Michael Cummings's page

Going back to the drawing board on the whole Readied Action issue, I have two thoughts.

1) Readying an action ought to cost something. Right now, the 'costs' we have are swift, move and standard actions.

2) To me, it would seem more straight forward and easier to determine what's legal and what isn't if the cost for readying an action were separate from the action itself. I think we can all see that the current "it's a standard action that includes another standard action ... or maybe it isn't" is too confusing.

So, give readying an action a cost like any other action - I lean towards swift or move, but could handle standard - and it becomes just another part of the 'action economy' (Quandry's term from another thread, I believe).

This is definitely a thought-provoking subject. In my opinion, casting in combat carries very little consequence. Casters can often shield themselves by simply taking a 5' step. The casting defensively check is pretty much a joke by mid levels. I would like to see more opportunities for spell interruption, back to the days of 1e/2e where casters very seldom cast spells in combat since all it took was a hit prior to their spot in the initiative order to ruin a spell. The situation in the OP does have an issue though - if the spell being cast is a standard action and the fighter uses a move action to approach the caster (and move/standard actions are assumed to take the same amount of time) does the spell complete before the fighter even gets to the caster? I would probably house rule that the two combatants roll an opposed initiative check (or just an opposed Dex check) to see which action gets off a split-second before the other (fighter cleaves caster in two just before he gets out the final syllable or caster completes spell just as fighter gets to him).

IMHO, the "True Problem" is a social/inter-personal/communal issue that 1) stemmed from corporate greed in publishing all rules for players to rule lawyer and judge (in an obvious attempt to make everyone the type of consumer that would buy the 6x-as-much that the DM was buying and 2) the result of years of manipulative "forgetting" about the art of dungeonmastering (and the lack of senior DMs teaching younger ones this art). DMing has become characatured as a series of "handwaives" and "rule-breaks" instead of what it is/what it was designed to be.

Restore the skill of DMing/GMing and you will have addressed the "True Problem" for a great GM can make any system work incredibly, more miraculously than ever imagined.

Just my two cents.... I return you now to your regularly scheduled thread, and will...

You are truly on point with your assessment of the current state of DMing. I would like to take this a step further however, and make the same argument of the player. Being a purveyor of D&D since 1st edition (one of my original group members had the PHB w/ the thieves carving the jeweled eye from the demon statue), my early gaming decisions were made in a manner that helped bring my mental view of my PC into clearer focus and drive character development rather than character building. In my experience with 3.0 and 3.5, this is really not a driving factor anymore. Much character building discussion now revolves around min/maxing and character optimization which has turned the D&D game into one of pure mathematics. I think the OP does have a valid point regarding the breakdown of the game due to the 1d20+X issue but I also agree with you that the mechanical flaws of the game would not be as evident if both the DM and players made more decisions based on the campaign storyline and character development rather than maxing skill ranks, attack bonus, or AC.

They begin shipping today.

Interesting but if the king has an illegimate son, the curse didn't work, so?
If the king is still alive, what about the curse? What about the Queen and her way to rule the city?
I don't thnik that you can use it with the same name of the campaign, but, you can do what you want. It's an interesting point of view.

What will you do with Eran once he is rescued by the PCs? Why would the Queen be more interested in Sabor than in Eran?

I was somewhat let down with the character connection in Edge of Anarchy, so I've been thinking about a different approach. I think I have one that will be cool:

The characters happen upon a living Zellara being accosted by Red Mantis assassins. As the PCs intervene, one of the assassins lands a death blow and the two assassins escape. Zellara imparts the PCs with information using her dying breaths - "Gaedren Lamm, Old Fishery, save my son Eran". Some detective work on the PCs part can lead them to finding the Old Fishery. Eran remains one of Lamm's Lambs - a nine year old boy. In my campaign, I am planning to make Zellara one of Eodred's past lovers and have Eran be his illegimate son (on consequently heir to the throne of Korvosa). This will make for a very interesting twist in the campaign as Neolandus will have this knowledge. The PCs will not only need to de-throne Ileosa, but also keep the heir alive to take his rightful place upon the throne at the conclusion of the campaign.

