to balance the monster against a moderately optimized character with 11 class levels in a rogue level/tier three or so class. There are assumptions that have to be made in order to do this, including the inherent differences between certain classes. If we can't reach some kind of consensus on that then there's really no point it carrying this any further. Even if that isn't the case, you're comparing it against just other worms, but what about other monsters, such as the hamatula, dread wraith, colossal spider, leonal, or colossal scorpion, just to name a few? The monsters all seem, at least to me, more capable than those you mentioned previously, yet they are all CR 11 or 12. Also, many of the monsters we both mentioned (the purple worm, for example) can easily negate one opponent due to their overwhelming grapple checks and Improved Grab (and in the purple worm's case swallow whole). The rock worm cannot.
2. I'm not saying not to follow the rules. I'm just saying if there's no rules governing how much natural armor something has (point me to them if there are), boost it to a more reasonable number (low- to mid-twenties, maybe) for CR 11 given PCs likely have +16 to hit at the bare minimum if they're combat-focused.
3. Yes, I missed that.
4. Regarding earthquake, as long as you are going by times per day, anything over one would make it such that a tactically intelligent worm would just weaken its prey using all its earthquakes before surfacing. I know the worm is not intelligent, but a recharge time, with or without times per day, is better because it means the worm cannot simply quake round after round. Twice per day with a 10 minute recharge is fine for me, though any number of durations could be viable.
5. Most animals seem to have reduced reach, which makes sense. It's just an observation. See the hill giant dire wereboar, for a contrast between the humanoid and animal forms, but also look at space of 15' and the reduced reach of 10' on the monsters I listed previously, as opposed to 15' and 15'.
6. Yes, I'm saying the game makers aren't perfect and they may have screwed up royally or they may have made lots of little errors in places. I would trust that they tried to achieve balance, but that doesn't necessarily mean they succeeded.
7. I don't think it needs a more powerful ability. I think bringing the AC into line could do it fine. Wizards are going to have their way with it but that isn't too different from most things, and at least that way its a credible challenge to what many consider to be balanced classes, such as the warblade, psychic warrior, and other classes that don't specialize in OHKOs. -- Jota 03:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well this is not an intelligent creature however making a "recharge-like" time frame for earthquake could be nice. I see what you mean about balance and what are your thoughts now (with swallow whole added)? And do you know what stat changes would be correct for a creature of this sizes' swallow whole? I don't think reduced reach makes sense. No other worms have it. --Green Dragon 07:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

For starters I'd change the slam to a bite from a common sense/established trend perspective (although I suppose with burrowing charge it isn't strictly necessary and the worm already has enough offense). I'm not sure what you're referring to regarding stat changes (could you expound further?), but I still think don't think offense is the biggest problem; the worm simply needs to be a little harder to kill (it has some nice offensive abilities for which the saves are fairly high, just make the AC 24 or so where there's even a small chance of a failure on a PC attack roll -- or you could not, leaving it an easy kill for most everyone, so at least its equal opportunity in that regard). Also, all of the others worms (frost | space=15 ft. | reach=10 ft. -- purple | space=20 ft. | reach=15ft. -- remorhaz | space=15 ft. | reach=10 ft.) have a reach of 5' less than their space. The rock worm (|space=15 ft. |reach=15 ft.) does not. Ultimately the AC can work either way, it's just a matter of how easy of a kill it should be for 'balanced' classes rather than reality-bending spellcasters, for whom it will probably always be easy (unless the worm wins initiative, although even then that is questionable with things like contingency). -- Jota 08:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Changed the reach to match. Changed to a bite attack to match. Upped the natural armor a bit. What are thoughts on the AC now? Fixed swallow whole. Do you know what the first damage type should be for this? Do you know what the secondary damage should be? It's tricky for me since things like the remorhaz have 8d6 however things like the purple worm only have 8 damage. Your thoughts? Added a "a 10 round waiting time between each" for earthquake. Thoughts on that?

Also do you see anywhere where the wording is confusing or needs to be improved upon? Anywhere the stats are confusing or need to be improved upon?

