Forums of the Megaverse®

Hey all,

I don't own all the most recent books, and am working with RUE, RMB, Atlantis, and CB1. I'm sorry if my question has been answered in a later volume I don't own, or somewhere on this forum where my searches did not lead. I'm asking specifically about the Manticore, but I suppose some answers to my questions might apply to ALL Monster Tattoos:

I'm creating a Tattooed Man and I wanted to have a Manticore as one of their Monster Tattoos. Based on what I've read, the Manticore, if allowed, would have 220 MDC (The maximum roll possible on 3d6 x 10 + 40) at a summoning cost of 100 PPE.

Questions:

i) Since the the MDC of all Monster Tattoos are the maximum possible MDC roll for that Monster, do we assume that ATTRIBUTES are the maximum as well?;

ii) Manticore's speak Dragonese/Elf at 98% and "may know 1D4 others." Does the "maximum roll possible" rule from above apply as well? I would assume a Tattoo Manticore would not speak additional languages;

iii) Does the ability to speak a language automatically disqualify the Manticore for a Monster Tattoo?


Thanks in advance,

:Grim

I wish I knew the answer FOR SURE. I'm pretty sure you use the MAX stats. And, while you're at it I'd get a Tattoo of a MAGOT

Witchcraft wrote:I wish I knew the answer FOR SURE. I'm pretty sure you use the MAX stats. And, while you're at it I'd get a Tattoo of a MAGOT

My LORD that Magot is powerful. Still, considering the background of my character, I don't think he'd be given it.

Remind me but isn't the monster tattoo restricted to non-intelligent monsters? If that is the case, I don't think the manticore is valid then.

Long Shadow wrote:Remind me but isn't the monster tattoo restricted to non-intelligent monsters? If that is the case, I don't think the manticore is valid then.

Only animal-like predatory monsters can be created, and manticores are in the example listed.

The Beast wrote:

Long Shadow wrote:Remind me but isn't the monster tattoo restricted to non-intelligent monsters? If that is the case, I don't think the manticore is valid then.

Only animal-like predatory monsters can be created, and manticores are in the example listed.

I remember re-reading the section on Monster Tattoos and, yes, Manticores were listed as a valid option. I thought that the ability to understand a language made them too smart to be considered for such a tattoo, but the Gryphon is ALSO listed, and they are also able to comprehend multiple languages.

Anyone know anything about the rules on the attributes for Monter Tattoo? And WHICH languages would said creatures understand, if any?

Grimlock wrote:

The Beast wrote:

Long Shadow wrote:Remind me but isn't the monster tattoo restricted to non-intelligent monsters? If that is the case, I don't think the manticore is valid then.

Only animal-like predatory monsters can be created, and manticores are in the example listed.

I remember re-reading the section on Monster Tattoos and, yes, Manticores were listed as a valid option. I thought that the ability to understand a language made them too smart to be considered for such a tattoo, but the Gryphon is ALSO listed, and they are also able to comprehend multiple languages.

Anyone know anything about the rules on the attributes for Monter Tattoo? And WHICH languages would said creatures understand, if any?

I'd go with max stats since the MDC/SDC & HP are maxed. Also they'd understand whatever languages the caster speaks. I'm not sure if they'd understand only the caster though...

Witchcraft wrote:I wish I knew the answer FOR SURE. I'm pretty sure you use the MAX stats. And, while you're at it I'd get a Tattoo of a MAGOT

Monsters, not demons, Maggot is a greater demon.

That saddens me.

The Beast wrote:

Grimlock wrote:

The Beast wrote:

Long Shadow wrote:Remind me but isn't the monster tattoo restricted to non-intelligent monsters? If that is the case, I don't think the manticore is valid then.

Only animal-like predatory monsters can be created, and manticores are in the example listed.

I remember re-reading the section on Monster Tattoos and, yes, Manticores were listed as a valid option. I thought that the ability to understand a language made them too smart to be considered for such a tattoo, but the Gryphon is ALSO listed, and they are also able to comprehend multiple languages.

Anyone know anything about the rules on the attributes for Monter Tattoo? And WHICH languages would said creatures understand, if any?

I'd go with max stats since the MDC/SDC & HP are maxed. Also they'd understand whatever languages the caster speaks. I'm not sure if they'd understand only the caster though...

One vote for maximum statistics. Thanks.

I just realized something about the Monster Tattoo's known languages, specifically regarding the Manticore:

Manticore's speak Dragonese/Elf. If a Tattooed Man cannot speak Dragonese/Elf, and does not have the Eye of Knowledge Tattoo or a Universal Translator, could they create a Manticore to act as translator in a situation where such a language barrier exists?