I really don't think the good save/bad save discrepency is much of an issue. There are feats that can be taken and applied to any saving throw type (Lightning Reflexes, Iron Will, and Great Fort) to close the gap by +2. What I've experienced that gets back to the 'spellcasters are overpowered' argument is with all the new splatbooks the number of 1)swift/immediate spells and 2)spells bypassing SR and/or not allowing saves both increase greatly. And with my group of admitted min/maxers much of their spell selection is often based on such criteria.

I have to give some props to Five Finger Death Punch. After previewing the album on itunes, I immediately purchased the entire album. Good anger but still musical - somewhat reminiscient of Pantera.

One addition to grapple that has a basis in cinema is to allow others an attack on the grappling creature to help release an ally from the grapple. Many fantasy movies show creatures like the kraken wrapping its tentacles around victims only to be injured and release its hold. This really wouldn't change the grapple rules as they stand, but would add an additional option for when the weakling wizard/sorcerer is in the embrace of a grey render.

Helping a friend in a grapple requires a standard action which grants one attack against the grappling creature. If successful, the attack deals normal damage and forces the grappling creature to immediately make a grapple check against the CMB of the grappled creature + 1/2 the damage dealt by the attack (this DC mechanic may need to be adjusted - just taking a WAG (wild a$$ guess) as full damage seems excessive).

Smurf my smurf

Peruhain of Brithondy wrote:

If you want dynamic combat, set up battlefields (and enemy forces) conducive to it. Fighters won't stand in one spot to get their full attack if their enemies are swooping out of the air or riding by launching arrows from horse/griffon/worg-back. Nor will they if the enemy outflanks them and gets to the party spellcaster.

The problem isn't that fighters don't have incentives to engage in dynamic combat. The problem is that fighters suck when engaging in dynamic combat. Fighters rely on their iterative attacks to be effective, and the minute they have to start moving around the battlefield, they lose their biggest advantage. The ability to hit a single opponent once per round for 20 or 30 points of damage is worthless at higher levels.

Incidentally, I agree with you that the removal of iterative attacks is not the answer. (And if I'm not mistaken, Jason Bulmahn indicated earlier in this thread that the removal of iterative attacks is not an option.) However, I do think something should be done to allow higher-level fighter-types to make more than one attack per round without having to stand in place to do it.

I really don't see iterative attacks as core 3.5 - the underlying core rule is really Base Atk Bonus, which would not change. I remember picking up the 3.0 PHB and paging through the first time. My first reaction was "Hey, clerics and wizards get additional attacks at higher levels - that doesn't seem right". Iterative attacks still don't make sense to me - fighters don't gain spellcasting or even the ability to use scrolls/wands; why give other classes an ability that was exclusive to fighters in earlier (1e/2e) editions?

Keep Iterative Attacks.

What is with the posts to get rid of Iterative attacks and change the magic system? You might as well go 4e if you're gonna do that. The thing that has attractied me to Pathfinder is the fact that ti is still 3.5 with some updates. Changing magic and Iterative attacks makes Pathfinder in-compatable with 3.5.

Slime wrote:

An option to consider in escaping a grapple would be to consider damage inflicted on the grappler.

It's both realistic (self-defence teaches that as the first way to try and get out of someone's grip) and cinematographic (hit the beast hard enough and it let's go of the damsel while yelling in pain) that a creature grappling someone could drop or let go of his victim if inflicted enough damage (possibly 10+CMB h.p. or more in a single attack).

Low intelligence creatures could get a penalty (ex.: double the int. score penalty). This option could also help some Wizards since they could use their 1st level damaging supernatural Ability (no casting or AoO) to try that option but damage is still on the low side but with the int. penalty option it could work out nice.

