Bad 3E module design (LONG!)
Duane VP
I'm not impressed. I gotta say that. Although I am appreciative of what
_is_ available and hold no superior-than-thou attitude that I personally can
do far better (if I could I would and make money in the process) I don't
know that adventure writers yet have a real grasp of the dynamics of Third
Edition - and it shows. Now it's not like I've been buying, reading and
reviewing the tons of d20 product out there so if people want to cite what
they think are OUTSTANDING modules by all means I wanna hear it. If you
have found what you think is a _reliable_ individual reviewer or website
please forward the link.
What do I think is the problem? First and formost it's time. It took
very little time for me to see that game time was a _significant_ factor
that writers were overlooking entirely. They are making dungeons in the
same sizes and with the same monster populations as in previous editions.
You just cant do that. There's this wonderful little mechanic built into 3E
where a "typical" or "standard" encounter is going to drain the party of 20%
of it's health and resources. Because of that it takes far, FAR fewer
encounters to force a party of PC's to fall back or pull out to rest &
recuperate than in previous editions. The first module I ran was Sunless
Citadel and I noticed this immediately so I'll use that as Exhibit "A".
This is a dungeon with a dynamic population. By that I mean you have
different factions controlling different parts of the dungeon. They are at
war with each other. This is not a situation that will remain exactly as
written in the dungeon key after the PC's take a stroll through it and kill
a bunch from one side or another. It's not a static situation that will be
the same if the PC's reenter a dozen times over a period of two months. It
needs to adapt in reaction as changes are inflicted by the PC's - overnight.
But we have this thing where the PC's MUST pull out or hole up in order to
recuperate after a certain number of encounters in this dungeon. They
cannot clean the place out in one fell swoop unless they are much more
powerful than the writer intended. (If they are then the combat is much too
easy and the efforts in assembling a large, complex, dynamic dungeon - a
dungeon whose subtle details make it more interesting - are wasted.) When
the PC's pull out to rest and recover - the dungeon will adapt to the new
situation. If the PC's kill 3/4 of the goblins and then go outside to rest
for a day, while they're gone the kobolds will become acutely aware of the
deaths of large numbers of goblins and are bound to finish the job! They
will at least begin to press their now obvious advantage. The goblins in
turn will realize that they are in bad way. They need to react to the loss
of 3/4 of their numbers by improving their defensive positions and tactics,
abandoning the dungeon or something. The one thing they AREN'T going to do
is _nothing_.
[Quick aside - did anyone else notice that it would have been impossible
for the goblin carrying the apple to get in and out of a the dungeon without
passing through kobold-held territory? How did he do it?]
But the bigger problem is that this is NOT just a one-day only retreat.
This will have to be done _several_ times in order to complete the module.
Each time there is a long period of time where the inhabitants of the
dungeon will be wandering about inside it as they normally do and find many
areas where the PC's have hacked their way in, looted and left. The dungeon
WILL react to this. But if that's the case - why bother even writing a
detailed key to the lowest levels and furthest rooms? By the time the PC's
get to them the situation in the dungeon WILL have changed. Defenses will
have been prepared, patrols will be organized, etc. After the first go at
the place the element of strategic surprise is gone and the PC's are not
going to find the inhabitants playing cards and picking noses when they kick
down the doors to their rooms.
Now not all dungeons are going to be held by combative factions like
Sunless Citadel but if they are inhabited by living, intelligent creatures
they WILL react to being systematically cleansed of life and treasure. The
conclusion is obvious - if the PC's are not expected to be able to take the
dungeon in a single foray then the writer of the module MUST take into
account how the inhabitants will react when the PC's (by design of the game
system) have to hole up or pull out for a period of recovery. Dungeons need
to be SHORTER! The longer you make a dungeon the more likely it is you'll
have to factor in repeated extrications or adjust the problems inherent in
having many more rooms by having a higher proportion of them be easy
encounters rather than standard challenges. They need to be more easily
dealt with without draining health and resources either by having the CR's
of the opponents significantly lowered or giving the PC's advantages in
surprise, or positioning. Or perhaps by providing a steady supply of
resources that the PC's can put to use: healing potions, combat spells on
scrolls or wand. How it's done doesn't matter as much as realizing that
this is a dynamic inherent in the system that needs addressing.
The next full module the players went through was "Dungeon of the Fire
Opal" from Dungeon Magazine. Game Time again became a signficant factor,
although in a slightly different way. In this case the dungeon was more
static as the creatures involved were mostly unintelligent critters, undead,
summoned outsiders, etc. that would not react in such dynamic ways to
changes in other parts of the dungeon. However, the encounters were
consistently of the "average" challenge variety. They did what they were
supposed to do according to Third Edition design and drained the party of
20% of their health and resources. Every 4 rooms (or less!) they had to
leave the dungeon and spend a night or more healing and preparing for the
next foray. From the character's perspectives they were averaging maybe 1/2
hour in the dungeon a day and the rest was spent _outside_ it healing and
recovering spells. This was a single level dungeon with about 50 keyed
areas IIRC and it took _2 weeks_ of game time and 4 game sessions to clear
it.
While this _was_ at a point where everyone (including me, the DM) was
spending a fair amount of time yet getting familiar with the 3E system, this
relatively simple dungeon took an inordinate amount of time (game and
session-wise) to finish. Had it been a dynamic rather than static dungeon
it would have taken much longer still because an active, coordinated defense
by the inhabitants would have made penetration deadlier and recovery
anywhere near the dungeon entrance unthinkable, meaning repeated travel to
and from a safe base of operations would have been necessary. This in turn
would have further complicated and delayed things with random wilderness
encounters during travel. The nature of the so-called "dungeon crawl" has
to change to fit 3rd Edition.
That's not the end of my complaints though. As I said, we completed
Sunless Citadel, we completed part of Forge of Fury, we completed "Dungeon
of the Fire Opal" from Dungeon Magazine. As we neared the end of "Opal" I
realized the PC's were WOEFULLY underequipped for their level. While the
cash they had been recovering seemed adequate they had a paltry amount of
magic weapons and miscellaneous magic to their names. These dungeons were
not providing the treasure rewards that they should have. I actually had to
throw in a big, gratuitous pile of treasure and they STILL are
underequipped. We're now going through Speaker in Dreams and this is not
changing. There is a PATHETIC level of magical reward being provided in
these modules. My DMG says these 4th level characters should have 5400gp in
equipment. They don't even have HALF that value - and this is what they are
getting going through WotC own modules! I don't mind having to _remove_
treasure to fit my campaign. That's to be expected because it's something
that's always had to be done in order to adapt generic modules to a specific
campaign without unbalancing things. But having to _add_ treasure is
whacked!
I have barely delved at all into the sea of 3rd party d20 products.
None of them seemed to be adventures that I was interested in or thought
would fit my campaign. Do you see these same problems in non-WotC d20
stuff?
--
Duane VanderPol
http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp
Allen Wessels
"Duane VP" <dua...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I'm not impressed. I gotta say that. Although I am appreciative of
> what
<travelogue deleted>
What is the makeup of the party that ran through the module?
- Allen
Ben Buckner
Mostly rouges.
Ben B.
dilbert
That probably explains some of the problem. We had a fairly balanced
group (Fighter, Sorceror, Cleric, Rogue and Monk), and (although we
did have to leave and re-enter on accasion), we didn't see near the
same time lapse. The healing capacity of a single priest is amazing.
Mind you, the first day we went into the Sunless dungeon, we went down
the "rats passage" and fared rather poorly, mainly due to bad rolls.
That area would neither have known we were coming nor cared that we
left (no Kobold or Goblin encounters). We were able to heal up quite
nicely after that.
Second foray, the magical fear trap (other way) caught us off guard,
and we decided tp rest up, although we weren't too bad off, to let the
priest recover a full complement of spells and make a third effort at
full strength.
We negotiated with the Kobolds, and retrieved the dragon from the
goblin caves. The goblins lost some numbers, but the kobolds were
busy with teh retrieved dragon, and the goblins had no way of knowing
this wasn't a kobold attack (prisoners were taken, but returned with
the kobolds) before we made our next foray (day 4).
The goblins were hurting by this time, and moved en masse to a more
defensible position in case of further kobold attacks. They were
defeated, and some questioned, giving us a bit of an idea what was
down below.
Pretty much every foray was similar to this. Yes, we had to pull out,
but the enemy either had little or no reason to change their routines,
or enough damage was done that all they could reasonably do is pull
back and retrench.
This "move in; fight a few battles; retrench" structure is a bit
frustrating, however, and it's irritating to see that the modules have
regressed to the old, predictable "Module cover has two sides so
dungeon has two levels" format. 3E seems to be a backwards step from
a position of creativity in module design (ie maybe we could have some
smaller dungeons with some overland travel, a bit of time in a town,
etc.). Moreover, the scenarios, from my limited vantage, seem to have
returned to a focus on tactical combat, and place little effort into a
plot beyond "someone hires you to get something out of a dungeon".
Maybe this has something to do with sales of plot-oriented scenarios,
many of the lines dedicated to which are now cancelled (later
Ravenloft for sure; was Planescape heavily into plot?). If the
"Dungeon Crawl" series did well, that would seem to be a sign that
these are the scenarios gamers want to buy, so forget the plot-heavy
scenarios.
If so, it's a real shame, since the plot-heavy scenarios tended to be
produced for niche markets (as noted above) while the Crawls were for
the more typical D&D settings. I know I was attracted to Ravenloft
due to the scenario quality (ie plot equal to or above combat), not
attracted to the scenarios for love of the setting. I'd be just as
happy to see some plot-oriented scenarios for mainstream worlds (the
Sword of the Dales and Volo series from a few years back come to
mind).
Hunter
>
>This "move in; fight a few battles; retrench" structure is a bit
>frustrating, however, and it's irritating to see that the modules have
>regressed to the old, predictable "Module cover has two sides so
>dungeon has two levels" format. 3E seems to be a backwards step from
>a position of creativity in module design (ie maybe we could have some
>smaller dungeons with some overland travel, a bit of time in a town,
>etc.). Moreover, the scenarios, from my limited vantage, seem to have
>returned to a focus on tactical combat, and place little effort into a
>plot beyond "someone hires you to get something out of a dungeon".
>Maybe this has something to do with sales of plot-oriented scenarios,
>many of the lines dedicated to which are now cancelled (later
>Ravenloft for sure; was Planescape heavily into plot?). If the
>"Dungeon Crawl" series did well, that would seem to be a sign that
>these are the scenarios gamers want to buy, so forget the plot-heavy
>scenarios.
>
>If so, it's a real shame, since the plot-heavy scenarios tended to be
>produced for niche markets (as noted above) while the Crawls were for
>the more typical D&D settings. I know I was attracted to Ravenloft
>due to the scenario quality (ie plot equal to or above combat), not
>attracted to the scenarios for love of the setting. I'd be just as
>happy to see some plot-oriented scenarios for mainstream worlds (the
>Sword of the Dales and Volo series from a few years back come to
>mind).
I think that most feel that a plot is easier to come up with and wing than a
full dungeon design and a dungeon is harder for the players to derail and make
the rest of the material useless. Hence dungeons sell better.
HADSIL
>different factions controlling different parts of the dungeon. They are at
>war with each other. This is not a situation that will remain exactly as
>written in the dungeon key after the PC's take a stroll through it and kill
>a bunch from one side or another. It's not a static situation that will be
>the same if the PC's reenter a dozen times over a period of two months. It
>needs to adapt in reaction as changes are inflicted by the PC's - overnight.
>But we have this thing where the PC's MUST pull out or hole up in order to
>recuperate after a certain number of encounters in this dungeon. They
>cannot clean the place out in one fell swoop unless they are much more
>powerful than the writer intended. (If they are then the combat is much too
>easy and the efforts in assembling a large, complex, dynamic dungeon - a
>dungeon whose subtle details make it more interesting - are wasted.) When
>the PC's pull out to rest and recover - the dungeon will adapt to the new
>situation. If the PC's kill 3/4 of the goblins and then go outside to rest
>for a day, while they're gone the kobolds will become acutely aware of the
>deaths of large numbers of goblins and are bound to finish the job! They
>will at least begin to press their now obvious advantage. The goblins in
>turn will realize that they are in bad way. They need to react to the loss
>of 3/4 of their numbers by improving their defensive positions and tactics,
>abandoning the dungeon or something. The one thing they AREN'T going to do
>is _nothing_.
Heh. The kobolds LOVE my party, Turlough et al. Thanks to us "rescuing" their
dragon and killing most of the goblins, they have taken over Sunless Citadel.
We are official Honorary Members of their tribe. The Queen gifted us with some
of the goblin booty, including a fully charged Wand Of Cure Light Wounds which
has proven very helpful in our further adventures. My character is very proud
to be an Honorary Kobold. He boasts about it. Out of character, I think it's
very cool too.
Gerald Katz
It's the players' game too!
HADSIL
kobolds helped a lot. Our party was able to safely rest and recuperate in
kobold territory. We didn't have to leave the dungeon.
Zimri
> Maybe this has something to do with sales of plot-oriented
scenarios,
> many of the lines dedicated to which are now cancelled (later
> Ravenloft for sure; was Planescape heavily into plot?).
It depends. Some Planescape modules IMO were VERY heavily plotted, to
the brink of railroading. The most egregious example was "Dead Gods",
where the players might not know what they accomplished even at the
end. ("Okay... we destroyed an ugly wand... so...") "Fires of Dis" and
"Hellbound" definitely had their objectives too, but the former did
allow the PC's time to sample the local, er, hospitality. Other
modules were just psychedelic, like the one with the bald people
wearing worms in their skin, but most laughably Bill Slavicsek's
repeated comments on "hyper-reality" (someone's been going to raves).
Plotted or not, and whether you liked it or not (I liked it)
Planescape was definitely not a setting of dungeon crawls.
-- Z
zeadeATstanfordalumni.org
><Warning: module spoilers ahead>
> [Quick aside - did anyone else notice that it would have been impossible
>for the goblin carrying the apple to get in and out of a the dungeon without
>passing through kobold-held territory? How did he do it?]
Well, the kobold incursion into the Sunless Citadel is fairly recent, I
placed it within just a couple weeks previous of when the PCs first ran
into them. Obviously, as the control of the dungeon is laid out in the
module a goblin wouldn't be able to likely make it to the surface
through the Citadel for *future* apple sales. If it was vitally
important he be able to do this during your campaign, I'd just graft a
passage around the kobolds through "neutral" territory. The goblins had
been in this citadel for (at least) decades.
>This will have to be done _several_ times in order to complete the module.
Yup, my PCs began to loathe the rats because of the disease factor.
Many trips back and forth from town to recuperate from filth fever.
>Defenses will
>have been prepared, patrols will be organized, etc. After the first go at
>the place the element of strategic surprise is gone and the PC's are not
>going to find the inhabitants playing cards and picking noses when they kick
>down the doors to their rooms.
Er, well I'm not sure how you run your NPCs, but I've never really had
my goblins sitting around unready. They are after all at war with the
kobolds, and (as I ran it), both sides definitely made feinting raids at
the other. As far as defences go, they had *2* crenelated walls set up
(which I made higher), and when any situation looked bad the goblins
always had some run to warn others. The only time the goblins fought to
their death intentionally (mostly) was the battle with the goblin chief.
After the first encounter, they knew full well about the PCs. But the
truth of the matter is, well-prepared PCs still kicked the snot out of
the goblins no matter how many I'd throw at the party. In an open
setting where numbers could be better leveraged, that may not have been
the case, but in the narrow dungeons, the gobs didn't have much of a
chance.
After a few assaults on the goblin walls the PCs got wise about their
tactics, and eventually came ready to hold an area while they
recuperated instead of falling all the way back to the kobolds (who they
were cooperating with).
>There is a PATHETIC level of magical reward being provided in
>these modules. My DMG says these 4th level characters should have 5400gp in
>equipment.