Also, Name Violation, were you still adding a part about tunnels and so? --Green Dragon 18:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The AC is still low, though given the relatively high saves I suppose that might be fine. The crushing damage (if any) looks like it should be equal to the bite damage based on the purple worm. Also, looking at the purple worm might lead one to infer that the acid is 0.5 ½ HD, though the tarrasque and dire shark, among others, buck this trend. That said, the behir and tyrannosaurus both have flat 8s with varying HD, yet the nightcrawler has a flat 12, so who knows? Sounds like just picking a combination that isn't overkill will do if strict rules cannot be found.. The remorhaz has damage from its heat ability, which this worm has none of, so that's where that comes from. Recharge time is good.

1. Powerful Charge needs to be linked and should be a special attack (it's [Ex]), not a feat (not sure if that opens up another feat or not). I assume burrowing charge is derived from that, so #burrowing|powerful hot-linking would be nice as well.
2. Improved Grab would make it a bit more powerful, something I'm not sure it needs, though it is in line with what other, similar creatures have (though not all of those have equivalents to burrowing charge and tremor).
3. I think Blind-Fight might be redundant given that tremorsense should negate concealment caused by debris.
4. The Elemental Plane of Earth is always capitalized within its own article, yet not here.
5. In general, linking the special attacks/qualities to their descriptors below would be nice.
6. The flavor text (the part in italics) uses long sentences at times which might be grammatically suspect, though they aren't awful.
7. Material Plane is also always capitalized as far as I know.
8. Being 5 feet in diameter and yet having a space of 15' is sort of contradictory.

Think that's all I got. -- Jota 22:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well would you mind implementing them and then I can take a look and better see what you mean? --Green Dragon 23:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Powerful Charge IS a feat. Ebberon and Miniatures. Its not OGL to my knowledge. Powerful Charge- Miniatures Handbook- Medium size or larger, BAB +1 Melee attacks during an unmounted charge deal extra damage (Medium: +1d8, Large: +2d6, Huge: +3d6, Gargantuan: +4d6, Colossal: +6d6) - 1/round. Blind Fight is ther re to give it a chance if tremor sense is negated (i.e. flying enemy). and the space is normal for worms. --Name Violation 01:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

however changing its slam to a bite, which would make swallow whole make sense, and de-clunking Burrowing charge could work. remove the target getting a ref. save, just adjacent people.--Name Violation 01:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, does its gullet have DR-10? I like to think so, but it makes it a pain to get out of. --Name Violation 01:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Powerful charge and burrowing charge are 2 different things. don't combine them in special abilities. a powerful charge CAN be used on a burrowing charge, but it had the feat pwerful charge. Why are you deleting the feat?--Name Violation 05:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Dunno about gullet. Might be clear based on other creatures. Powerful Charge the feat isn't OGC, so it seems pointless to include it when the Powerful Charge ability does the same thing but is not a feat. Obviously, edits made. Linking not working. Not sure why exactly. Still not sure if a replacement feat is needed. --Jota 05:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so make Powerful charge a ex. But separate it from burrowing charge. I'm gonna make a few edits myself, and see what you guys think. --Name Violation 06:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