I'm going to chat with my GM and push the idea, at least for our campaign, that all Monster Tattoos only have the creator's Native Language and are NOT able to speak any additional languages. I imagine Monster Tattoos were created for combat and transportation; magically re-creating the language abilities of the monsters they represent would be superfluous.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:

Witchcraft wrote:I wish I knew the answer FOR SURE. I'm pretty sure you use the MAX stats. And, while you're at it I'd get a Tattoo of a MAGOT

Monsters, not demons, Maggot is a greater demon.

Also, I'd imagine that the Splugorth wouldn't be giving out a Tattoos that powerful to just any but the most loyal and high level Maxi-Men and Tattooed Men. Yes, Maggots are out of the question, but I would say that even a Manticore (220 MDC) might be too powerful for a 1st-level Tattooed Man.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:Monsters, not demons, Maggot is a greater demon.

Was about to say "no" but then I realized for some reason I was confusing them with the Blow Worms, the highest MDC of the Worms of Taut.

Kind wondering if WoT qualify as sub-demons like Gargoyles?

Tor wrote:

Nekira Sudacne wrote:Monsters, not demons, Maggot is a greater demon.

Was about to say "no" but then I realized for some reason I was confusing them with the Blow Worms, the highest MDC of the Worms of Taut.

Kind wondering if WoT qualify as sub-demons like Gargoyles?

According to Rifts Atlantis, pg. 90, Worms of Taut are listed as a legal option for a Monster Tattoo.

I gotta say that the more I investigate the validity of Monster Tattoos, the more questions it raises. Truly frustrating.

Grimlock wrote:

Witchcraft wrote:I wish I knew the answer FOR SURE. I'm pretty sure you use the MAX stats. And, while you're at it I'd get a Tattoo of a MAGOT

My LORD that Magot is powerful. Still, considering the background of my character, I don't think he'd be given it.

HEHE yes I had a necromancer once who had the chance to learn the summon/control maggot spell. My gm had just glanced at the spell lists and did not really think twice about it then I looked up the stats for it cause I am like who would want to summon a maggot. I showed the stats for it and he blanched and was like um here take two other spells instead and I had to agree. Those things are insanely strong for something thats pretty easily summoned and controllable once it is summoned.

Grimlock wrote:

Tor wrote:

Nekira Sudacne wrote:Monsters, not demons, Maggot is a greater demon.

Was about to say "no" but then I realized for some reason I was confusing them with the Blow Worms, the highest MDC of the Worms of Taut.

Kind wondering if WoT qualify as sub-demons like Gargoyles?

According to Rifts Atlantis, pg. 90, Worms of Taut are listed as a legal option for a Monster Tattoo.

I gotta say that the more I investigate the validity of Monster Tattoos, the more questions it raises. Truly frustrating.

Yes the problem is the terminology of what is a monster/supernatural monster/demon/minor demon/lesser demon/creature of magic are all really grey muddy areas and so anything that involves summoning/controlling these things is messy and raises lots of questions.

kaid wrote:I showed the stats for it and he blanched and was like um here take two other spells instead and I had to agree. Those things are insanely strong for something thats pretty easily summoned and controllable once it is summoned.

I see that as kinda lazy GMing. Instead of forcing you to take other spells, he could've roleplayed the consequences of using it.

For example, the Lord of the Magots (who this is varies depending on if you read CB1 or D&G) getting angry that you're summoning his guys, potentially getting them killed. He might send greater demons to come and take your tongue for abusing his Magots.

Max stats for the monster summoned, including its natural language abilities.

I had a Unicorn on my Undead Slayer. Pretty decent in combat, kind of distracting for the enemy to see a majestic white horse with a golden spiraled horn on its forehead. Also if you are quick and don't mind leaving enemies in your wake you can sell it for millions, just be long gone before it poofs out of existence and be prepared for the downstream repercussions of your nefarious ways.

Thinyser wrote:Max stats for the monster summoned, including its natural language abilities.

If so, which languages? I've always assumed summoned creatures would only know the Native language of the T-Man, and any additional languages a standard monster may know wouldn't apply.

Grimlock wrote:

Thinyser wrote:Max stats for the monster summoned, including its natural language abilities.

If so, which languages? I've always assumed summoned creatures would only know the Native language of the T-Man, and any additional languages a standard monster may know wouldn't apply.

Whatever makes most sense to you I guess.

Of course you have the T-man's language of choice but it could also have Gobeley, Dragonese/elven, Wolphen, etc. Depends on the monster, the player's choice and the GM's ok.

Grimlock wrote:

Thinyser wrote:Max stats for the monster summoned, including its natural language abilities.

If so, which languages? I've always assumed summoned creatures would only know the Native language of the T-Man, and any additional languages a standard monster may know wouldn't apply.