I would agree that (for Sunless Citadel) the payoff scale is meager when
compared to the chart in the DMG. At the same time I think there's
plenty of opportunity to give nicer items to the PCs than as written in
the module without it seeming at all obvious.
huzzah,
Micah
Stephenls
> Speaking of being Honorary Kobolds, the fact that we did make friends
> with the kobolds helped a lot. Our party was able to safely rest and
> recuperate in kobold territory. We didn't have to leave the dungeon.
I take it kobolds in your campaign world are Lawful Neutral?
Although really, I think that's a neat idea, which I might incorporate
the next time I run the module (If I do run it again).
--
Stephenls
Geek
I'd like to, but I'm paralyzed with not caring very much.
--Spike
Ed Chauvin IV
> That's not the end of my complaints though. As I said, we completed
>Sunless Citadel, we completed part of Forge of Fury, we completed "Dungeon
>of the Fire Opal" from Dungeon Magazine. As we neared the end of "Opal" I
>realized the PC's were WOEFULLY underequipped for their level. While the
>cash they had been recovering seemed adequate they had a paltry amount of
>magic weapons and miscellaneous magic to their names. These dungeons were
>not providing the treasure rewards that they should have. I actually had to
>throw in a big, gratuitous pile of treasure and they STILL are
>underequipped. We're now going through Speaker in Dreams and this is not
>changing. There is a PATHETIC level of magical reward being provided in
>these modules. My DMG says these 4th level characters should have 5400gp in
>equipment. They don't even have HALF that value - and this is what they are
>getting going through WotC own modules! I don't mind having to _remove_
>treasure to fit my campaign. That's to be expected because it's something
>that's always had to be done in order to adapt generic modules to a specific
>campaign without unbalancing things. But having to _add_ treasure is
>whacked!
I just wanted to chime in here on the treasure issue. I agree that the WotC
modules provide meager material rewards for the PCs, but I personally prefer it
that way. Nothing's worse than running a dungeon and realizing after the PCs
already got the Whiz Bang Super Magic Weapon just how powerful the damnable
thing is and how much you wish you hadn't given it to them in the first place.
Now, some might say, "Well, just send in the Goons Who Steal Overpowered Magic
Items At Night and take it away.", but A: I don't like to run my games that way
and B: my players don't like it either and they wouldn't just sit there and take
it. They'd spend the next 8 sessions tracking down the Goon Squad. Which means
I've got to come up with wads of background on them, map out a lair, schedule
Goon Squad company picnics... Well, you get the picture.
Much easier to keep tabs on the PCs overall power level and round it out with an
extra item or 3. Besides, I've always enjoyed creating magic items, along with
interesting histories and details. It's one of the best ways of introducing
flavor into a game world, since the players are inherently interested in any
magic items they run across.
Ed Chauvin IV
--
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the Beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed,
the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
zeadeATstanfordalumni.org
>HADSIL wrote:
<more Sunless Citadel spoilers>
>> Speaking of being Honorary Kobolds, the fact that we did make friends
>> with the kobolds helped a lot. Our party was able to safely rest and
>> recuperate in kobold territory. We didn't have to leave the dungeon.
>
>I take it kobolds in your campaign world are Lawful Neutral?
>
>Although really, I think that's a neat idea, which I might incorporate
>the next time I run the module (If I do run it again).
I ran Yusdryl (the kobold sorcerer in charge) as LN. Harsh, but fair,
her word was law for the clan. The PCs, while kept under close watch
and not allowed much freedom in the kobold controlled areas, were
certainly welcome to stay in the "dragon cage room" with Meepo (who I
played as being a bit ostracized from the community since the loss of
the dragon).
Micah
dave brohman & shoshana bir
>
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 20:58:55 -0500, Ben Buckner
> <tar...@imap2.asu.edu> wrote:
>
> >Allen Wessels wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <FHrZ6.4061$5D5.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> >> "Duane VP" <dua...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I'm not impressed. I gotta say that. Although I am appreciative of
> >> > what
> >>
> >> <travelogue deleted>
> >>
> >> What is the makeup of the party that ran through the module?
> >
> >Mostly rouges.
> >
> >Ben B.
>
> That probably explains some of the problem. We had a fairly balanced
> group (Fighter, Sorceror, Cleric, Rogue and Monk), and (although we
> did have to leave and re-enter on accasion), we didn't see near the
> same time lapse. The healing capacity of a single priest is amazing.
I think you missed the joke.
He was making a pun based on a mispelling common in this group; rouge
instead of rogue. Rouge is a type of makeup. Thus the pun on "makeup
of the group".
--
Budding RPG author: Relics & Rituals, Creature Collection II,
Vigil Watch: Warrens of the Ratmen
Check these out at: http://www.swordsorcery.com/
Ichabod
"Duane VP" <dua...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<snip complaints about WotC modules>
> I have barely delved at all into the sea of 3rd party d20 products.
> None of them seemed to be adventures that I was interested in or thought
> would fit my campaign. Do you see these same problems in non-WotC d20
> stuff?
I don't know about the non-WotC stuff, but I'll agree with you about
the WotC material. I ran the Standing Stone for my group, as an aside
from my Greyhawk campaign. The ranger and the druid had viciously
killed some Myconids, so I figured they were out of touch with nature
and couldn't go up levels. Doing the Standing Stone module would be
a good way for them to get an atonement.
So they fake me out, and get to that part earlier than I expected,
and I had to run the adventure just having skimmed it. Due to really
bad organization in the module, I screwed up a couple of things. Frex,
it doesn't say that the ghost isn't supposed to look like a ghost, so
I had it look like a ghost and that screwed up some of the stuff NPCs
said later on. I wrapped up early, figuring it was my bad for not
having prepped the module.
Running it next session having read everything didn't help much.
Major NPCs are not given descriptions in the module. They don't
even bother to roll up individual h.p.s for the monsters, just
giving the average. Some of the creatures aren't even given stat
blocks, just a page reference in the MM (IIRC, this violates the
writers guidelines for Dungeon!). One of the creatures without a
stat block isn't even in the MM. You have to apply a template to
an animal to get the stats yourself! The exact location of certain
important things is never specified, and as I said, it's all poorly
organized. Not being eidetic, I had to look for info in the module
several times while running, and usually couldn't find it. Oh, and
the tactics given for the most powerful NPC are basically "use it's
weakest power until threatened in the least, then fly away laughing."
The pisser is that I think the *idea* of the module is good. But
the piss-poor execution of the idea ruined the module. I was really
looking forward to the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, but
if this is an indication of the quality of WotC's modules, I'm
going blow my hard earned bucks on something else.
--
Craig "Ichabod" O'Brien
Burger-flipper of the electronic age
Hail to the Thief!
Zimri
message news:3B374E07...@sympatico.ca...
Heh. Clever. I'm so used to seeing "rogue" and "tongue" misspelled
that I just gloss over those spellings now.
--
-- Zimri
***********
"No adult human really knows anyplace. You have to crawl everywhere
you can crawl, lick anything interesting, trace all the smells to
their sources, listen to ants trooping across walls, and eat a few
spiders before you really know a place."
-- Corey the Cat ("All Too Familiar", J Robert King, Dragon #259)
Wayne Shaw
>Sunless Citadel, we completed part of Forge of Fury, we completed "Dungeon
>of the Fire Opal" from Dungeon Magazine. As we neared the end of "Opal" I
>realized the PC's were WOEFULLY underequipped for their level. While the
>cash they had been recovering seemed adequate they had a paltry amount of
>magic weapons and miscellaneous magic to their names. These dungeons were
>not providing the treasure rewards that they should have. I actually had to
>throw in a big, gratuitous pile of treasure and they STILL are
>underequipped. We're now going through Speaker in Dreams and this is not
>changing. There is a PATHETIC level of magical reward being provided in
>these modules. My DMG says these 4th level characters should have 5400gp in
I think you've missed the implication of the fact 3e assumes magic
items are for sale; the reason they don't put in that much magical
treasure is that they assume the PCs will use the majority of their
financial treasure _buying_ them.
Karl Knechtel
> Allen Wessels wrote:
> >
<snip>
> > What is the makeup of the party that ran through the module?
>
> Mostly rouges.
>
Posts like this make me blush.
Karl Knechtel {:>
da728 at torfree dot net
Karl Knechtel
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 20:58:55 -0500, Ben Buckner
> <tar...@imap2.asu.edu> wrote:
>
> >Allen Wessels wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <FHrZ6.4061$5D5.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> >> "Duane VP" <dua...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I'm not impressed. I gotta say that. Although I am appreciative of
> >> > what
> >>
> >> <travelogue deleted>
> >>
> >> What is the makeup of the party that ran through the module?
^^^^^^
> >
> >Mostly rouges.
^^^^^^
> >
> >Ben B.
>
> That probably explains some of the problem. We had a fairly balanced
> group (Fighter, Sorceror, Cleric, Rogue and Monk), and (although we
> did have to leave and re-enter on accasion), we didn't see near the
> same time lapse. The healing capacity of a single priest is amazing.
>
<snip more travelogue>
Gods, you missed the joke *entirely*!
dave brohman & shoshana bir
Taht si teh porblem. ;)
Peter Seebach
Karl Knechtel <kne...@ecf.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Ben Buckner wrote:
>> Allen Wessels wrote:
>> > What is the makeup of the party that ran through the module?
>> Mostly rouges.
>Posts like this make me blush.
At least the pun had a solid foundation. I can't keep up with this thread
anymore; I'm going to go take a powder. I'm just dyeing to see what comes
up next, though. I hope no one glosses over any of the obvious opportunities.
Hey, anyone got liner notes for this?
-s
--
Copyright 2001, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
+--- Need quality network services, server-grade computers, or a shell? ---+
v C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon! v
Consulting, computers, web hosting, and shell access: http://www.plethora.net/
Quentin Stephens
<3B369ADF...@imap2.asu.edu>:
>> What is the makeup of the party that ran through the module?
>
>Mostly rouges.
So it's an imbalanced party. EOT.
--
qts
I don't ask that you like my opinion, only that you respect it.
john v verkuilen
>I just wanted to chime in here on the treasure issue. I agree that the WotC
>modules provide meager material rewards for the PCs, but I personally prefer it
>that way.
If this is the case (I don't know) it's quite a switch from the profligate with
treasure ways of older modules. I would regularly prorate things to 25% of
listed value.
Nothing's worse than running a dungeon and realizing after the PCs
>already got the Whiz Bang Super Magic Weapon just how powerful the damnable
>thing is and how much you wish you hadn't given it to them in the first place.
>extra item or 3. Besides, I've always enjoyed creating magic items, along with
>interesting histories and details. It's one of the best ways of introducing
>flavor into a game world, since the players are inherently interested in any
>magic items they run across.
Agreed on all points. IMO it would be a good strategy for the module designers
to indicate "This encounter has three other items of power levels X, Y, and Z,
which the GM should insert to suit the campaign."
Jay
--
J. Verkuilen ja...@uiuc.edu
"Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it
concentrates his mind wonderfully." --Dr. Samuel Johnson
john v verkuilen
>I think you missed the joke.
>He was making a pun based on a mispelling common in this group; rouge
>instead of rogue. Rouge is a type of makeup. Thus the pun on "makeup
>of the group".
You may be right. The sheer number of times I see "rouge" for "rogue"
consistently mis-spelled by people here is enough to make me miss the joke
too.
Justin Bacon
>for the goblin carrying the apple to get in and out of a the dungeon without
>passing through kobold-held territory? How did he do it?]
Yeah. This is a rather significant and annoying flaw in the module. Two
possible explanations seem to get put forward on a regular basis:
1. There is a route through the Underdark to the surface.
2. The kobolds have only recently gotten control of area 15 (possibly because
they only recently entered the Citadel). And/or, Area 15 has been repeatedly
"up for grabs" in the contest between goblins and kobolds -- with the goblins
getting the fruit out during those times when they hold the area.
>This will have to be done _several_ times in order to complete the module.
I didn't find this to be particularly true. Nor, when the PCs were forced to
rest, did this necessarily entail the PCs retreating all the way out of the
Citadel. There are several easily defensible positions within the Citadel, and
with a cleric in the group more than 12-16 hours of rest is probably not going
to be necessary before they can press on.
> By the time the PC's
>get to them the situation in the dungeon WILL have changed. Defenses will
>have been prepared, patrols will be organized, etc.
This is explicitly discussed on pg. 8 of the module. Of course, Cordell doesn't
go into a lot of detail -- discussing generalities, rather than specifics. But
that's because how the PCs handle the dungeon is going to vary *tremendously*
-- and trying to cover all possibilities would not only be impossible, but a
tremendous waste of space.
>Dungeons need to be SHORTER!
I disagree. Nothing bores me more than a short dungeon. I would rather have an
epic environment.
You might want to check out NEMOREN'S VAULT from Fiery Dragon Productions (a
D20 module). It has faults, but may be more in line with what you're looking
for. THE TIDE OF YEARS from Atlas Games is an unusual dungeon crawl which is
also shorter. SPEAR OF LOHGIN has a lot of execution flaws, but its basic
foundation is excellent and may be in line with what you're looking for.
You can check out my reviews at http://www.rpg.net. Alan D. Kohler also writes
some really nice reviews there of D20 stuff.
To hype my own material for a moment (these are all from FANTASY FLIGHT GAMES):
THE DRAGON'S WISH is a short dungeon crawl which would be right up your alley.
It's advertised for higher levels, but modifying it for levels as low as 1st
would be relatively trivial (it's mostly a matter of lowering the numbers of
kobolds the PCs will run into at one time). DARKWOOD'S SECRET features a short
dungeon crawl which fits the parameters you're describing. THE LOST HUNT would
almost certainly be along the lines of what you're looking for. THE WREYLAND
SERPENT would also probably work.
Hmm... I didn't think that much of my FFG output would fit your needs. The only
other module I've written for FFG is THE FIFTH SEPULCHER, which probably isn't
what you're looking for at all. (Lots of monsters -- although you can draw back
fairly securely, without the monsters regrouping with too many dynamics.)
>That's to be expected because it's something
>that's always had to be done in order to adapt generic modules to a specific
>campaign without unbalancing things. But having to _add_ treasure is
>whacked!
Whether you're adding treasure or taking it away, you're still doing
modification. Personally, I prefer the "underpowered, spice it up if you want"
approach -- since it's less unlikely that things will start becoming
unbalanced. It's always easier to give PCs stuff than to take it away.
> I have barely delved at all into the sea of 3rd party d20 products.
>None of them seemed to be adventures that I was interested in or thought
>would fit my campaign.
Definitely start checking them out. There's a lot of good stuff being produced.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
john v verkuilen
>In article <Pine.SGI.3.96.10106251...@skule.ecf>,
>Karl Knechtel <kne...@ecf.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Ben Buckner wrote:
>>> Allen Wessels wrote:
>>> > What is the makeup of the party that ran through the module?
>>> Mostly rouges.
>>Posts like this make me blush.
>At least the pun had a solid foundation. I can't keep up with this thread
>anymore; I'm going to go take a powder. I'm just dyeing to see what comes
>up next, though. I hope no one glosses over any of the obvious opportunities.
>Hey, anyone got liner notes for this?
For heinous punniness, Mr. Seebach, this court declares you persona non grata
here on r.g.f.d....
Justin Bacon
>The pisser is that I think the *idea* of the module is good. But
>the piss-poor execution of the idea ruined the module.
[speaking of THE STANDING STONE]
I agree completely. THE STANDING STONE was a good idea, which was badly blown
in the execution. Here's how I'm planning to modify it (if anybody cares):
1. I've modified the village and combined it with the setting of THE SUNLESS
CITADEL. This gives the village in THE SUNLESS CITADEL some nice character
(with the standing stones -- which have also been slightly modified in a mythos
with purpose behind it), and means that the NPCs in THE STANDING STONE have
been pre-established (so that when the PCs return and discover the horrible
truth -- that the villagers have been slaughtered and replaced with animal
dopplegangers -- it'll be more meaningful).
2. I've stripped down the power of the villains in the piece to match the PCs
-- Dyson is still in touch with extraplanar forces, and the Cuckoo is still
their local agent, but the Cuckoo is no longer a walking god who could wipe the
PCs out with a glance if he wanted to.