Just a thought.

Sounds reasonable.
How about just simply adding damage to the next escape attempt?
Or using the damage as a DC for the next grapple if it is greater than the usual CMB?

I think that people are getting on the right track with how to resolve iterative attacks. Simple movement is *huge*; there's a reason a lot of powerful melee builds work off of pounce of some kind or another. There's a simple reason: Melee combatant A wins intiative and charges, dealing some damage. Melee combatant B retaliates with a full attack, killing melee combatant A. But if A had pounce, A stands a good chance of jumping the gun and outright killing B.

Something else I noticed reading through the Pathfinder rules was that they *drastically* lowered the amount of damage that can be added with Power Attack. In my mind, I think this was a mistake. Melee combatants, especially at high levels, had problems with simultaneously hitting and dealing enough damage to harm enemies (since, while spellcasters are much better at controlling a battlefield, melee characters are where its at as far as dishing out the damage goes). Iterative attacks were part of the problem, as each added attack effectively did less damage due to its decreased chance to hit. Also, Power Attack didn't exactly help, either, as you had to decrease your hit chance (thus basically lowering your damage) to increase your damage. The only real solution for a melee character was to beef up his attack bonus to such an absurd level that he would be assured of hitting even while power attacking. A lot of these methods were pretty messed up (Festering Anger, polymorph, frenzied berzerker, pounce+shock trooper, etc.), and, while solving the problem for that given fighter, still meant that without a lot of effort, a fighter had a hard time just hitting things in melee and doing credible damage.

So, melee classes need to see their average damage raised, probably by more than seems rational at first, to be able to hack it against those high level monsters. This can be done in a few ways, thought I think adding a mobile full attack with less penalties than in 3.5 would be huge. Also, the power attack mechanic needs to be changed from...

Erik Randall wrote:

Are you thinking 10 + 1/2 caster level + ability modifier?

Exactly! It makes all levels of spell actually useful and doesn't inflate the spellcasters power. It is a realistic reflection of the spellcasters ability.

A house rule I am implementing in an upcoming campaign used a similar 1d6 per 2 cleric lvls in a blast radius, but also allowed a more powerful attack if touching undead with the holy symbol. In this case, the damage was 1d6 per cleric lvl but required a successful touch attack on the undead with the holy symbol. An undead with turn resistance gained the turn resistance as a bonus to their touch AC against such an attack. You see this type of attack in old vampire movies where the cross burns the vampire as its pressed into his flesh.

I hate the turn undead rules as written in PHB, but I don't think the Pathfinder changes are good either. Like others have stated, good PCs will heal non-undead enemies and evil clerics will harm non-undead allies. I also don't like the idea of this being abused outside of combat as a group healing measure. What I think might make more sense is to give a benefit rather than healing:

For good-aligned clerics - allies within the burst radius gain +2 atk & dmg vs undead affected by the turning (those that took dmg) and those undead are -2 atk & dmg vs cleric and allies in burst for 1/rd per cleric's Cha mod.

For evil-aligned clerics - rebuked undead gain +2 atk & dmg against targets they are commanded to attack by the evil cleric and cleric's enemies are -2 atk & dmg vs. the cleric and any rebuked undead.

Undead take damage from good-aligned turning (positive energy) and heal damage from evil-aligned turning (negative energy) due to their unique nature and direct ties to the negative material plane. Living creatures do not have such a tie to the positive material plane so they are unaffected hit point-wise, but still may benefit or suffer from the other conditions.

I like the idea of one feat building on another through the combat. Rather than just attacking round after round, you get possibilities for some "combos". Seems like it would add some excitement to the combat to see if you can pull off the later feats.