Whatever makes most sense to you I guess.

Of course you have the T-man's language of choice but it could also have Gobeley, Dragonese/elven, Wolphen, etc. Depends on the monster, the player's choice and the GM's ok.

I'd say that i something is low enough in intelligence to be capable of being a Monster Tattoo, it can't speak at all. It can merely understand those languages when given commands much like a Dog.

Giant2005 wrote:I'd say that i something is low enough in intelligence to be capable of being a Monster Tattoo, it can't speak at all. It can merely understand those languages when given commands much like a Dog.

+1

Giant2005 wrote:I'd say that i something is low enough in intelligence to be capable of being a Monster Tattoo, it can't speak at all. It can merely understand those languages when given commands much like a Dog.

+2

We can test that assumption by looking at the IQ and speech abilities of various monsters we know exist as tattoos via NPC example or specific reference.

"animal-like predatory monsters" we know can be tats:

Chimera
Dragondactyl
Dragonsaurus
Erythrusuchus (Mokele-mbembe)
Giant Spider
Gryphon
Harpy
Manticore
Melech
Pegasus
Peryton
Worms of Taut
Yahzhing Multipede

"intelligent monsters" we know definitely can't be tats:

Dragons
Eandroth
Demons
Gromek
Minotaurs
Elementals

The confusing thing about this is that some of the tattoo-possible monsters ave a fixed IQ as high minimally as 5 (Pegasus+Peryton) or 6 (Serpent Beasts) while Elementals are supposed to have rudimentary intelligences of 4, yet are supposedly more intelligent?

Clearly there has to be more than intelligence or language that is the issue here. Probably something to do with 'animal-like' or 'predatory' that enables it. Elementals are certainly not like animals, nor are they predatory, so that may be why they can't be tattoos.

The most intelligent of the tat monsters (aforementioned Manticore) can speak dragonese perfectly (and maybe 1-4 others) AND roll an IQ as high as 8, so it must be their predatory nature that enables them to be summoned.

Demons being universally off-limits is also a confusing issue, as not all of them are intelligent. Just looking at the Hades breeds, the Aquatics and Magots and Shedim are both clearly animal-like, predatory, and have an IQ equivalent to Manticores, so I can't see any logical reason why they couldn't also be a tattoo except for them being explicitly off-limits by nature of being demons. Same with the lesser Deevils the Gorgons, or the Basilisk dragons.

Similarly the Lasae are less smart than Manticores, equivalent to a Melech.

Maybe the ones that can't be tattoos pass the Mirror Test.

Are you saying a Manticore can't pass the mirror test? I imagine anything that can master our language can pass that test.

Maybe Manticores are just so darn predatory that they can be tats in spite of their epic intelligence.

Better question: what stops a Hundred Handed from being a Monster Tattoo when there's no upper-MDC limit like with Monster Shaping (3k) or Nazca Lines (1k) ?

Well obviously there's something going on with them that makes them stupid enough to be used as a monster tattoo. Personally I would have made the cut-off point at having a language skill, but then I'm not working at the company.

The Beast wrote:Well obviously there's something going on with them that makes them stupid enough to be used as a monster tattoo. Personally I would have made the cut-off point at having a language skill, but then I'm not working at the company.

It makes sense, to me, that the only language a Monster Tattoo would understand is the creators Native Language.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:

Witchcraft wrote:I wish I knew the answer FOR SURE. I'm pretty sure you use the MAX stats. And, while you're at it I'd get a Tattoo of a MAGOT

Monsters, not demons, Maggot is a greater demon.

Like demons are not monsters? It depends on whether the maggot is brainless enough to qualify as a predatory monster eligible for the tattoo (and of course on the goodwill of the GM)

Grimlock wrote:

The Beast wrote:

Grimlock wrote:

The Beast wrote:

Long Shadow wrote:Remind me but isn't the monster tattoo restricted to non-intelligent monsters? If that is the case, I don't think the manticore is valid then.

Only animal-like predatory monsters can be created, and manticores are in the example listed.

I remember re-reading the section on Monster Tattoos and, yes, Manticores were listed as a valid option. I thought that the ability to understand a language made them too smart to be considered for such a tattoo, but the Gryphon is ALSO listed, and they are also able to comprehend multiple languages.

Anyone know anything about the rules on the attributes for Monter Tattoo? And WHICH languages would said creatures understand, if any?

I'd go with max stats since the MDC/SDC & HP are maxed. Also they'd understand whatever languages the caster speaks. I'm not sure if they'd understand only the caster though...

One vote for maximum statistics. Thanks.

I just realized something about the Monster Tattoo's known languages, specifically regarding the Manticore:

Manticore's speak Dragonese/Elf. If a Tattooed Man cannot speak Dragonese/Elf, and does not have the Eye of Knowledge Tattoo or a Universal Translator, could they create a Manticore to act as translator in a situation where such a language barrier exists?