3. I've simplified the plot -- making it so that Dyson is only transforming
ravens, not every single creature in the forest. (This also neatly eliminates
the incredible hole in logic which has the author claiming that creating
eighty-seven humans from animals results in the entire forest being
depopulated.)
4. Successful completion of the module now has friendship with the wild elves
as a significant component. NPCs who ignore all logic so that they won't ally
with PCs annoy me to no end; so that's gone. Plus, it makes the final encounter
(in which the PCs basically face off against an entire village) at least
somewhat manageable.
5. I'm tying the spirit within the Great Barrow into the adventure properly --
instead of just being a meaningless red herring. But this hinges on the
cosmology of my campaign and world, so probably isn't generally applicable.
6. I am ignoring all of the boxed text -- which is horrid.
7. I am spreading more clues around, so that the PCs actually have a chance of
solving the mystery. I mean, supposedly they're going to figure things out --
but there is absolutely no way, in the module as published, that they *could*
figure anything out. There are literally *no* clues.
So, basically, I'm keeping the core idea: Villagers being replaced by an evil
sorceror with transformed animals. And I'm keeping the neat idea of using a
conglomerate of megalithic monuments, with a pseudo-Avebury at their center.
But the actual execution is for the birds.
JB
john v verkuilen
[snip--guess there was no one sentence I really wanted to quote]
I'm so used to this approach from many years of playing that it wouldn't
bother me. I've run dynamic dungeons (well adventures, rarely dungeons) for
years and rarely expected things to remain static. I also tend to hit
characters pretty damn hard in each encounter and thus cut back on the number
of encounters. So this doesn't seem like much of a big deal to me.
dilbert
wrote:
>HADSIL wrote:
>
>> Speaking of being Honorary Kobolds, the fact that we did make friends
>> with the kobolds helped a lot. Our party was able to safely rest and
>> recuperate in kobold territory. We didn't have to leave the dungeon.
>
>I take it kobolds in your campaign world are Lawful Neutral?
You have the same concerns we did - we made a point of cleaning up and
looking as healthy as we could before passing back through the
kobolds' territory to get outside, even though we were "friends".
dilbert
wrote:
I'm kind of trying to 'overlook' that... I find magic as a commodity
a really negative aspect to the 3rd Edition. I haven't DM'd 3E, but
there's no way magic arms and armor will be sold on the streets "Just
past the cabbage vendor and the carpetmaker".
Plus, you get all those magic item advantages without the risk of
having to defeat the previous owners who actually USE the items in
their own defense.
John Phillips
>If the
>"Dungeon Crawl" series did well, that would seem to be a sign that
>these are the scenarios gamers want to buy, so forget the plot-heavy
>scenarios.
>
>If so, it's a real shame, since the plot-heavy scenarios tended to be
>produced for niche markets (as noted above) while the Crawls were for
>the more typical D&D settings. I know I was attracted to Ravenloft
>due to the scenario quality (ie plot equal to or above combat), not
>attracted to the scenarios for love of the setting. I'd be just as
>happy to see some plot-oriented scenarios for mainstream worlds (the
>Sword of the Dales and Volo series from a few years back come to
>mind).
Never did like plot heavy scenarios. If you have a good group of players and
a
good GM plot will happen, no need for a specific plot to be forced on the
group.
Give me an adventure with a bare bones plot and I can work it into a game
with
little effort. Plot heavy ones are a pain to adapt, and can be a even bigger
pain for the players if they don't want to follow the plot as they are
expected to.
John
Hunter
It's not that common. It's just common enough that a smith might have a couple
of minor magic weapons or a suit of armor. Or a merchant in a shop might have
a wonderous item. I see magic as prevelant in D&D as owning your own plane or
yacht is in RL. Or submersible.
>Plus, you get all those magic item advantages without the risk of
>having to defeat the previous owners who actually USE the items in
>their own defense.
Where did they get them from? And where did they get them from?....
Sea Wasp
Then don't blame the modules which are NOT ignoring that.
Want to fix it?
Trivial. Take the money treasures in the dungeons, convert them into
appropriately-priced magical treasures.
Voila! They have to fight for their magic, no need for magical shops,
you're set.
O'course, you have to do some work for that, but that's the price you
pay for saying "Well, I don't want to do it THAT way." If you don't
want to work things the way the publishers do, you have to do the work
for yourself.
--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
/^\
;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
Peter Newman
>
> dilbert wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 00:26:01 -0700, Wayne Shaw <sh...@caprica.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >I think you've missed the implication of the fact 3e assumes magic
> > >items are for sale; the reason they don't put in that much magical
> > >treasure is that they assume the PCs will use the majority of their
> > >financial treasure _buying_ them.
> >
> > I'm kind of trying to 'overlook' that... I find magic as a commodity
> > a really negative aspect to the 3rd Edition. I haven't DM'd 3E, but
> > there's no way magic arms and armor will be sold on the streets "Just
> > past the cabbage vendor and the carpetmaker".
>
> Then don't blame the modules which are NOT ignoring that.
>
> Want to fix it?
>
> Trivial. Take the money treasures in the dungeons, convert them into
> appropriately-priced magical treasures.
>
> Voila! They have to fight for their magic, no need for magical shops,
> you're set.
If you do this than you will have made the module harder. 1,575
GP's in a sack can't hurt you very well. Spending that cash
on a 5d6 Wand of Fireballs with 7 charges and the whole party
might end up flash fried.
Sea Wasp
Only if you permit the monsters to (A) know what they have, and (B)
use it.
In the grand tradition of all module monsters, this is of course a
ridiculous idea. The monsters never have any idea what their treasure
contains, nor any idea how to use it even if they did.
dilbert
wrote:
>dilbert wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 00:26:01 -0700, Wayne Shaw <sh...@caprica.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >I think you've missed the implication of the fact 3e assumes magic
>> >items are for sale; the reason they don't put in that much magical
>> >treasure is that they assume the PCs will use the majority of their
>> >financial treasure _buying_ them.
>>
>> I'm kind of trying to 'overlook' that... I find magic as a commodity
>> a really negative aspect to the 3rd Edition. I haven't DM'd 3E, but
>> there's no way magic arms and armor will be sold on the streets "Just
>> past the cabbage vendor and the carpetmaker".
>
> Then don't blame the modules which are NOT ignoring that.
>
> Want to fix it?
>
> Trivial. Take the money treasures in the dungeons, convert them into
>appropriately-priced magical treasures.
>
> Voila! They have to fight for their magic, no need for magical shops,
>you're set.
>
> O'course, you have to do some work for that, but that's the price you
>pay for saying "Well, I don't want to do it THAT way." If you don't
>want to work things the way the publishers do, you have to do the work
>for yourself.
Or I can stick to 2nd edition, or I can play a different game, yadda
yadda yadda... I just fimnd the whole "Buy your magic here" seems a
lot more akin to a computer game than a "magic is a work of wonder"
setting. Out of curiosity, how many people out there are running on
the basis that players can access the magic item lists out of the D<MG
and pretty much buy anything they can afford?
I haven't found much wrong with the scenarios, actually. Mind you,
two isn't much of a sample size.
Just to push some hot buttons, though, I think it should be mandatory
to run Psionics strictly by the 3e Handbook if you want to claim
you're playing 3e D&D :^)
[anyone remember Gygax's article many years ago that basically said if
you vary the rules, you're not playing D&D?]
Practically, though, we've been playing 3e without the magic shops,
through the Sunless Citadel and well into the forge, and at L4, we've
accumulated 3 magic weapons between 5 characters, and I recall a few
potions and scrolls along the way.
I look at the "treasure shortage" another way. I think it attributes
more to scenario designers expecting everything to be paced like 2nd
Ed was. The level of magical loot would tie in if we were dealing
with the advancement rate in 2e (about 2-4 largish scenarios per
level, rather than about 2 levels per largish scenario). With the
expectation that level advancement requires about 13 or 14 encounters
(of average difficulty), and assuming a party of four or five
characters, an item for each character per level essentially requires
magical treasure as part of every third encounter, which seems awfully
frequent. Then again, if magic items are common enough that you can
buy them as a commodity, why wouldn't most of your opponents have
magic items?
dilbert
wrote:
So why don't the Kobolds/goblins/whatever go out and buy one? After
seven flash-fried adventuring parties, they should be able to make up
1,575 gp! [Actually, maybe buy a cold item instead - it's not as hard
on soft metals...]
If the pC's can buy whatever they want, why can't the NPC's?
dilbert
wrote:
>Peter Newman wrote:
hmmm...I wonder why that mage didn't use his ring of invisibility to
escape from us, rather than stand there and cast his meagre remaining
spells at us...
Rupert Boleyn
wrote:
> Only if you permit the monsters to (A) know what they have, and (B)
>use it.
>
> In the grand tradition of all module monsters, this is of course a
>ridiculous idea. The monsters never have any idea what their treasure
>contains, nor any idea how to use it even if they did.
I always liked all those giant slaying swords in Against the Giants. I
don't know about you guys, but if I ended up with all these weapons
designed to slay me that I couldn't use (if I could they'd be good for
use on my annoying relatives) I'd destroy 'em, not hang them on my
wall so adventurers could swipe 'em and use them on me.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rbo...@paradise.net.nz>
"Inside every cynic is a romantic trying to get out."
Ben Sisson
Yeah, 3ed definately assumes a "magic rich" environment. Maybe thats a
FR bias. But they assume far more magical items (and money for that
matter) than exist in any world I've ever created.
Magical items might be bought, on a "made to order" sort of basis, but
it would cost through the nose and would only be available in the
largest, most advanced cities.
Potions are a different story.. I don't mind potions being a lot more
available, at the price of 10gp x level of the spell x level of the
caster. I assume that most towns have at least a couple low level
clerics in their temple(s) who are capable of making potions. Makes
for a good money sink, and means if the party healer can't make it
some night they aren't totally screwed....
Rupert Boleyn
>Yeah, 3ed definately assumes a "magic rich" environment. Maybe thats a
>FR bias. But they assume far more magical items (and money for that
>matter) than exist in any world I've ever created.
I suggest you have a bit of a look at old pre-FR modules. IME 3e is no
more generos than they were, and compared to many it is less generous.
Note that a 5th level PC is assumed to have assets worth about
9,000gp. This will buy a +2 longsword (8,315gp), a masterwork
breastplate (350gp) and not a lot else.
>Magical items might be bought, on a "made to order" sort of basis, but
>it would cost through the nose and would only be available in the
>largest, most advanced cities.
Your basic +1 longsword costs 4315gp in 3e, so you need to go to a
Small City (5,001 - 12,000 people) to find one. I don't see why you
should have to put in a special order for such an item unless it's
exotic or otherwise non-standard. Of course the market may not have
exactly what you want on sale, especially if you're looking at gear
near the GP limit for that town.
>Potions are a different story.. I don't mind potions being a lot more
>available, at the price of 10gp x level of the spell x level of the
>caster.
That's cheap - 3e's price for potions is 50gp x level of the spell x
level.
Duane VP
news:awessels-3BF96A...@news.pacbell.net...
> In article <FHrZ6.4061$5D5.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "Duane VP" <dua...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > I'm not impressed. I gotta say that. Although I am appreciative of
> > what
>
> <travelogue deleted>
>
Started with a Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian, and a monk/cleric of Ilmater
for Sunless Citadel. Monk/Cleric died shortly into Forge of Fury and was
replaced by a straight monk. That character left after Dungeon of the Opal
Fist and was replaced by a wizard/cleric. The party has consitently had
potions and/or scrolls available to make up for lack of a single-classed
cleric.
--
Duane VanderPol
http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp
Hunter
>On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 21:50:53 -0400, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net>
>wrote:
>
>> Only if you permit the monsters to (A) know what they have, and (B)
>>use it.
>>
>> In the grand tradition of all module monsters, this is of course a
>>ridiculous idea. The monsters never have any idea what their treasure
>>contains, nor any idea how to use it even if they did.
>
>I always liked all those giant slaying swords in Against the Giants. I
>don't know about you guys, but if I ended up with all these weapons
>designed to slay me that I couldn't use (if I could they'd be good for
>use on my annoying relatives) I'd destroy 'em, not hang them on my
>wall so adventurers could swipe 'em and use them on me.
Like the dragon-slayer in Dragon Mountain.
Duane VP
news:20010625005235...@ng-ms1.news.cs.com...
> Heh. The kobolds LOVE my party, Turlough et al. Thanks to us "rescuing"
their
> dragon and killing most of the goblins, they have taken over Sunless
Citadel.
> We are official Honorary Members of their tribe. The Queen gifted us with
some
> of the goblin booty, including a fully charged Wand Of Cure Light Wounds
which
> has proven very helpful in our further adventures. My character is very
proud
> to be an Honorary Kobold. He boasts about it. Out of character, I think
it's
> very cool too.
The PC's did manage to make friends with the kobolds through dealings
with the dragon-keeper (Meepo?). They (rightfully) did not trust the
kobolds any further than they could throw them and considered the kobold
territory as safe to pass through but not to sleep in. They would not have
attacked the party as Meepo got them in good with the "queen", but the party
as yet had no reason to trust THEM and it would have been foolish to do so.
IIRC they did leave the kobolds alive. Though the paladin would have
siezed on any excuse to wipe them out they hadn't been caught by the party
doing anything actually evil. Again IIRC they notified the nearest
authorities of a newly "cleared" dungeon being held by a relatively weak
group of kobolds.
HADSIL
>
>> Speaking of being Honorary Kobolds, the fact that we did make friends
>> with the kobolds helped a lot. Our party was able to safely rest and
>> recuperate in kobold territory. We didn't have to leave the dungeon.
>
>I take it kobolds in your campaign world are Lawful Neutral?
>
>the next time I run the module (If I do run it again).
>Stephenls
>Geek
No, they were Lawful Evil, but they had no reason to distrust us nor us them.
When we first met we were willing to talk first instead of just hacking at
them. We wanted the key the Queen had so we agreed to get their dragon. They
were happy we were successful. We also killed the goblins, hobgloblins, and
bugbears for them. We were never a threat to the kobolds. I'm sure the
kobolds also appreciate we didn't stick around, but they'll accept friends. We
don't particularly care they now control Sunless Citadel. It's simply a case
of there not being any reason for any animosity.
Gerald Katz
It's the players' game too!
HADSIL
>her word was law for the clan. The PCs, while kept under close watch
>and not allowed much freedom in the kobold controlled areas, were
>certainly welcome to stay in the "dragon cage room" with Meepo (who I
>played as being a bit ostracized from the community since the loss of
>the dragon).
>
>
>Micah
Perhaps my GM was running the kobolds LN instead of LE. I don't know. It just
worked out that we made friends with them which proved mutually beneficial.
They got Sunless Citadel; we got a safe haven while clearing out the goblins
and a Wand Of Cure Light Wounds.
Allen Wessels
VP" <dua...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Started with a Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian, and a monk/cleric of
> Ilmater
> for Sunless Citadel. Monk/Cleric died shortly into Forge of Fury and was
> replaced by a straight monk. That character left after Dungeon of the
> Opal
> Fist and was replaced by a wizard/cleric. The party has consitently had
> potions and/or scrolls available to make up for lack of a single-classed
> cleric.
Seems a little combat heavy. I think a more classic mix would be 2
fighter types, a cleric, a mage, and a thief. If limited to 4, a
multiclass could fill in.
How well armored are the fighters?
- Allen
Duane VP
news:ebldjt8jb1eftbndi...@enews.newsguy.com...
> I just wanted to chime in here on the treasure issue. I agree that the
WotC
> modules provide meager material rewards for the PCs, but I personally
prefer it
PCs
> already got the Whiz Bang Super Magic Weapon just how powerful the
damnable
> thing is and how much you wish you hadn't given it to them in the first
place.
Ah! But 3E has _established_ levels of equipment value for characters.
It's one thing to write a module and then stamp it upfront with a clear
notice saying, "This module is low-magic, low-treasure. A standard 4 PC
party who succeed should average about X value of stuff instead of the usual
Y value. If you want them to have more than that then locations A & B and
NPC's #1 and #5 would be good choices to place more." It's another matter
entirely to go through the module never expecting that WotC would be
systematically shortchanging characters in modules that WotC themselves
designed when official modules are _notorious_ in previous editions for
being overstocked.