Why keep them separate? It makes sense to combine them based on the description of Powerful Charge. --Jota 06:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Because powerful charge is normally extra damage (even the special ability). plus this way it can make non-burrowing charges and get extra damage. Aand it looked clunky. Also I really didn't like the "it attacks, you can make a reflex save" mechanic for the beginning of burrowing charge. I changed that. Lemme know what you think. Also now we can either add a feat or make improved initiative not a bonus feat. --Name Violation 06:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think with that ability it looks good. Also with the charge attack working specially on one creature and the currounding creatures being slightly affected too is very nice. Thanks for correcting some grammar. Also, for your "Being 5 feet in diameter and yet having a space of 15' is sort of contradictory." question see the SRD:Frost Worm. The gullet, I think, would have DR 10. Also I added Improved Grab to balance this out more. Made this a Featured Article. --Green Dragon 05:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Its burrowing charge had an improved grab ability built in. You might wanna take out one or the other. Also if anyone thinks it abilities are too strong for a CR 11 we could up it by 1 or 2. I noticed the frost worm is a CR 12 but this seems a little stronger. --Name Violation 06:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed the double application of the improved grab. Do I think this is to powerful? No. Maybe even a little week. Maybe if the concealment could work more, but I don't know. For example the Frost Worm has a breath weapon of 15d6 damage, this has earthquake but maybe that is a bit weaker. Who knows. Doesn't seem bad to me though. Thoughts on concealment and if it should be extended (flavor too?)? --Green Dragon 21:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The concealment full time wouldn't be too bad. I added it to shore up the low AC, and to make precision damage useless. --Name Violation 22:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand that and like what it adds, however I am wondering if you think it would still be balanced to have it always in affect (not just the round after bursting out of the ground). If so what flavor could work for that? Would it be a good idea? --Green Dragon 19:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Flavor - It's either dirt stuck in its cracks/folds/whatever body part that it uses to help it glide threw the earth, or its expelling it threw its skin as waste literally exhaling dirt threw its pores. Full time concealment wouldn't be O.P. in my mind. Maybe let it be reduced to 10% in rain or when subject to high winds? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Name Violation (talk • contribs) 13:01, 8 February 2010 (MST). Please sign your posts.

I agree with the first flavor idea (the result of mostly constant tunneling or somesuch). And, yes, 10% in certain conditions makes sense to me too. Would you mind adding that in? I think that would really add another beautiful touch onto this. --Green Dragon 04:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for my disappearance in this issue. For a while there, I had thought most discussion had ceased on the nomination. ^^ I am fairly happy to see that you were all able to come together and modify the creature, and thankful as well. I take pride in having one of my creatures added to the featured articles section. Jwguy 02:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If you would not mind would you mind commenting on the balance? --Green Dragon 04:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Weight

Has anyone else noticed how absurdly light rock worms are? If they are cylinders with a 2.5 foot radius and a 40 foot length and 8000 pound bulk, then their density is about 10.19 pounds per cubic foot. That's less than a sixth of the density of water or twice the density of high quality styrofoam. I think that their challenge rating might be just a little exaggerated... --Illeist 01:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I noticed it as well, and I agree. A better weight might be ~74 tons, at a density of 3 g/cm³. 74.4.40.62 16:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. My only issue it that the weight comes from the frost worm (same size). Before changing it to reflect what do you guys think it about the weight in relation to that? And what do you mean by the CR is exaggerated? Also see the purple worm. --Green Dragon 20:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I meant nothing by the CR comment; I was just being a little facetious. The CR is well-suited to their in-game difficulty. So, if stone has density of 3 g/cm³ and ice has a density of .9 g/cm³, then rock worms would weigh 806 tons and frost worms would weigh 241 tons. This is, however, assuming that rock worms are pure rock and that frost worms are pure ice. --Illeist 23:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. Frost worms are made partly out of ice. Agree. As such, since rock worms are partly made out of rock, what do you think a good density would be? --Green Dragon 00:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's say that worms are one half 'worm flesh' and one half 'element,' be that stone, ice, or 'purple.' Human flesh has a density of 1.4 g/cm³, so I'd say that worm flesh is ~1.7 g/cm³. Ergo, rock worms have a density of 2.35 g/cm³ and ice worms 1.3 g/cm³. Using these figures, rock worms weigh 620 tons and ice worms weigh 343 tons. If purple worms are pure worm flesh, then they weigh 897 tons, due to its greater length. If you're fine with these figures, I can edit the articles accordingly (using rounded figures, of course). After that, I'll look through the other larger monsters and try to figure things out as best I can, though it's unfortunate that they aren't regular geometric shapes. --Illeist 04:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Please correct me where I am wrong. Granite is about is 2.75 g/cm³, so your 2.35 g/cm³ seems correct (granite is a heavy rock). And, according to [1] humans are around 1.0 g/cm³. One g/cm³ is 62.4 lb/ft³. The rock mass (circa 50% of volume) is 146.64 lb/ft³. The flesh weight (going off the human weight, also circa 50% of volume) is 62.4 lb/ft³. The rock worms total size is going to be l×w×h or 40 ft×5 ft×5 ft or 1000 ft³. 1000 ft³ ×.5 is 500 ft³. 500 ft³×146.64 lb/ft³ is 73,320 pounds or 36.66 short tons (American tons). 500 ft³×62.4 lb/ft³ is 31,200 pounds or 15.6 short tons. 36.66 short tones+15.6 short tones is 52.26 tons. Does that seem right to you? --Green Dragon 03:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