I'm going to chat with my GM and push the idea, at least for our campaign, that all Monster Tattoos only have the creator's Native Language and are NOT able to speak any additional languages. I imagine Monster Tattoos were created for combat and transportation; magically re-creating the language abilities of the monsters they represent would be superfluous.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:

Witchcraft wrote:I wish I knew the answer FOR SURE. I'm pretty sure you use the MAX stats. And, while you're at it I'd get a Tattoo of a MAGOT

Monsters, not demons, Maggot is a greater demon.

Also, I'd imagine that the Splugorth wouldn't be giving out a Tattoos that powerful to just any but the most loyal and high level Maxi-Men and Tattooed Men. Yes, Maggots are out of the question, but I would say that even a Manticore (220 MDC) might be too powerful for a 1st-level Tattooed Man.

Mmmh, isn't Dragonese the lingua franca of the Splugorth empire? I can't very well see a splugorth slave not taught to understand its masters

As to the power level of maggot, yes, that might be out of reach, depending on whether the T man is trusted enough and has enough PPE for it. But a manticore would definitely be alright... you need powerful fighting tools, and summoning such a being has its cost (100 PPE is not an amount I'd spend lightly)

The Beast wrote:Well obviously there's something going on with them that makes them stupid enough to be used as a monster tattoo.

I don't think stupidity has ever been the issue here. Elementals are dumber than a lot of animals who can't be tattoos. It has to be the 'predatorial animal' essence. Something elementals are too alien to have in spite of their stupidity, yet which Manticores retain in spite of their intellect.

Svartalf wrote:

Nekira Sudacne wrote:

Witchcraft wrote:I wish I knew the answer FOR SURE. I'm pretty sure you use the MAX stats. And, while you're at it I'd get a Tattoo of a MAGOT

Monsters, not demons, Maggot is a greater demon.

Like demons are not monsters? It depends on whether the maggot is brainless enough to qualify as a predatory monster eligible for the tattoo (and of course on the goodwill of the GM)

Monsters and demons are distinct as far as game and magical terminology goes. the fact that english happens to have a definition of monster broad enough to include demons as a kind of monster dosn't mean magical things that effect monsters will effect demons, nor does it mean magical things that effect demons effect monsters. If you had a language that used the same word for monsters, demons, angels, and elementals, a kind of ur-spirit concept, that wouldn't mean suddenly any spell they use that effects one effects them all. because magic dosn't care what language you are speaking.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:

Svartalf wrote:

Nekira Sudacne wrote:

Witchcraft wrote:I wish I knew the answer FOR SURE. I'm pretty sure you use the MAX stats. And, while you're at it I'd get a Tattoo of a MAGOT

Monsters, not demons, Maggot is a greater demon.

Like demons are not monsters? It depends on whether the maggot is brainless enough to qualify as a predatory monster eligible for the tattoo (and of course on the goodwill of the GM)

Monsters and demons are distinct as far as game and magical terminology goes. the fact that english happens to have a definition of monster broad enough to include demons as a kind of monster dosn't mean magical things that effect monsters will effect demons, nor does it mean magical things that effect demons effect monsters. If you had a language that used the same word for monsters, demons, angels, and elementals, a kind of ur-spirit concept, that wouldn't mean suddenly any spell they use that effects one effects them all. because magic dosn't care what language you are speaking.

I just wanted to add that "Rifts: Ultimate Edition" has made a further distinction, separating Creatures of Magic from the "Monster" definition.

It's worth noting that we could probably construct a Venn diagram of overlap, as I'm pretty confident there are numerous creatures who have been referred to with multiple titles among monster/demon/CoM/supernatural and so on.

Ah good old Venn and his overlappin'

Should make a really fat merchant named Venn see how many people get the fat "overlapping" reference

That diagram is false, it is possible to both have a reason to make one, and to put a funny one on the Internet, even accepting the false implication that internet fun is not an application of its purpose, which is to demonstrate overlap.

In fact, the purpose is usually to convey truth, and what I see here is actually a false VD meant to be funny by making fun of VDers, and therefore probably irony.

Tor wrote:That diagram is false, it is possible to both have a reason to make one, and to put a funny one on the Internet, even accepting the false implication that internet fun is not an application of its purpose, which is to demonstrate overlap.

In fact, the purpose is usually to convey truth, and what I see here is actually a false VD meant to be funny by making fun of VDers, and therefore probably irony.

Yeah pretty sure that was the point.

I figure I'd thoroughly derail this thread with this:
http://cdn2.fashionablygeek.com/wp-cont ... 90x382.jpg