> Now, some might say, "Well, just send in the Goons Who Steal Overpowered
Magic
> Items At Night and take it away.", but A: I don't like to run my games
that way
Nor I.
> and B: my players don't like it either and they wouldn't just sit there
and take
> it. They'd spend the next 8 sessions tracking down the Goon Squad. Which
means
> I've got to come up with wads of background on them, map out a lair,
schedule
> Goon Squad company picnics... Well, you get the picture.
Ditto.
> Much easier to keep tabs on the PCs overall power level and round it out
with an
> extra item or 3. Besides, I've always enjoyed creating magic items, along
with
> interesting histories and details. It's one of the best ways of
introducing
> flavor into a game world, since the players are inherently interested in
any
> magic items they run across.
But that's _why_ that little equipment value chart is there in the DMG -
to allow proper comparisons of what the PC's have and what they will get.
It should be standard procedure for a module designer to check that the
levels of treasure will be relatively standard, and if they aren't standard
to advise the DM of the fact (perhaps even explaining why the treasure level
is higher or lower than normal).
With 3E modules currently being the size and style that they are, the
PC's _will_ go up one or more levels in the course of the adventure. It may
be the DM's responsibility to see to it that his campaign has a level of
treasure he feels is appropriate, but it's bad module design not to verify
this information and provide it for the DM to use.
Duane VP
news:Cec2O1dvvViyZX...@4ax.com...
> > That's not the end of my complaints though. As I said, we completed
> >Sunless Citadel, we completed part of Forge of Fury, we completed
"Dungeon
> >of the Fire Opal" from Dungeon Magazine. As we neared the end of "Opal"
I
> >realized the PC's were WOEFULLY underequipped for their level. While the
> >cash they had been recovering seemed adequate they had a paltry amount of
> >magic weapons and miscellaneous magic to their names. These dungeons
were
> >not providing the treasure rewards that they should have. I actually had
to
> >throw in a big, gratuitous pile of treasure and they STILL are
> >underequipped. We're now going through Speaker in Dreams and this is not
> >changing. There is a PATHETIC level of magical reward being provided in
> >these modules. My DMG says these 4th level characters should have 5400gp
in
>
> items are for sale; the reason they don't put in that much magical
> treasure is that they assume the PCs will use the majority of their
> financial treasure _buying_ them.
Nope. Doesn't work for two reasons. First and foremost - magic "shops"
are a bad idea and I gave them up long ago. It reduces all magic to a
_common_ commodity and magic loses the cachet of mystery and wonder it
should have. A magic gewgaw with an assortment of nifty effects and
abilities is merely expensive rather than astonishing for being unique or
powerful. Any magic weapon is certainly UNspectacular in the extreme.
Second, there is not enough _monetary_ treasure being provided in the
modules to allow purchase of magical items that would place the characters
in their appropriate brackets should you actually allow them to purchase
magic at the local 7-11.
Duane VP
news:20010625173440...@ng-fo1.aol.com...
> > [Quick aside - did anyone else notice that it would have been
impossible
> >for the goblin carrying the apple to get in and out of a the dungeon
without
> >passing through kobold-held territory? How did he do it?]
>
> Yeah. This is a rather significant and annoying flaw in the module. Two
> possible explanations seem to get put forward on a regular basis:
>
> 1. There is a route through the Underdark to the surface.
> 2. The kobolds have only recently gotten control of area 15 (possibly
because
> they only recently entered the Citadel). And/or, Area 15 has been
repeatedly
> "up for grabs" in the contest between goblins and kobolds -- with the
goblins
> getting the fruit out during those times when they hold the area.
Unfortunately the way _my_ players got there was by following/tracking
the goblin back to home after he sold the apple. It wasn't until they began
tracking him into the dungeon that I realized he couldn't have gotten out
and now would certainly not get back in. I vamped a bit but ultimately just
broke out of character and said "They screwed up the module a bit. He
_shouldn't_ have been able to get in or out but it assumes he can. Just
overlook it."
Also, coming into the module via the underdark puts the goblin into the
HEART of kobold territory, not the fringe. Option 2 is possible I suppose,
but since the module assumes a paltry 7 miles between the village and
Citadel the area would have had to change hands almost immediately after the
goblin leaves - and this fact should be noted in order for the DM to deal
properly with the goblins movements.
> >This will have to be done _several_ times in order to complete the
module.
>
> I didn't find this to be particularly true. Nor, when the PCs were forced
to
> rest, did this necessarily entail the PCs retreating all the way out of
the
> Citadel. There are several easily defensible positions within the Citadel,
and
> with a cleric in the group more than 12-16 hours of rest is probably not
going
> to be necessary before they can press on.
Two problems. One, they did not have a single-classed cleric in the
group so most healing at this point was provided by a monk/cleric and a
paladin's laying on hands ability. Two, you forget that this is a _dynamic_
place. A lot can - and SHOULD - happen in 12-16 hours if the PC's actions
have resulted in a significant number of deaths. Wherever they hole up may
be defensible, but they WILL have to defend it. That's a no-win proposition
unless in their initial attacks they have so decimated their potential
besiegers that any counterattacks will not become a continual drain on their
health and spells - which is supposed to be why they are resting.
It's a fools proposition to hole up IN a dungeon in order to rest and
recuperate. The PC's do NOT know what might attack them. They did it in
Sunless Citadel but I LET them sit undisturbed because I wanted to be nice.
I've since made it clear that if they ever do it again I won't hesitate to
nail them and not shed a tear.
> > By the time the PC's
> >get to them the situation in the dungeon WILL have changed. Defenses
will
> >have been prepared, patrols will be organized, etc.
>
> This is explicitly discussed on pg. 8 of the module. Of course, Cordell
doesn't
> go into a lot of detail -- discussing generalities, rather than specifics.
But
> that's because how the PCs handle the dungeon is going to vary
*tremendously*
> -- and trying to cover all possibilities would not only be impossible, but
a
> tremendous waste of space.
That's a bit of a copout IMO. The PC's are effectively walking into the
middle of a protracted war between the kobolds and goblins but the very
design of 3E indicates that PC's of a level for which the module is intended
WILL have to pull out more than once. Needing to rearrange the defenses of
these groups and the whole keytext of those portions of the module is not
just possible but danged likely. It means that good module design would
require more than just a simple sidebar reminder to move some of the
defenders around if the PC's leave. Being a likely occurrence, more
detailed defensive actions _are_ called for. Either that or the encounters
and rooms scaled down/eliminated/altered to make such changes less likely.
> >Dungeons need to be SHORTER!
>
> I disagree. Nothing bores me more than a short dungeon. I would rather
have an
> epic environment.
Nothing wrong with epic. Hell, epic is GOOD. But the structure of 3E
requires changes in how epic is achieved. Standard 1E or 2E dungeon crawl
design doesn't hack it anymore. For example, epic could be achieved with a
series of short dungeons interspersed with connecting activities. It could
be achieved by designing a larger dungeon with isolated sections. It could
be as simple as making sure that the PC's go into it equipped with more
scrolls & healing than normal to enable a longer sustained penetration of
the dungeon.
[snip module recommendations]
Thanks. I'll look into these. The plethora of d20 stuff almost (not
quite, but almost) makes me yearn for the days when TSR/WotC were the _only_
source of materials. It was easier at least to know what was out there.
> >That's to be expected because it's something
> >that's always had to be done in order to adapt generic modules to a
specific
> >campaign without unbalancing things. But having to _add_ treasure is
> >whacked!
>
> Whether you're adding treasure or taking it away, you're still doing
> modification. Personally, I prefer the "underpowered, spice it up if you
want"
> approach -- since it's less unlikely that things will start becoming
> unbalanced. It's always easier to give PCs stuff than to take it away.
As mentioned elsewhere this defies the 3E rules. There is a standard
level of stuff presented for a reason - being able to gauge where the
modules are at on the treasure scales and how you might want to adjust it.
IMO it's bad design to not only ignore that standard but to also fail to
notify DM's who'll be running the modules that a higher or lower standard is
presented.
Hunter
>"Wayne Shaw" <sh...@caprica.com> wrote in message
>news:Cec2O1dvvViyZX...@4ax.com...
>>
>> I think you've missed the implication of the fact 3e assumes magic
>> items are for sale; the reason they don't put in that much magical
>> treasure is that they assume the PCs will use the majority of their
>> financial treasure _buying_ them.
>
> Nope. Doesn't work for two reasons. First and foremost - magic "shops"
>are a bad idea and I gave them up long ago. It reduces all magic to a
>_common_ commodity and magic loses the cachet of mystery and wonder it
>should have. A magic gewgaw with an assortment of nifty effects and
>abilities is merely expensive rather than astonishing for being unique or
>powerful. Any magic weapon is certainly UNspectacular in the extreme.
> Second, there is not enough _monetary_ treasure being provided in the
>modules to allow purchase of magical items that would place the characters
>in their appropriate brackets should you actually allow them to purchase
>magic at the local 7-11.
I have a question. Why assume if magic is being bought and sold, that it will
automaticly become a comodity or be sold everywhere? I liken magic items to
modern "luxury" items. Yachts and planes are bought and sold, but they are
still not a corner store item. Or what about high end cars they are bought and
sold, but not everyone has one.
nazgul
>automaticly become a comodity or be sold everywhere? I liken magic items to
>modern "luxury" items. Yachts and planes are bought and sold, but they are
>still not a corner store item. Or what about high end cars they are bought and
>sold, but not everyone has one.
This stuff should really depend on the campaign and not the game system
itself (which should be able to scale either way). And even in the
same campaign, there might be areas where magic is common and areas where
it's almost unheard of.
A generic fantasy RPG that can't do this is broken.
zeadeATstanfordalumni.org
<Sunless Citadel spoilers aplenty>
> Also, coming into the module via the underdark puts the goblin into the
>HEART of kobold territory, not the fringe.
Er, the goblins also have access to the underdark from the second level.
I would imagine their access point is a long ways off from the kobold
access point, or the kobolds would probably attack the gobs from there
as well. How the underdark plays into the module is left entirely up to
the DM.
It sounds like you hadn't read through the module to realize this was
the case (either about this passage or about the kobold controlled
territory). Can you see how bad planning may have lead to this
annoyance? Granted, the module doesn't point this out, but (to me) it
seemed fairly obvious.
>but since the module assumes a paltry 7 miles between the village and
>Citadel the area would have had to change hands almost immediately after the
>goblin leaves - and this fact should be noted in order for the DM to deal
>properly with the goblins movements.
Hmm, I put the dungeon almost a days travel from town. It definitely
felt too close to town.
>Needing to rearrange the defenses of
>these groups and the whole keytext of those portions of the module is not
>just possible but danged likely. It means that good module design would
>require more than just a simple sidebar reminder to move some of the
>defenders around if the PC's leave.
What exactly are you looking for? I thought logistically the
possiblities were pretty dang simple (I've marked the places with
astriks you wouldn't repopulate, rooms in parens mean no encounters):
(through the "back way" from kobolds)
|
V
fountain room 1 -> skeletons in sarcophagi *
|
V
cell hallway -> rats * -> (fountain room 2) -> gutash and gang *
|
V
goblins at the wall 1
|
V
goblins at the wall 2 -> (hallway) -> goblin barracks
| |
V |
(storage room) |
| |
V V
(pillared hallway) -> dragon room *
|
V
Big Fight with Durnn (two doors lead directly to goblins/hobgoblin warriors,
two other doors lead to a hallway which was a short hop from goblin
chief... any fighting that broke out in this area, would draw all the
goblins close by, so this was it).
If the PCs made it to a spot with goblins, beat them, but then
retreated, the goblins would be there waiting for them when they decided
to return (with new tricks!) My PCs had no problem eventually getting
to the "goblins at wall 2", spiking the doors leading out and holding
that room while recuperating.
After Big Fight with Durnn, I had the goblins in full retreat from the
first level of Sunless Citadel. No more goblins at the walls, no more
barracked goblins, that's it, game over, the clan just got whupped. The
goblinoids on the second level I played as loyal servants to Belak and
were thus less involved with the survival of the clan on the first
floor, and were unaffected by the retreat of the rest of the clan.
Remember there were *a lot* of goblin non-combatants living on the first
level, that was their home. There was a PC capture/fallback plan, but
PCs prevailed.
This is how I played it. I'm sure other DMs could have played through
the scenario a different way. What I'm getting at is I think the module
set up the flow just fine, and I have no idea what you're griping about.
The possiblities for how things could play out (and what the
consequences would be afterwards) are far from endless.
> As mentioned elsewhere this defies the 3E rules. There is a standard
>level of stuff presented for a reason - being able to gauge where the
>modules are at on the treasure scales and how you might want to adjust it.
>IMO it's bad design to not only ignore that standard but to also fail to
>notify DM's who'll be running the modules that a higher or lower standard is
>presented.
A summary would be nice of all the items in the module and their total
worth, but this is something that can be done fairly easily. You as DM
make "the standard". It sounds an awful lot like you wanted the module
to work as rote and at the end of it you have PCs pop out at level 3
with 2,700 GP in loot apiece.
I'm constantly boggling at why folks gripe so much about a game where
you make it up as you go along.
*shrug*,
Micah
Justin Bacon
>yadda yadda... I just fimnd the whole "Buy your magic here" seems a
>lot more akin to a computer game than a "magic is a work of wonder"
>setting.
You can't have it both ways. Either magic is rare and a "work of wonder" (in
which case, it isn't going to be plentiful in dungeons, eithers); or magic is
more plentiful. If magic is more plentiful than all these magical items must
have a source -- and the logical source for a whole mess of magical items are a
whole bunch of wizards *producing* magical items. And if wizards are producing
magical items, they have to have a reason for doing so -- and the most logical
reason for doing so is financial incentive. And if wizards are creating a bunch
of magical items for the purposes of selling them, then doesn't it make sense
that wizards are going to want to sell to adventurers who not only need
high-power, expensive magical items -- but also have the cash to afford them?
>Out of curiosity, how many people out there are running on
>the basis that players can access the magic item lists out of the D<MG
>and pretty much buy anything they can afford?
That's not what Sea Wasp said. That's not what 3rd edition said.
Being able to buy some magic != access to every type of magic there is.
Low-level magic items are going to be far more accessible and plentiful,
because there are a lot more low-level wizards running around making them.
High-level wizards are comparatively rare; therefore high-level magics are
comparatively rare (and most of them probably can be lost at the bottoms of
ancient dungeons).
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
>for Sunless Citadel. Monk/Cleric died shortly into Forge of Fury and was
>replaced by a straight monk. That character left after Dungeon of the Opal
>Fist and was replaced by a wizard/cleric. The party has consitently had
>potions and/or scrolls available to make up for lack of a single-classed
>cleric.
Well, you're missing the heavy firepower of arcane magic until the very end.
And the missing cleric for Forge of Fury probably didn't help your ability to
move deeper into a dungeon without having to rest up.
I would say that a cleric is absolutely required if you expect to have the
endurance of a "standard adventure party".
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Thomas Stewart
ilkh...@yahoo.ca says...
> Yeah, 3ed definately assumes a "magic rich" environment. Maybe thats a
> FR bias. But they assume far more magical items (and money for that
> matter) than exist in any world I've ever created.
>
> Magical items might be bought, on a "made to order" sort of basis, but
> it would cost through the nose and would only be available in the
> largest, most advanced cities.
>
>
luxury item here in the Real World. If you have the money, and you'd
like to purchase a Rolls-Royce, you can theoretically buy one. It
doesn't mean that every small town has a RR dealer. It just means that
they are for sale, somewhere, somehow. Living in a big city, I happen
to be just a few miles from such a store, but I'd imagine that there are
places in the US where there are no Rolls-Royce dealers in the entire
state, possibly not even in neighboring states. You want one, you've
got to go to the dealer. Or pay someone to do the deal for you, but
that's above and beyond the price of the car.