While your source provides an excellent analysis of the density of a human body, it includes lungs, which worms, as spiracle-breathers, have no need of. I too, made a mistake; my figure factored in a skeletal system, of which worms also have no need. Consequently, we'll need to examine muscle density. In humans, 1.2 g/cm³ is a safe average [2]. Though large surface-dwelling animals typically develop more dense muscles due to the need to support their own weight, large worms would lack that need because the earth supports their bulk as they burrow; long story made short, 1.2 g/cm³ sounds good enough for me at the moment. Previously, I mistook lb/m³ for lb/ft³, giving me grossly exaggerated results. Your calculations, on the other hand, are fairly sound, though we need to use the formula for the volume of a cylinder, not the volume of a rectangular prism. So using pi*(radius*radius)*length, we arrive at a volume of ~785.4 ft³. From here, we see that our flesh weight is 14.7 short tons and and our stone weight is 28.8 short tons and a total of 43.5 short tons. Hopefully, my calculations this time are slightly more reliable. --Illeist 04:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Should we just round it up to 45 or 50 short tons and add it? Your thoughts? --Green Dragon 05:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

My vote's for 50, just to contrast it with the frost worm. --Illeist 05:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you think the flesh density factors in the gizzard as well? This can, after all, hold 2 large sized creatures in its gizzard. --Green Dragon 23:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Weight became a big deal when a party I was in once was eaten by a purple worm. The DM and our rules nazi bickered back and forth and kept researching. If I recall correctly, the weight of any creature inside a bigger creature (i.e. swallow whole) that are still alive are treated as completely different for anything, including weight. Once dead and being digested/whatever, that weight is considered to be already accounted for in the WotC stats. Hope that helps.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   23:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I could see that as important if a rock worm was unwillingly teleported to a place with metal grates over lava which could hold up to 50.1 tons. The additional weight would make a difference. That is not my question, however. I was wondering if in the measurement of fleshs' density the open space of the gizzard was taken into consideration. --Green Dragon 23:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I must of read too fast. I thought it said buzzard. (then I thought why would a rock creature eat buzzards but to each their own...).   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   23:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Because gizzards are typically flexible pouches rather than gaping holes and because they are often filled with bones or purposefully ingested rocks to aid with digestion, I don't think that we need to worry about recalculating the worm's density or weight. This is, however, assuming that giant worms' gizzards are anatomically similar to those found in birds and smaller annelids. --Illeist 04:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Integration into Tirr Supplement

I've begun integrating a lot of the various pages I'd created for use with Tirr before I had actually made the campaign setting. This page is also one that was created for that setting, but I want to refrain from integrating it until I have approval, given that it is a featured article, and I am not exactly sure about the rules regarding such. Jwguy 06:03, 10 July 2011 (MDT)

What does integration require? If it is formatted correctly it is no problem. If it not formatted correctly then it will be put under review. --Green Dragon 14:30, 9 August 2011 (MDT)

My normal method of operating is to change the page to a (Tirr Supplement) page, which then justifies the addition of the {Tirr Footer} template. That said, I realize that this page has since become far more than just my creature, and I did not want to do either without discussing it. Truth be told, if you'd rather me not, I will abstain from editing the article. It is just a footnote that needed addressing on my to-do list. Jwguy 19:43, 9 August 2011 (MDT)

Actually only unequivocal campaign pages should have a campaign identifier. The identifier is fine how it is. A breadcrumb and category would be fine (like the template you mentioned). --Green Dragon 20:12, 9 August 2011 (MDT)

Very well. I will proceed. Jwguy 21:28, 9 August 2011 (MDT)