In terms of how much of a luxury item magic is, look at the suggested
price. The ultimate entry level magic weapon, the lowly +1 dagger,
costs 2,302 gp. Using the 'cost of living' rules, that's nearly a full
year of noble-class high living luxury, at 200 gp a month. To a
peasant, that's worth more than 50 cows and a very nice house, plus some
left over to get something nice for the missus. If magical items can be
sold, there is no reason that out of the way communities would ever hold
onto them if they weren't actively in use. They'd much rather have the
cash or equivalent. The miniscule advantage of a magic dagger over a
normal one would be completely overwhelmed by the desire to have those
50 cows and the house. A decanter of endless water in a dry region,
maybe, but they won't sell it.
More valuable items just make the gap wider. No magic wielder in some
out-of-the-way place is going to hold on to some item he personally has
no use for, but which represents enough gold pieces to get him a spiffy
tower, nice food, and hot and cold running maidens all the days of his
life. Why on earth would he hold onto the mighty sword of massive
attack when he can sell that oversized cheese slicer to anyone with
money and instead live the life that the clerics always warned him
about? An adventurer *might* be able to buy such an item from him, but
the odds are that they'd be too late, he'd already sold it years ago.
And as the only money to traffic in such pricey items tends to be in the
biggest cities, that's probably where all the magic ends up.
Cities, on the other hand, are likely places for such a "magic item
shop". Known portable magic would attract too many thieves, so only
extremely wealthy, powerful persons or groups would ever advertise; but
those groups could easily fund such a store. A wizard's guild would be
the most likely, few wish to cross them, and they also are producers of
the items, rather than mere middle-men. But merchants and churches
could also have a smaller selection available, and have the protections
to keep it. Everybody else would likely have sold off their magic items
to one of the above groups and lived off the cash (including retired or
down-on-their-luck adventurers), so there would be few if any other
sellers around, except for folks who just came into an item, and are
looking for a better price than the wizard shop offered them. The more
powerful the item, the more powerful the seller, if only because nobody
else would have ever had the money to buy it. So the bigger items go to
the biggest cities, or to the homes of the biggest temples or wizard
guildhall. You want to buy the item, better buy some good horses first.
Or put your faith in a teleporter.
In terms of how many magic items are around, it seems that the biggest
factor is time. Except for consumables, such as potions, scrolls, and
charged items, magic items never fail. They don't rust, rot, or go bad.
The thief won't care if his +3 short sword was just made by a wizard he
knows, or if it was made over a thousand years ago in a human empire
that even the elves don't remember anymore. It still cuts pretty well.
With all of the makers pumping out magic year after year, having a
goodly number of items in circulation is easy to understand. The
gradual accumulation of items over the centuries has made them more
common.
The cost of commissioning a new item surely includes a premium for the
luxury of not having to go find the item. Sure it takes a few weeks,
but its certain. You might be able to find a peasant who'd be willing
to part with one that he just dug up in his field, for a tenth the price
that guy in the pointy hat wanted, but finding the peasant if he exists
is going to be a rough go. Maybe better just to pay for the new one.
But now there are two in circulation, the one you had made *and* the one
the peasant found. Maybe he sold it to your enemy for that low price.
I think that the treasure lists need to be adjusted to account for
rarity over time. Charged or one-shot items need to become far less
likely, as they probably would have been used long ago. Items that not
only last forever, but are of a level of sophistication such that they
could have been made thousands of years ago, would be more likely. +1
daggers are going to be pretty popular, even if the blade is bronze. +1
crossbows are going to be rather harder to find. And amazing as they
are, tomes and manuals that lose their magic after use are going to be
*much* harder to find than even their suggested value would reflect.
Unless the descriptions are changed so that they disappear to some
random location after use rather than become non-magical, that would
keep them in circulation. Scrolls and potions are quickly used, but
they are also by far the most common items made, so they balance out.
Its the wands and staves, and the odd charged wondrous item, that are
harder to find. And weapons and armor that are too new for many to have
been made yet.
And yes, I was briefly an Economics major, why do you ask?
-tos
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Justin Bacon
>the goblin back to home after he sold the apple. It wasn't until they began
>tracking him into the dungeon that I realized he couldn't have gotten out
>and now would certainly not get back in. I vamped a bit but ultimately just
>broke out of character and said "They screwed up the module a bit. He
>_shouldn't_ have been able to get in or out but it assumes he can. Just
>overlook it."
That's too bad. You missed out on the great opportunity of having the goblin
come back, only to discover that the kobolds have taken over this section of
the dungeon in his absence. He walks into area 15 and gets bushwacked. ;)
> Also, coming into the module via the underdark puts the goblin into the
>HEART of kobold territory, not the fringe.
No, check out the module again. There are *two* access points to the Underdark
-- one for the kobolds (area 23), one for the goblins (area 43). (Personally,
I'm cutting these before I ever run the adventure -- I know my players: They'll
merrily head off on a complete tangent into the underdark. <g>)
> It's a fools proposition to hole up IN a dungeon in order to rest and
>recuperate.
Not a universal truth by any stretch of the imagination -- particularly in the
Sunless Citadel. The closest room to the entrance keyed to area 13, for
example, would make a good place to hole up. As would anywhere from area 6-12
(once its been cleared out). After the cells in area 28 have been cleared out,
they might be an easily defensible position, depending on what the PCs have
left behind them with the kobolds (although this is riskier).
Basically, there are a lot of different places in the Citadel where the kobolds
and goblins don't usually go -- and the PCs could hole up in any one of them
with relative security (assuming they don't let the dungeon denizens know
they're there through abject stupidity).
>>But
>> that's because how the PCs handle the dungeon is going to vary
*tremendously*
>> -- and trying to cover all possibilities would not only be impossible, but a
>> tremendous waste of space.
>
> That's a bit of a copout IMO.
You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but if you can think of a way to
handle the multitude of possibilities created by all the different strategies
the PCs might pursue in the Citadel, without radically expanding the size and
price of the module, I'd really love to hear it.
> As mentioned elsewhere this defies the 3E rules.
I've discussed this elsewhere, as well. You're trying to have it both ways --
not allow PCs to buy magic items, but then complaining because the PCs aren't
buying magic items.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Peter Newman
I figure that any monster averaging over INT 8 or so that isn't
solitary can probably scrounge up an Adept somewhere and get
an 'Identify'. Thus I figure that they'll usually know the
most common function of their magic items. I figure that they
probably can't find someone to cast an 'Analyze' for them
so they won't know all its functions. Monsters of INT 4 -7
may know that their Magic Weapons are magic, but won't know
anything else. Monsters of animal INT won't have a clue.
> In the grand tradition of all module monsters, this is of course a
> ridiculous idea. The monsters never have any idea what their treasure
> contains, nor any idea how to use it even if they did.
Yes, that is a common trait of many modules. :)
Peter Newman
You need to use the Gold Piece Limit per city population
rule [DMG p 137]. If the Goblins can walk into a town of
2,001 - 5,000 people (and not get killed) than they should
be able to buy a Wand of Fireballs with 7 charges. If they
can't enter the town than they can't buy the Wand. Thus the
question is campaign specific.
Peter Newman
>
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 21:50:53 -0400, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Only if you permit the monsters to (A) know what they have, and (B)
> >use it.
> >
> > In the grand tradition of all module monsters, this is of course a
> >ridiculous idea. The monsters never have any idea what their treasure
> >contains, nor any idea how to use it even if they did.
>
> I always liked all those giant slaying swords in Against the Giants. I
> don't know about you guys, but if I ended up with all these weapons
> designed to slay me that I couldn't use (if I could they'd be good for
> use on my annoying relatives) I'd destroy 'em, not hang them on my
> wall so adventurers could swipe 'em and use them on me.
You've forgotten that those giants are evil. They keep the giant
slaying swords so that they can use them as daggers to murder
each other with. :)
This, however, begs the question of why the swords are on the walls
rather than the giants belts.
John Phillips
>>> Only if you permit the monsters to (A) know what they have, and (B)
>>>use it.
>>>
>>> In the grand tradition of all module monsters, this is of course a
>>>ridiculous idea. The monsters never have any idea what their treasure
>>>contains, nor any idea how to use it even if they did.
>>
>>I always liked all those giant slaying swords in Against the Giants. I
>>don't know about you guys, but if I ended up with all these weapons
>>designed to slay me that I couldn't use (if I could they'd be good for
>>use on my annoying relatives) I'd destroy 'em, not hang them on my
>>wall so adventurers could swipe 'em and use them on me.
Well, they are giants, not necsairily the brightest guys around. They may
not
realize just what the sword is. "Hey, its shiny and really sharp, lets hang
it
on the wall".
Or, in order to show what tuff guys they are they hold on to them for
bragging
rights.
Or, the chief holds on to them incase some young upstart wants to try and
take
over. Nothing like keeping other giants in line than a giant slaying sword.
John
Alex Johnson
>
> <Warning: module spoilers ahead>
>
> I'm not impressed. I gotta say that. Although I am appreciative of what
> do far better (if I could I would and make money in the process) I don't
> know that adventure writers yet have a real grasp of the dynamics of Third
> Edition - and it shows. Now it's not like I've been buying, reading and
> reviewing the tons of d20 product out there so if people want to cite what
> they think are OUTSTANDING modules by all means I wanna hear it. If you
> have found what you think is a _reliable_ individual reviewer or website
> please forward the link.
> What do I think is the problem? First and formost it's time. It took
> very little time for me to see that game time was a _significant_ factor
> that writers were overlooking entirely. They are making dungeons in the
> same sizes and with the same monster populations as in previous editions.
> You just cant do that. There's this wonderful little mechanic built into 3E
> where a "typical" or "standard" encounter is going to drain the party of 20%
> of it's health and resources. Because of that it takes far, FAR fewer
> encounters to force a party of PC's to fall back or pull out to rest &
> recuperate than in previous editions. The first module I ran was Sunless
> Citadel and I noticed this immediately so I'll use that as Exhibit "A".
> This is a dungeon with a dynamic population. By that I mean you have
> different factions controlling different parts of the dungeon. They are at
> war with each other. This is not a situation that will remain exactly as
> written in the dungeon key after the PC's take a stroll through it and kill
> a bunch from one side or another. It's not a static situation that will be
> the same if the PC's reenter a dozen times over a period of two months. It
> needs to adapt in reaction as changes are inflicted by the PC's - overnight.
> But we have this thing where the PC's MUST pull out or hole up in order to
> recuperate after a certain number of encounters in this dungeon. They
> cannot clean the place out in one fell swoop unless they are much more
> powerful than the writer intended. (If they are then the combat is much too
> easy and the efforts in assembling a large, complex, dynamic dungeon - a
> dungeon whose subtle details make it more interesting - are wasted.) When
> the PC's pull out to rest and recover - the dungeon will adapt to the new
> situation. If the PC's kill 3/4 of the goblins and then go outside to rest
> for a day, while they're gone the kobolds will become acutely aware of the
> deaths of large numbers of goblins and are bound to finish the job! They
> will at least begin to press their now obvious advantage. The goblins in
> turn will realize that they are in bad way. They need to react to the loss
> of 3/4 of their numbers by improving their defensive positions and tactics,
> abandoning the dungeon or something. The one thing they AREN'T going to do
> is _nothing_.
> [Quick aside - did anyone else notice that it would have been impossible
> for the goblin carrying the apple to get in and out of a the dungeon without
> passing through kobold-held territory? How did he do it?]
> This will have to be done _several_ times in order to complete the module.
> dungeon will be wandering about inside it as they normally do and find many
> areas where the PC's have hacked their way in, looted and left. The dungeon
> WILL react to this. But if that's the case - why bother even writing a
> detailed key to the lowest levels and furthest rooms? By the time the PC's
> get to them the situation in the dungeon WILL have changed. Defenses will
> the place the element of strategic surprise is gone and the PC's are not
> going to find the inhabitants playing cards and picking noses when they kick
> down the doors to their rooms.
> Now not all dungeons are going to be held by combative factions like
> Sunless Citadel but if they are inhabited by living, intelligent creatures
> they WILL react to being systematically cleansed of life and treasure. The
> conclusion is obvious - if the PC's are not expected to be able to take the
> dungeon in a single foray then the writer of the module MUST take into
> account how the inhabitants will react when the PC's (by design of the game
> system) have to hole up or pull out for a period of recovery. Dungeons need
> to be SHORTER! The longer you make a dungeon the more likely it is you'll
> have to factor in repeated extrications or adjust the problems inherent in
> having many more rooms by having a higher proportion of them be easy
> encounters rather than standard challenges. They need to be more easily
> dealt with without draining health and resources either by having the CR's
> of the opponents significantly lowered or giving the PC's advantages in
> surprise, or positioning. Or perhaps by providing a steady supply of
> resources that the PC's can put to use: healing potions, combat spells on
> scrolls or wand. How it's done doesn't matter as much as realizing that
> this is a dynamic inherent in the system that needs addressing.
> The next full module the players went through was "Dungeon of the Fire
> Opal" from Dungeon Magazine. Game Time again became a signficant factor,
> although in a slightly different way. In this case the dungeon was more
> static as the creatures involved were mostly unintelligent critters, undead,
> summoned outsiders, etc. that would not react in such dynamic ways to
> changes in other parts of the dungeon. However, the encounters were
> consistently of the "average" challenge variety. They did what they were
> supposed to do according to Third Edition design and drained the party of
> 20% of their health and resources. Every 4 rooms (or less!) they had to
> leave the dungeon and spend a night or more healing and preparing for the
> next foray. From the character's perspectives they were averaging maybe 1/2
> hour in the dungeon a day and the rest was spent _outside_ it healing and
> recovering spells. This was a single level dungeon with about 50 keyed
> areas IIRC and it took _2 weeks_ of game time and 4 game sessions to clear
> it.
> While this _was_ at a point where everyone (including me, the DM) was
> spending a fair amount of time yet getting familiar with the 3E system, this
> relatively simple dungeon took an inordinate amount of time (game and
> session-wise) to finish. Had it been a dynamic rather than static dungeon
> it would have taken much longer still because an active, coordinated defense
> by the inhabitants would have made penetration deadlier and recovery
> anywhere near the dungeon entrance unthinkable, meaning repeated travel to
> and from a safe base of operations would have been necessary. This in turn
> would have further complicated and delayed things with random wilderness
> encounters during travel. The nature of the so-called "dungeon crawl" has
> to change to fit 3rd Edition.
> That's not the end of my complaints though. As I said, we completed
> Sunless Citadel, we completed part of Forge of Fury, we completed "Dungeon
> of the Fire Opal" from Dungeon Magazine. As we neared the end of "Opal" I
> realized the PC's were WOEFULLY underequipped for their level. While the
> cash they had been recovering seemed adequate they had a paltry amount of
> magic weapons and miscellaneous magic to their names. These dungeons were
> not providing the treasure rewards that they should have. I actually had to
> throw in a big, gratuitous pile of treasure and they STILL are
> underequipped. We're now going through Speaker in Dreams and this is not
> changing. There is a PATHETIC level of magical reward being provided in
> these modules. My DMG says these 4th level characters should have 5400gp in
> getting going through WotC own modules! I don't mind having to _remove_
> treasure to fit my campaign. That's to be expected because it's something
> that's always had to be done in order to adapt generic modules to a specific
> campaign without unbalancing things. But having to _add_ treasure is
> whacked!
> None of them seemed to be adventures that I was interested in or thought
> would fit my campaign. Do you see these same problems in non-WotC d20
> stuff?
Wow, I didn't know a post could get so many responses in under one day!
Or my news service is not showing me messages when they are posted, but
is hoarding them so I have to spend hours reading a single thread.
I agree with many of your observations and have made them myself. I
haven't run any of the 3E published modules but I am about to start a
game which uses a bunch of Dungeon mag adventures mixed with my own.
What I have observed are the following:
1) Dungeon adventures in 3E are gonna be long, slow, and tedious...or
deadly. There are dozens of closely packed encounters in a dungeon.
You noted that in 3E there is a standard that an encounter of your level
takes 20% of your resources, meaning after 5 such battles you are
toast. Well, I've observed that in Dungeon magazine, the typical random
encounter EL = party level and the average set encounter EL = party
level + 3. This means on average a party will fight one encounter and
rest unless they are very foolhardy or well prepared.
2) Without any consideration for the effect of PC incursions the authors
continue to write long detailed dungeons. Once the PCs come in, kill
three or four rooms of monsters, and leave to rest, the monsters are
going to be ready! Take that EL 3 encounter and make it a 7 because now
the gnolls have laid an ambush, prepared some quick mechanical traps,
called the backups from rooms 25 and 26 to stand with them, and/or
summoned the shaman to bless them with magical aids. Most adventures
won't be like Sunless Citadel where there are opposed factions the DM
has to worry about, but at least the one group of intelligent foes will
not sit idly while they are exterminated.
3) In Dungeon magazine almost every adventure in the first few issues
for 3E mentioned that the party will receive higher than average
treasure for their level. I thought this was bad, but maybe the value
is in high-cost magic items and the characters won't be loaded with
coins. Reading through 3 issues, I found that while there are plenty of
monsters needing magic items to hit, there are very few awarded. In
fact, of adventures level 5 and below there was only one melee weapon
and one offensive wand. Unless I offer the players ways to buy magic
weapons, they won't be able to fight the monsters in the dungeons. And
that won't work because in low level adventures all the population
centers I'm finding are hamlets (100-300 population, most expensive item
<200gp). Of course I will have my own cities in the region, but the PCs
are starting small and moving up. One suggestion I heard was to take
large numbers of coins and replace them with equal value magic. This is
a thought but later it will bite me in the @$$ as the PCs either aquire
hoards of magic or complain they found X magic items in their first 3
levels but 0 since then.
4) Yeah, the cartographers draw pretty maps for dungeon settings, but
what DM can reliably convey the twisted shapes they make? And if I can
describe this gnarled set of tunnels with doors and rooms in seemingly
random positions (did they use the random tables from the 1E DMG to
design these places??), what group of players could understand it and
draw the whole thing correctly. I left mapping to a group of players
once in my own dungeon which used only right angles, 10' measurements,
and a logical design (the area was home to a wizard complete with cloak
rooms, dining room, kitchen, guest rooms, etc). They made half a dozen
mistakes. Now think of what will happen when they try to map out the
Dungeon of the Fire Opal or the Temple of Elemental Evil!
5) Dungeon Magazine specific: Either the level of party has been grossly
misidentified, the amount of experience greatly over-estimated, or the
characters are going to shoot through levels. Looking at my issues,
almost every adventure states the party should gain at least one level.
Several (about 20%) say the party can gain two levels. These are
supposed to be short missions, are they not? 15 pages does not a level
equate, in my book. That would be about a 4 hour session I guess. By
the end of a month the party would be 5th level. At the end of the
season (fall) the party would be 13th level. After half a year they hit
20th level and the DM is pulling his hair out trying to challenge them.
Of course that is the worst case scenario. Some of those big dungeons
could take four sessions to clear (like the Forgotten Realms one this
month or The Harrowing).
Alex
Wayne Shaw
>seven flash-fried adventuring parties, they should be able to make up
>1,575 gp! [Actually, maybe buy a cold item instead - it's not as hard
>on soft metals...]
>
>If the pC's can buy whatever they want, why can't the NPC's?
Most of them don't have the regular need of it the PCs do. Why don't
most cities own an artillery piece? Because, among other things, they
wouldn't use it enough to justify it's cost. Past that, they _do_
assume NPCs own a certain amount of magic...looked at the default NPCs
in the DMG?
Wayne Shaw
wrote:
My opinion, after seeing them over the years, is that a generic
fantasy game system that attempts to claim it provides appropriate
challenge guidelines _without_ making some assumptions about magic
availablity is either lying or deluding itself. D&D magic has always
been too strong to ignore when factoring opposition and challenges,
and the fact they tried to do so in prior editions was not a virtue of
those products.
Ben Buckner
> >use it.
> >
> > In the grand tradition of all module monsters, this is of course a
> >ridiculous idea. The monsters never have any idea what their treasure
> >contains, nor any idea how to use it even if they did.
>
> I always liked all those giant slaying swords in Against the Giants. I
> don't know about you guys, but if I ended up with all these weapons
> designed to slay me that I couldn't use (if I could they'd be good for
> use on my annoying relatives) I'd destroy 'em, not hang them on my
> wall so adventurers could swipe 'em and use them on me.
I created a dwarfhold based adventure in which the
antagonist stole a cache of evil dwarf slaying
weapons from a vault in the hold (along with
a mysterious secret artifact), which was why
the dwarves couldn't deal with him themselves.
The PCs expressed surprise to their guide (a
half-orc paladin of Moraddin) that dwarves would
keep such things around, and she explained that
dwarves have a natural compulsion against
destroying anything valuable, even if they
would never have any oerthly use for it.
BTW, thanks for telling me about the giant slaying
swords - my character will keep an eye out for
them. :-)
Ben B.
john v verkuilen
>I have a question. Why assume if magic is being bought and sold, that it will
>automaticly become a comodity or be sold everywhere? I liken magic items to
>modern "luxury" items. Yachts and planes are bought and sold, but they are
>still not a corner store item. Or what about high end cars they are bought and
>sold, but not everyone has one.
We have a mixed approach. Potions, scrolls, magic arrows, etc., are expensive
but can be found for cash. If you want items otherwise you have to barter
magic items or other sorts of equivalents, e.g., gems so large they can be
used as spell components, or the like. If there is a wizards' guild, they
usually handle this sort of thing. Ranking members get good deals while
punks have to pay full price.
Jay
--
J. Verkuilen ja...@uiuc.edu
"Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it
concentrates his mind wonderfully." --Dr. Samuel Johnson
Drew Id
This is a good use of the DMG city tables for determining NPC levels. Unless
your PC's are based in a huge city, they will be limited by both the GP
limit of the city as well as the levels of the NPC wizards in town.
IDHTBIFOM, but in the main city my PC's use for their home base, the
population is 4,900 and that means there are only like 7 or 8 wizards and
about 10 clerics. I think maybe 3 of the wizards and 5 clerics are at 3rd
level or above and could therefore get one of the feats for creating objects
beyond just scrolls and potions. The system thus limits itself, at least
outside of really large cities.
Ben Buckner
>
> Low-level magic items are going to be far more accessible and plentiful,
> because there are a lot more low-level wizards running around making them.
> High-level wizards are comparatively rare; therefore high-level magics are
> comparatively rare (and most of them probably can be lost at the bottoms of
> ancient dungeons).
And high level wizards probably aren't as motivated
to raise cash by selling magic items. There are
probably tons of wizard school students selling
scrolls of Mend for pocket money. When they go
into class on Monday, and they've forgotten the
previous weeks material, the prof knows they've
been off selling their XPs to buy beer.
Ben B.
Martin Leslie Leuschen
: Only if you permit the monsters to (A) know what they have, and (B)
: use it.
: In the grand tradition of all module monsters, this is of course a
: ridiculous idea. The monsters never have any idea what their treasure
: contains, nor any idea how to use it even if they did.
*Including* the money. Most hoards would be better used as
equipment, defensive archtecture, hirelings, or even investment.
If a creature is strange enough to use gold as bedding and fight
naked with a stick, it's strange enough to use a +3 sword as
bedding as well.
Regards,
martinl
Wayne Shaw
>your PC's are based in a huge city, they will be limited by both the GP
>limit of the city as well as the levels of the NPC wizards in town.
This is what I do, though you have to think about it; many magic items
are durable, and may have moved from hand to hand for years, even
coming in from outside at one time, and the current occupancy of the
city may be different than it has been in the past. They also mention
there are always aberrations like the single 16th level wizard living
in the small town because he likes it there. But yes, this is
generally the way to go.
dilbert
wrote:
>dilbert wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 17:39:30 -0800, Peter Newman <pne...@gci.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Sea Wasp wrote:
>> >>
>> >> dilbert wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 00:26:01 -0700, Wayne Shaw <sh...@caprica.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> So why don't the Kobolds/goblins/whatever go out and buy one?
[referring to a wand of firebals w/ 7 charges for 1,575 gp
>> After
>> seven flash-fried adventuring parties, they should be able to make up
>> 1,575 gp! [Actually, maybe buy a cold item instead - it's not as hard
>> on soft metals...]
>>
>> If the pC's can buy whatever they want, why can't the NPC's?
>
>You need to use the Gold Piece Limit per city population
>rule [DMG p 137]. If the Goblins can walk into a town of
>2,001 - 5,000 people (and not get killed) than they should
>be able to buy a Wand of Fireballs with 7 charges. If they
>can't enter the town than they can't buy the Wand. Thus the
>question is campaign specific.
If they can't enter the town, they can likely pay an unscrupulous
merchant 1,575 gp for a wand of fireballs with 5 or 6 charges - he
gets a higher profit margin dealing with those unsavoury goblin-types.
I suppose one could have a campaign where all merchants are
law-abiding citizens who value their morals more than their
profitability, but that would be a rare campaign in my opinion.
dilbert
>>Or I can stick to 2nd edition, or I can play a different game, yadda
>>yadda yadda... I just fimnd the whole "Buy your magic here" seems a
>>lot more akin to a computer game than a "magic is a work of wonder"
>>setting.
>
>You can't have it both ways. Either magic is rare and a "work of wonder" (in
>which case, it isn't going to be plentiful in dungeons, eithers); or magic is
>more plentiful. If magic is more plentiful than all these magical items must
>have a source -- and the logical source for a whole mess of magical items are a
>whole bunch of wizards *producing* magical items. And if wizards are producing
>magical items, they have to have a reason for doing so -- and the most logical
>reason for doing so is financial incentive. And if wizards are creating a bunch
>of magical items for the purposes of selling them, then doesn't it make sense
>that wizards are going to want to sell to adventurers who not only need
>high-power, expensive magical items -- but also have the cash to afford them?
How long is your campaign history (recorded or otherwise)? If you
assume 1 magic sword crafted every 10 years in each major city, and
you have a setting where elvish history is measured in dozens of
generations, there's a lot of magic weapons out there somewhere.
But, as you note below, those ancient magic items have a tendency to
get lost or stolen, and they wind up in the most amazing places! As a
result, no one's gathered them up for sale. The real question is HOW
plentiful is magic? Is it rare enough that you really have to look
for it in places that are fairly dangerous, or is it common enough
that overlords hire wizards to equip entire armies with enchanted
weaponry?
Why wouldn't the "establishment" get a bit paranoid about these "magic
for sale to unsavoury mercenaries" organizations? Maybe you need a
permit to own a magic item! "There we go, Mr. Mage, your Wand of
Fireballs is all set. Now if I can just see your Spell License, we'll
put that in for the state-mandated holding period and you can pick it
up a week from next Thursday".
Not that I couldn't see some interest in a campaign setting where
magic is common enough that there are street vendors hawking it, buit
it all sounds a little Myth Adventures of Aahz and Skeeve" to me.
YMMV
>>Out of curiosity, how many people out there are running on
>>the basis that players can access the magic item lists out of the DMG
>>and pretty much buy anything they can afford?
>
>That's not what Sea Wasp said. That's not what 3rd edition said.
>
>Being able to buy some magic != access to every type of magic there is.
True - I pose the question because I have run across players who
believed the listing of a gp value for magic items equated to a
standard that every item could be had if you had the cash.
>Low-level magic items are going to be far more accessible and plentiful,
>because there are a lot more low-level wizards running around making them.
Generally, I have little problem with a player in a large center where
magic is not frowned upon purchasing potions and scrolls. But
customized magic is going to take some pretty customized negotiating.
>High-level wizards are comparatively rare; therefore high-level magics are
>comparatively rare (and most of them probably can be lost at the bottoms of
>ancient dungeons).
You'd think people would take better care of their valuables, wouldn't
you :) But then, where's safer than at the bottom of a dungeon, I
guess.
Bottom line: which campaign do you want to be in:
"Behold the GreatAxe Thunderstyke, crafted for me by the Dwarves of
UnderTropolis after I aided them 20 years in their campaign against
the Undead Hordes of the ArchLich Megron"
"And when the battle ended, the Orcish armies were scattered and their
great Khan Ogurk lay dead at my feet. Praise be that we had succeeded
in our quest to liberate Peleron, Sword of Truth, destined for
centuries to slay the Orcish Khan who forged the tribes into the
greatest army the Kongdoms have ever seen."
"+2 flaming halberd. K-Mage Blue Light Special. $39.95 plus tax.
Act now - supplies are limited and no rain checks will be accepted"
dilbert
>Perhaps my GM was running the kobolds LN instead of LE. I don't know. It just
>worked out that we made friends with them which proved mutually beneficial.
>They got Sunless Citadel; we got a safe haven while clearing out the goblins
>and a Wand Of Cure Light Wounds.
Lawful should be as important as evil - they keep their word.
Besides, if your experience was anything like ours, you had a kobold
accompany you while you tracked down the dragon through goblin
territory - and he saw just how dangerous it would be for the kobolds
to attack the characters.
"They're upworlders, so they won't keep the citadel. Just keep out of
their way and, when they finish off the goblins, they go home and we
get the place to ourselves."
I'd be interested in a scenario a few years later, once the dragon
starts to grow up...I kind of felt sorry for the kobolds guessing
their likely future.
Joseph Michael Bay
>If they can't enter the town, they can likely pay an unscrupulous
>merchant 1,575 gp for a wand of fireballs with 5 or 6 charges - he
>gets a higher profit margin dealing with those unsavoury goblin-types.
>I suppose one could have a campaign where all merchants are
>law-abiding citizens who value their morals more than their
>profitability, but that would be a rare campaign in my opinion.
Flying giant lizards I can accept, but scrupulous merchants?
--
Joe Bay FLX NAV VEH CHO
Cancer Biology NUC MEM ATM OIE
Leland Stanford Junior University LIF CNT PAK UNF
Hunter
Being unscrupulous as he is. He hides his stuff, goes to the guards and have
them retrieve his "stolen" gear from the goblins.
Hunter
Neither. I rather be in a campaign where, "As your eyes adjust to the dim light
in the backroom of the smithy, the smith pulls out a halberd that bursts into
flames as he mutters something."
dilbert
wrote:
Certainly a risk - but the merchant is acting out of enlightened
self-interest. If the goblins get killed, no future sales. Same
thing if he rips them off too harshly. If he treats the goblins
reasonably, he gets a nice profit on an ongoing basis, and the goblins
get their magic items. [This assumes the gobiins have no spellcasters
to make items in the first place, but goblin spellcasters seem pretty
uncommon.]
dilbert
wrote:
Smith/Mage - I'll have to try that sometime. Make your own
masterwork weapons, then enchant them...
Hunter
Makes sense. All they need is +10 in the appropriate craft. That is +2 from
int, +2 MW bonus, +2 for an assistant and one level of skill points (4) to put
towards it at 5th level. And he can produce realibly about every 2 months a MW
weapon or armor.
Duane VP
news:awessels-5DAA58...@news.pacbell.net...
> In article <SlVZ6.55$is3....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Duane
> VP" <dua...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Started with a Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian, and a monk/cleric of
> > Ilmater
> > for Sunless Citadel. Monk/Cleric died shortly into Forge of Fury and
was
> > replaced by a straight monk. That character left after Dungeon of the
> > Opal
> > Fist and was replaced by a wizard/cleric. The party has consitently had
> > potions and/or scrolls available to make up for lack of a single-classed
> > cleric.
>
> fighter types, a cleric, a mage, and a thief. If limited to 4, a
> multiclass could fill in.
Yes it still isn't the best balanced party in the world but that's how
it goes sometimes. In a 4 character party I'd prefer to start with a
single-classed cleric, add a single-classed fighter-type (pal., rgr, bbn,
would work too so long as it's a melee-forte character not primarily a
bowman), then round out with a mage and a rogue at least one of whom ought
to multiclass as a fighter-type.
I forgot to mention that just prior to the death of the monk/cleric of
Ilmater I threw in an NPC thief.
> How well armored are the fighters?
Lowest AC in the party is currently 16, highest is 19. As soon as they
loot the bodies of the people they killed at the end of Saturday's session
that will jump.
Duane VP
news:3b383af4....@news-server.tampabay.rr.com...
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 06:31:39 GMT, "Duane VP" <dua...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
>
> >"Wayne Shaw" <sh...@caprica.com> wrote in message
> >news:Cec2O1dvvViyZX...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> I think you've missed the implication of the fact 3e assumes magic
> >> items are for sale; the reason they don't put in that much magical
> >> treasure is that they assume the PCs will use the majority of their
> >> financial treasure _buying_ them.
> >
"shops"
> >are a bad idea and I gave them up long ago. It reduces all magic to a
> >_common_ commodity and magic loses the cachet of mystery and wonder it
> >should have. A magic gewgaw with an assortment of nifty effects and
> >abilities is merely expensive rather than astonishing for being unique or
> >powerful. Any magic weapon is certainly UNspectacular in the extreme.
> > Second, there is not enough _monetary_ treasure being provided in the
> >modules to allow purchase of magical items that would place the
characters
> >in their appropriate brackets should you actually allow them to purchase
> >magic at the local 7-11.
>
> I have a question. Why assume if magic is being bought and sold, that it
will
> automaticly become a comodity or be sold everywhere? I liken magic items
to
> modern "luxury" items. Yachts and planes are bought and sold, but they
are
> still not a corner store item. Or what about high end cars they are
bought and
> sold, but not everyone has one.
I don't assume it to be a commodity and it's not - hence the _absence_
of magic shops or other places where magic items (other than scrolls &
potions) can be purchased casually. I try not to treat them as "luxury"
items like yachts or cars or the like either. That too alters the
perception of them as expensive but nonetheless _mundane_ equipment.
While I like the very standardized pricing of magic as equipment for
purposes of keeping tabs on the amount of it that's floating around in the
campaign I think it's a mistake to take that data any further. IMO,
although magic _can_ be treated very easily as an expensive commodity it
_shouldn't_ be for the same reasons that it was a bad idea in previous
editions. It loses it's emotional impact. Magic should always be rare,
mysterious, and revered.
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 20:42:50 -0400, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net>
>wrote:
<snip>
>> Voila! They have to fight for their magic, no need for magical shops,
>>you're set.
>>
>> O'course, you have to do some work for that, but that's the price you
>>pay for saying "Well, I don't want to do it THAT way." If you don't
>>want to work things the way the publishers do, you have to do the work
>>for yourself.
>
>Or I can stick to 2nd edition, or I can play a different game, yadda
>yadda yadda... I just fimnd the whole "Buy your magic here" seems a
>lot more akin to a computer game than a "magic is a work of wonder"
>setting.
And just why should magic be a "work of wonder"? *We* think of it as
such; we live in a world with no magic. Why should magic items
*necessarily* be any less common than techy-stuff is in *our* world?
Out of curiosity, how many people out there are running on
>the basis that players can access the magic item lists out of the D<MG
>and pretty much buy anything they can afford?
Within certain limits, I certainly do. Now, *where* those items are
is a question. How many small towns, even in the US, have high-end
servers or HDTV sets available as "off the shelf" items? Now look at
the rest of the world. High-power magic items can be "didfficult to
obtain" without being *unavailable*.
<snip>
> Just to push some hot buttons, though, I think it should be mandatory
>to run Psionics strictly by the 3e Handbook if you want to claim
>you're playing 3e D&D :^)
Feh.
Psionics *obviously* belong in Science Fiction settings *exclusively*.
(If your going to push buttons, shove 'em *hard* <g>)
<snip>
Then again, if magic items are common enough that you can
>buy them as a commodity, why wouldn't most of your opponents have
>magic items?
IMC they do. As frequently as PC's of similar level/class, anyway.
Fighting orcs IMC is a very easy way to die.
--
Saint Baldwin, Definer of the Unholy Darkspawn
-
"So here we are going into battle, butt freaking naked.
What's wrong with this picture?"
Nene Romanova
-
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well." [St. B]
-
Remove the spam-block to reply
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
<snip>
>This stuff should really depend on the campaign and not the game system
>itself (which should be able to scale either way). And even in the
>same campaign, there might be areas where magic is common and areas where
>it's almost unheard of.
>
>A generic fantasy RPG that can't do this is broken.
3e does scale very easily in this regard. The only argument (other
than personal preferences) is when debating "Official3e" vs. "Modified
3e". A too-common debate these days, IMO.
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
<snip>
>I have a question. Why assume if magic is being bought and sold, that it will
>automaticly become a comodity or be sold everywhere? I liken magic items to
>modern "luxury" items. Yachts and planes are bought and sold, but they are
>still not a corner store item. Or what about high end cars they are bought and
>sold, but not everyone has one.
Good lord, Hunter and I may be in agreement on something (other than
whiskey preferences, IIRC).
:-)
Allen Wessels
wrote:
> IMC they do. As frequently as PC's of similar level/class, anyway.
> Fighting orcs IMC is a very easy way to die.
I have a sense that fighting just about anything IYC is a potentially
very easy way to die.
I am guessing choosing when to fight tends to have a lot riding on it.
- Allen
Duane VP
news:9h9mpk$j96$1...@news.Stanford.EDU...
> In rec.games.frp.dnd, thou, Duane VP (dua...@earthlink.net), hast
wrytted...
> > Also, coming into the module via the underdark puts the goblin into
the
> >HEART of kobold territory, not the fringe.
>
> Er, the goblins also have access to the underdark from the second level.
Whoops. Forgot about that one. Same difference though - the arrival of
the goblin to sell the apple is presented as a way to get the PC's to the
module. Following the goblin back to the place is therefore an obvious step
to take. If the goblin _needed_ to use some special way to get in and out
of the dungeon then it should have been noted. Foolishly I did not analyze
the significance of the goblins movements in depth to see if figuring out
some special way for him to get in and out of the dungeon without hitting a
logic wall would be necessary. I stupidly took it for granted that he would
go in and out of the place the same way the PC's would. The key description
of the top of the ravine indicates fairly clearly that the goblins use this
to come and go. It's not as if I didn't read the thing before I started to
run it.
All was fine until I realized that the rooms he was going to pass
through (as the PC's tracked him from room to room) were held by the
kobolds. It's NOT a big deal really. In hindsight there are any number of
things I could have done to handle the situation so the PC's would never
know the difference but at the time I didn't think of any of them. I was
busy still teaching the system to the players, learning more about it
myself, and all the while still trying to run an exciting, interesting
adventure. I was indeed relying on the writer of the adventure to have
taken such small things into consideration already so I wouldn't have to.
My bad.
> I would imagine their access point is a long ways off from the kobold
> access point, or the kobolds would probably attack the gobs from there
> as well. How the underdark plays into the module is left entirely up to
> the DM.
And hence should NOT be relied upon to be of key importance in any
fashion. For all intents and purposes those entrances do not exist - until
such time as the DM decides he wants them too. That means that the goblin
would not have used one to exit and enter. Don't forget that the module was
specifically designed for the PC's to enter at the top and go through the
goblin and kobold territories so the story surrounding the dungeon can
unfold. If they enter on the second floor the whole situation between the
two factions is danged likely to be meaningless to the PC's.
> It sounds like you hadn't read through the module to realize this was
> the case (either about this passage or about the kobold controlled
> territory). Can you see how bad planning may have lead to this
> annoyance? Granted, the module doesn't point this out, but (to me) it
> seemed fairly obvious.
Bad planning on the writer's part, yes. I'm at the end of the line so I
may have to shoulder the responsibility but not necessarily the blame. The
situation was created before I came into the picture. It thus falls to me
to clean it up, but it shouldn't have been necessary to do so.
> Hmm, I put the dungeon almost a days travel from town. It definitely
> felt too close to town.
Ditto. I called it "a long day's march". It simply did not make sense
to me that they would be so close under that particular method of
introducing the module. 7 miles would only just barely outside of the reach
of outlying farms and 12+ years is a long time for such a dungeon to have
been actively in use without attracting greater attention.
> >Needing to rearrange the defenses of
> >these groups and the whole keytext of those portions of the module is not
> >just possible but danged likely. It means that good module design would
> >require more than just a simple sidebar reminder to move some of the
> >defenders around if the PC's leave.
>
> What exactly are you looking for?
Modules that take into account the much more limited abilities of PC's
to penetrate dungeons while meeting with "standard" levels of resitance.
Assume, just for the sake of discussion that you have a dungeon where there
are... 30 encounters. Most of these (say about 20) are of typical
difficulty draining approximately 20% of PC health and resources. Long
about the fifth encounter (maybe 6th if they're strong or lucky) the PC's
will have to stop to rest and recover but they'll only be a fifth to a sixth
of the way through the dungeon. So after a sixth of the dungeon has been
explored the rest of the dungeon key is rendered moot because the PC's
actions will likely necessitate reactions. They would likely have to make
four or five MORE such attacks before retreating to recover. Even if the
first assault didn't cause a reaction what about the second? The third?
The fourth?
Now obviously all campaigns are going to differ. PC's will be of
varying classes, levels, equipment and the DM will run the monsters
differently, etc. So although the exact numbers involved in that dynamic
will change quite a bit the dynamic WILL be there. I just don't yet see it
being addressed.
> I thought logistically the
> possiblities were pretty dang simple
They are actually, and I have a lot of experience at making logistical
adjustments to half-completed dungeon adventures. If I should ever run the
module again I won't actually be doing a whole lot differently than I did
the first time around (except kill them if they try and barricade themselves
in a room on the first level for 12 hours without having taken out at
_least_ one of the two factions.) But in days of yore there were a lot
fewer instances where completing the dungeon would have to be done with
several repeated forays. With dungeon/adventure design not yet having
adapted to new paradigms that's now _normal_. That's the core of my beef.
> If the PCs made it to a spot with goblins, beat them, but then
> retreated, the goblins would be there waiting for them when they decided
> to return (with new tricks!) My PCs had no problem eventually getting
> to the "goblins at wall 2", spiking the doors leading out and holding
> that room while recuperating.
I assume then that the remaining goblins weren't trying all that hard to
enter the room. Taking 20 they WILL get in unless there's some Big Juju
cast on the door. Unless the PC's then put up a highly spirited and
effective defense (difficult if they are wounded and spells expended - which
is why they were holing up in the first place) it would not take much to
overwhelm them. Situations will vary greatly (as always) but I do see this
sort of situation as requiring a rather higher bit of trepidation on the
part of the besiegers than would be normal. It certainly would not be a
tactic that could be in any way relied upon. All the moreso because the
_PC's_ do not know how many of the enemy there are left. It's tactically
unsound to hole up in an occupied, alerted dungeon while you yourself are
wounded and low/out of spells unless there is a much bigger than normal
motivation to do so.
> After Big Fight with Durnn, I had the goblins in full retreat from the
> first level of Sunless Citadel.
I would do the same in similar circumstances. IIRC they took out the
goblin territory in two waves but I can't be sure now because I didn't take
specific note. I DID go very easy on them as they (and I too) were still
getting familiar with the new rules. I even have something of a reputation
for having dungeon residents take every bit of treasure not nailed down and
fleeing while PC's were outside spending a night healing up. It didn't
happen _regularly_ in previous editions but often enough that I simply had
to have the residents do the sane and reasonable thing and flee.
But again, things are different now. PC's can no longer wade through
the same numbers of opponents that they could in 1E/2E. What in those
editions would have been a pathetic force is now not to be underestimated.
> > As mentioned elsewhere this defies the 3E rules. There is a standard
> >level of stuff presented for a reason - being able to gauge where the
> >modules are at on the treasure scales and how you might want to adjust
it.
> >IMO it's bad design to not only ignore that standard but to also fail to
> >notify DM's who'll be running the modules that a higher or lower standard
is
> >presented.
>
> A summary would be nice of all the items in the module and their total
> worth, but this is something that can be done fairly easily. You as DM
> make "the standard". It sounds an awful lot like you wanted the module
> to work as rote and at the end of it you have PCs pop out at level 3
> with 2,700 GP in loot apiece.
I foolishly thought that with certain levels of equipment value
_assumed_ in the rules that a module whose introduction states that PC's
will move from 1st to 2nd or even 3rd that the _normal_ levels of treasure
value would be found in it's course. I had rather thought this was a design
feature of the 3E rules that would be durn useful because I _wouldn't_ have
to add up all the treasure and magic in a module to see if it would all
pencil out or I'd have to radically adjust it.
I wasn't after a module that played by rote but one that played out by
the rules I had understood would be in force. I now know better but to
reiterate the subject - failing to adhere to the standards presented by the
rules (or not making it clear that it wouldn't) is bad module design.
> I'm constantly boggling at why folks gripe so much about a game where
> you make it up as you go along.
I can improvise, adapt and overcome with the best of them. But with
better designed modules it might be less like work. I could devote my
improvisational energies to improvement of what's there rather than just
making it fit.
Hunter
>"zeadeATstanfordalumni.org" <spammers_suck@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
>news:9h9mpk$j96$1...@news.Stanford.EDU...
You might try some of the RPGA modules. They will probably (haven't checked
them out) be more likely to follow the standard rules and level guidelines.
Duane VP
> >and now would certainly not get back in. I vamped a bit but ultimately
just
> >broke out of character and said "They screwed up the module a bit. He
> >_shouldn't_ have been able to get in or out but it assumes he can. Just
> >overlook it."
>
> That's too bad. You missed out on the great opportunity of having the
goblin
> come back, only to discover that the kobolds have taken over this section
of
> the dungeon in his absence. He walks into area 15 and gets bushwacked. ;)
A possibility that did not occur to me until later, along with a number
of others. I had a lot of my DMing attention and energies occupied
elsewhere and this just caught me up short. It really wasn't a big deal,
just noting that it was an annoyance that it would have occurred.
> > Also, coming into the module via the underdark puts the goblin into
the
> >HEART of kobold territory, not the fringe.
>
> No, check out the module again. There are *two* access points to the
Underdark
> -- one for the kobolds (area 23), one for the goblins (area 43).
(Personally,
> I'm cutting these before I ever run the adventure -- I know my players:
They'll
> merrily head off on a complete tangent into the underdark. <g>)
Yeah, I forgot about the second one. But like I said elsewhere in the
thread - if it's there as an _optional_ point of expansion then the DM
should not have to worry about it being in any way shape or form a factor in
the module. I didn't - which is why I wound up in a quandry with the stupid
goblin.
> > It's a fools proposition to hole up IN a dungeon in order to rest and
> >recuperate.
>
> Not a universal truth by any stretch of the imagination -- particularly in
the
> Sunless Citadel.
[snip]
> Basically, there are a lot of different places in the Citadel where the
kobolds
> and goblins don't usually go -- and the PCs could hole up in any one of
them
> with relative security (assuming they don't let the dungeon denizens know
> they're there through abject stupidity).
With the exception of the dust-covered section of area #7 and beyond to
#12 the PC's have no way of knowing that the dungeon residents don't go to a
particular room. Just because nobody is IN area #6 when the PC's first
enter it doesn't mean nobody ever does. They don't know what is in any
other area of the dungeon they haven't already seen unless they've gotten a
detailed rundown from someone and whatever is there can and possibly should
try to pry them out of whatever hole they crawl into to rest. Unless they
have magic to place on the door they can't keep a determined enemy from
simply battering it down - all it takes is time and the PC's themselves took
such a tactic in opening many of the doors in SC without a rogue to pick
locks. I dunno about you but as a rule of thumb in my campaign when you
open a door by force it don't close so good afterward. :-)
> >>But
> >> that's because how the PCs handle the dungeon is going to vary
> *tremendously*
> >> -- and trying to cover all possibilities would not only be impossible,
but a
> >> tremendous waste of space.
> >
> > That's a bit of a copout IMO.
>
> You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but if you can think of a way
to
> handle the multitude of possibilities created by all the different
strategies
> the PCs might pursue in the Citadel, without radically expanding the size
and
> price of the module, I'd really love to hear it.
Expand?! I'm advocating _shrinkage_ here (in a sense). If you reduce
the number of encounters in a dungeon to something more compatible with the
dynamics inherent in 3E you don't NEED to devote additional efforts to
handling a complete reordering of the dungeon when the PC's go to sleep
somewhere for 12 hours. There are simply consequences that arise out of the
way 3E plays that modules are not yet addressing.
> > As mentioned elsewhere this defies the 3E rules.
>
> I've discussed this elsewhere, as well. You're trying to have it both
ways --
> not allow PCs to buy magic items, but then complaining because the PCs
aren't
> buying magic items.
I'm NOT complaining that they aren't buying magic items. It's like
this:
1) I don't allow PC's to buy magic just any old place. IMC magic is
special stuff and when it gets bought, sold, or traded it's almost always a
unique transaction not witnessed by the general public. A lot more people
may own magic in 3E but it's value in may respects is still beyond mere
gold.
2) Having a price tag attached to magic items is very useful comparison
and measurement of what is, as I said, invaluable. However, just because
it's got a price tag on it doesn't mean that even "common" +1 weapons need
to get bought and sold on any regular basis.
3) I don't have a problem with PC's _having_ lots of magic. The chart
in the DMG with equipment value by level is fine by me. If I were inclined
to allow magic to be treated more cavalierly I would not have a problem with
PC's having equivalent amounts of gold with which they could buy magical
items. I have never really gone out of my way to make a campaign
magic-poor, though it often turned out that way. I did, however, expend
effort seeing to it that it didn't become _magic-glutted_. Now it's looking
like for the first time I'll have to be ADDING magic and cash on a regular
basis in order to even begin to get the PC's to where the DMG indicates they
should be.
4) If the chart in the DMG setting equipment value levels for characters
is to be in any way useful it needs to be a standard by which things can be
gauged. If nobody is going to design modules with an eye to that standard
then this particular design feature of 3E is a wasted effort. Magic items
have always had prices in previous editions. I could have simply tallied
them up back then if I wanted. But without a standard to compare them to
what use is it? On the other hand, if writers adhere to that standard or
note when they don't, it becomes useful. I know immediately where I should
stand treasure-wise with each module and whether it's necessary to spend
time and effort _redesigning_ the thing with a lowered level of magic or
vaporizing a portion of the cash. This was something I was looking forward
to - not having to sift every danged module I bought in order to attempt to
get the levels of available magic right even aside from any changes I might
make to fit it logically into the game events in my campaign.
Duane VP
> >Or I can stick to 2nd edition, or I can play a different game, yadda
> >yadda yadda... I just fimnd the whole "Buy your magic here" seems a
> >lot more akin to a computer game than a "magic is a work of wonder"
> >setting.
>
(in
> which case, it isn't going to be plentiful in dungeons, eithers); or magic
is
> more plentiful. If magic is more plentiful than all these magical items
must
> have a source -- and the logical source for a whole mess of magical items
are a
> whole bunch of wizards *producing* magical items. And if wizards are
producing
> magical items, they have to have a reason for doing so -- and the most
logical
> reason for doing so is financial incentive. And if wizards are creating a
bunch
> of magical items for the purposes of selling them, then doesn't it make
sense
> that wizards are going to want to sell to adventurers who not only need
> high-power, expensive magical items -- but also have the cash to afford
them?
Now that there is a standard for demographics we can easily see that
there are a non-trivial number of people in the world with money and magic -
but the vast majority of populations are still 1st level commoners who do
not have the money or opportunity to be getting their hands on a lot of
magical items. Spells and very low level disposables (the cheaper scrolls &
potions) are within their grasp but even that ubiquitous standby the +1
sword is still something you don't see a lot of people carrying around.
People with more than just one or two levels of anything (PC _or_ NPC class)
are relatively rare - and thus, so is the magic they have access to.
Put it this way - do you have magic "stores" in your campaign where
characters can just go shopping wearing +1 items and come home with shopping
bags full of +2 items? That's a little condescendingly phrased, but I'm
willing to bet that even though you consider magical items to be relatively
common you still don't have them available for sale just any old place.
> Low-level magic items are going to be far more accessible and plentiful,
> because there are a lot more low-level wizards running around making them.
> High-level wizards are comparatively rare; therefore high-level magics are
> comparatively rare (and most of them probably can be lost at the bottoms
of
> ancient dungeons).
Which is all I would assert except that the benefits to be gained by
reinforcing the idea of magic as "rare" exceed the benefits of crunching
some of these numbers to their logical conclusions. It's still a fantasy
setting and an appreciation of magic as rare reinforces that IMO
Duane VP
> > Started with a Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian, and a monk/cleric of
Ilmater
> >for Sunless Citadel. Monk/Cleric died shortly into Forge of Fury and was
> >replaced by a straight monk. That character left after Dungeon of the
Opal
> >Fist and was replaced by a wizard/cleric. The party has consitently had
> >potions and/or scrolls available to make up for lack of a single-classed
> >cleric.
>
end.
> And the missing cleric for Forge of Fury probably didn't help your ability
to
> move deeper into a dungeon without having to rest up.
>
> I would say that a cleric is absolutely required if you expect to have the
> endurance of a "standard adventure party".
Lack of a full cleric was slightly limiting but scrolls and potions and
the paladin's Laying On Hands made up for some of that, and the ability to
absorb more collective damage by having an imbalance of fighter-types
accounts for a lot of the rest. I think they may actually have been making
it further into the dungeons, resting less often because of that, but when
they did stop to rest they needed to do so for a longer period of time.
The failure to move deeper into Forge of Fury was purely a
character-driven result. Monk/cleric got stirge-sucked to death. Player
rolls up a full monk as a replacement and makes him the half brother of the
now-dead monk/cleric. Arrives on scene to see his long-searched-for brother
being dragged dead out of a hole in the ground. Characters head to town,
ostensibly to see about possibly raising the dead character. At this point
the DM stokes the fires by throwing in clues that the dead character had a
rather important destiny and that there are great forces at work that may
have been working _against_ him. The campaign now becomes all about
unravelling that mystery and there is no motivation whatever to return to
Forge of Fury and finish it.
HADSIL
>to raise cash by selling magic items. There are
>probably tons of wizard school students selling
>scrolls of Mend for pocket money. When they go
>into class on Monday, and they've forgotten the
>previous weeks material, the prof knows they've
>been off selling their XPs to buy beer.
>
>Ben B.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Gerald Katz
It's the players' game too!
Malachias Invictus
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 22:53:19 GMT, hnei...@accessweb.com (dilbert) wrote:
> >I'm kind of trying to 'overlook' that... I find magic as a commodity
> >a really negative aspect to the 3rd Edition. I haven't DM'd 3E, but
> >there's no way magic arms and armor will be sold on the streets "Just
> >past the cabbage vendor and the carpetmaker".
>
> It's not that common. It's just common enough that a smith might have a
couple
> of minor magic weapons or a suit of armor. Or a merchant in a shop might
have
> a wonderous item.
I seem to recall something in the DMG about magic items worth 3000gp or less
being more or less available (I would assume in a big city), while items
worth more are much more rare. That seems to work for my games. I have to
admit that I like providing access to healing potions, especially; it makes
for less stopping and resting, allows me to throw tougher things at my PCs,
and provides a constant monetary drain...
>I see magic as prevelant in D&D as owning your own plane or
> yacht is in RL.
I find it unlikely I will ever be able to afford my own plane, but I am
saving up for a layer, perhaps in the Abyss.
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.
from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Peter Newman
> >>>> If the pC's can buy whatever they want, why can't the NPC's?
> >>>
> >>>You need to use the Gold Piece Limit per city population
> >>>rule [DMG p 137].
> >>If they can't enter the town, they can likely pay an unscrupulous
> >>merchant 1,575 gp for a wand of fireballs with 5 or 6 charges
> >Being unscrupulous as he is. He hides his stuff, goes to the guards and have
> >them retrieve his "stolen" gear from the goblins.
>
> Certainly a risk - but the merchant is acting out of enlightened
> self-interest. If the goblins get killed, no future sales. Same
> thing if he rips them off too harshly. If he treats the goblins
> reasonably, he gets a nice profit on an ongoing basis, and the goblins
> get their magic items. [This assumes the gobiins have no spellcasters
> to make items in the first place, but goblin spellcasters seem pretty
> uncommon.]
You can determine the presence and levels of Goblin spell casters
by using the city generation system. It is not limited to use
with humans, and should work fine with Goblins as well. If this
tribe of Goblins has 50 adults in it than it is a Thorp. As such
it will have an Adept of level 1d6-3 and a Wizard and a Sorcerer
of levels 1d4-3.
Rupert Boleyn
<tar...@imap2.asu.edu> wrote:
>BTW, thanks for telling me about the giant slaying
>swords - my character will keep an eye out for
>them. :-)
Ooops. I thought everyone would've seen that thing by now.
That's alright, he still has to identify them, etc., etc., unless
you've got a Bard handy that is.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rbo...@paradise.net.nz>
"Inside every cynic is a romantic trying to get out."
Rupert Boleyn
wrote:
>Makes sense. All they need is +10 in the appropriate craft. That is +2 from
>int, +2 MW bonus, +2 for an assistant and one level of skill points (4) to put
>towards it at 5th level. And he can produce realibly about every 2 months a MW
>weapon or armor.
Unfortunately the assistant can't 'take 10' on his roll to help you,
so he needs decent kit, too. not a biggie, but it does drive your
expenses up. OTOH a good mage type should be able to get better than a
+2 from Int by 5th level.
What I really like about 3e's way of doing things is that if I want
Pcs to be able to keep that first magic sword I gave them at 3rd level
until they're 15th without being a mug I don't have to make it a +3
Frostbrand or some such. As long as it's MW it's worth keeping because
the PC can pay money, or items, or favours, etc., to have it upgraded.
This also gives me the opportunity to hand out interesting quests to
find the one guy who knows the secret of making vorpal blades, etc.
(yes, this requires making the knowledge of making these things
seperate from just knowing the prerequisites, but it's my world).
Ed Chauvin IV
>
> Now that there is a standard for demographics we can easily see that
>there are a non-trivial number of people in the world with money and magic -
>but the vast majority of populations are still 1st level commoners who do
>not have the money or opportunity to be getting their hands on a lot of
>magical items.
Interestingly enough, when you run the numbers (as given in the DMG) you find
that the smaller the settlement, the greater the proportion of the population
has class levels. So much so that, in some cases there won't be *any* first
level commoners at all. At least, not if you use the rules for generating towns
from the DMG.
Ed Chauvin IV
--
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the Beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed,
the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Rupert Boleyn
<no...@your.busine.ss> wrote:
>The cost of commissioning a new item surely includes a premium for the
>luxury of not having to go find the item. Sure it takes a few weeks,
>but its certain. You might be able to find a peasant who'd be willing
>to part with one that he just dug up in his field, for a tenth the price
>that guy in the pointy hat wanted, but finding the peasant if he exists
>is going to be a rough go. Maybe better just to pay for the new one.
>But now there are two in circulation, the one you had made *and* the one
>the peasant found. Maybe he sold it to your enemy for that low price.
What's more the one the peasant dug up may be cursed, or not as
powerful as you thought. If you buy from a reputable
dealer/manufacturer you'll be more likely to get what you want. IMC
one of the PC wizards is paying for her spell copying costs by making
swords, etc. for the other PCs. She charges market rates, and when the
others complained (they felt she should give her friends a discount)
she pointed out that they were still making on the deal as they were
getting what they wanted, without waiting, and that as they knew where
she lived she wasn't going to cheat them. The consensus was that this
was not unreasonable.
Andrew Tellez
Robert Baldwin wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 01:45:39 GMT, hnei...@accessweb.com (dilbert)
> wrote:
>
> And just why should magic be a "work of wonder"? *We* think of it as
> such; we live in a world with no magic. Why should magic items
> *necessarily* be any less common than techy-stuff is in *our* world?
IMC, the high-end magic (spinning wheels that put people to sleep, that
sort of thing) might be considered a "work of wonder." Things like
magic swords, though, are considered relatively "normal." People know
how swords work, and magic swords work much the same way. Wands are no
more unusual than wizards (though there aren't a whole lot of wizards).
> Within certain limits, I certainly do.
As do I. If one can find a seller, one can probably buy the item. That
doesn't mean that it will be fast or easy.
> Psionics *obviously* belong in Science Fiction settings *exclusively*.
If it has Psionics, it isn't Science Fiction.
> (If your going to push buttons, shove 'em *hard* <g>)
(And make sure to push the buttons next to them, too. :)
> IMC they do. As frequently as PC's of similar level/class, anyway.
> Fighting orcs IMC is a very easy way to die.
PCs tend to have more items, since they keep defeating others and taking
their stuff, and so far the people they're defeating aren't the sort
who've been making the same sort of intensive collection effort. The
PCs also horde items more efficiently than their foes.
Drew Id
"Rupert Boleyn" <rbo...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:3b3996bb...@news.paradise.net.nz...
I'm following a similar set-up IMC. That isn't to say that the PC's won't
still find magic items every now and then, but they are more interesting and
have more personality when the PC's keep them and craft them for their own
needs. This also makes more sense when you find or hear about a weapon that
is something like:
The Axe of Turgoth: +2 Holy Waraxe, Lawful Dwarven Fighter Only. Adds +2
to user's Charisma.
You can tell that this thing probably started as a +1 Waraxe, and that the
Turgoth guy was a lawful dwarven fighter, and apparently fought a lot of
evil stuff, because he went through the trouble of getting his axe enchanted
to be +2 Holy. Also, he must have been needing some Charisma, maybe because
he was a Leader of some type, so he had the axe enchanted to add to his
Charisma as well. Slowly, bit by bit, the weapons that the PC's have,
assuming they keep upgrading them, will actually tell people of later
generations what the PC's were like, what they fought, and what they needed.
In addition, a house rule IMC is that any magic item that exceeds roughly
2500-3000 gp in value requires an additional relevant material component
that typically must be quested for. The PC has input on the relevant
material component and there should be options for different components to
use. For instance, to create a flaming longsword might require that the hilt
be made from (or replaced with) the tooth of a red dragon or that the
crossguard be fashioned from (or replaced with) the bones of a thoqqua. This
gives the weapons a history and a personality to match their owner.
Drew Id
"Ed Chauvin IV" <edc...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:at0jjtss31o82n77v...@enews.newsguy.com...
> Duane VP wrote:
> >
> > Now that there is a standard for demographics we can easily see that
> >there are a non-trivial number of people in the world with money and
magic -
> >but the vast majority of populations are still 1st level commoners who do
> >not have the money or opportunity to be getting their hands on a lot of
> >magical items.
>
> Interestingly enough, when you run the numbers (as given in the DMG) you
find
> that the smaller the settlement, the greater the proportion of the
population
> has class levels. So much so that, in some cases there won't be *any*
first
> level commoners at all. At least, not if you use the rules for generating
towns
> from the DMG.
That seems somewhat logical in a very bent sort of way. If the PC's were to
settle their own land and start a little city, it is likely that the
majority, if not all, of the initial settlers would be followers of the
PC's, and therefore classed. It would seem to be the same for NPC's. Of
course, how a small village that is 100 years old still has classed people
in it, I have no idea.
Wayne Shaw
>characters can just go shopping wearing +1 items and come home with shopping
>bags full of +2 items? That's a little condescendingly phrased, but I'm
>willing to bet that even though you consider magical items to be relatively
>common you still don't have them available for sale just any old place.
It depends on how you define "stores". Are there people who
specifically specialize in selling magical items? Yes, just as there
are people in the real world who specifically specialize in selling
high ticket valuables. Do they necessarily have everything a PC could
want easily at hand? No. But in many cases they do have a range of
items they can get ahold of at fairly short notice, and a wider range
they can arrange commissions on.
> Which is all I would assert except that the benefits to be gained by
>reinforcing the idea of magic as "rare" exceed the benefits of crunching
>some of these numbers to their logical conclusions. It's still a fantasy
>setting and an appreciation of magic as rare reinforces that IMO
I don't think this goes away if you assume some magic is for sale; it
just moves the target to the more powerful items. Unless your players
are finding money with both hands, having to spend the amount that
would buy five heavy warhorses for that +1 sword isn't liable to
trivialize the latter.