Count me in on the banishment of iterative attacks. While getting to roll more dice can be fun, the success level of iterative attacks from my perspective makes them not that helpful to characters. You're basically -25% to hit on the second attack, -50% on the third,... If you're fighting things of a CR near the party's avg level and not playing an uber min/maxed character, you're probably only going to hit on the first and possibly second attack unless you get lucky and roll a "natty 20" on one of the later attacks. I also never liked the idea of sorcerer/wizards gaining additional attacks at higher levels. Guess it's a hold-over from 1e/2e where only a fighter-type class was able to gain multiple attacks in a round.

While we're on the subject of attacks, I'd like to see a little more love given to the two-handed fighting style in Pathfinder RPG. It just seems with 3.5 that all fighter types walk around with a two-handed weapon because they get the max Str adj to dmg with none of the penalties associated with two weapon fighting. Even with a light off-hand weapon and the two-weapon fighting feat you're -2 (or -10%) on every attack - the best case scenario. Maybe having Dex offset these penalties like in 1e/2e is a possibility, or allowing full Str mod to dmg on both weapons to give it an advantage over a two-handed weapon to justify the associated penalties?

Chris Mortika wrote:

Hi, Mary.

Let me ask: what has been your most positive role-playing adventure? What's been the best for you, and why?

Gosh. Twenty-nine years of gaming gives a lot to choose among.

Probably the most fun was the _Radiant_ space opera campaign (run in a homebrew) where the PCs started out as crew of a struggling tramp merchant starship, and ended up as major players in two different star systems (one highly civilized and connected, one a "lost colony."

The background and setting became very rich over five years of play; the PCs' home base was particularly well developed, as was the lost colony world. The PCs had enough power to do a lot of interesting things, but they had to use finesse--they couldn't go head-to-head with their biggest opponents, like the demon-possessed AI that turned out to be running the colony planet.

My favorite part was the PC infiltration of a "self-improvement company" (really a dangerous cult which was using demon possession as its road to self-improvement): one of the PCs managed to get himself quite far into the cult leadership, while the others worked from outside to support him and gather the evidence needed to convince the authorities. The insider PC complicated things immensely by falling in love with the cult leader's daugher.... The arc ended with a very tense raid to extricate the PC (and his girlfriend) and try to bag the cult leader; and a lengthy roleplaying situation where the PCs were trying to discover if there was any way to redeem the daughter.

I think fantasy is a lot easier to run, and I've had good experiences there too, but this game really stands out for me. It rewarded thinking, planning, and understanding the setting. The PCs managed to uncover a ring of vampires by tracing a complex series of clues starting with "Why does this class of people on the space station spend more money and drink more fluids than they ought to?" and ending with a PC needing to deliberately bait a suspected vampire into...

Coridan wrote:

Nicolas Logue wrote:

Mr. Slaad wrote:

I just want to say that the early boss in EoA is NOT the major crime boss at all, but a very old and not very powerful little leaguer. So there is not real "1st level pcs killing big baddie" feel to it.

Word. He's a dweeb in the scheme of things. He's a nothing and the module makes that as clear as clear can be. He never amounted to anything.

In the words of my character after we killed him. "Wow, he was much scarier when I was 12"

Ha! Great! :-)

This was one more thing that struck a bad chord with me - when the PCs go into Gaedren's lair, the city is fine and when they exit the city has gone out of control. I know other posts have suggested giving more lead up to the event in the introduction, but as written it seemed very contrived - like we'll send the PCs here to keep them occupied then spring the plot hook on them when they come out.

I was a little put off by the early boss in EoA as well. The characters are supposed to be built with an eye toward hatred for this guy then he's most likely killed off in the first act?? It would be like the Joker getting killed 10 minutes into the upcoming Dark Knight movie. I can see my players having a real problem with this - taking the time to write up a detailed history on how they hate this guy, then offing him very easily in the initial encounter. It just doesn't make for a compelling encounter for me. I know I plan to re-write this section to hopefully give said boss a little more facetime in the first couple installments. I still have high hopes for the overall AP, but the initial volume did not reach my expectations.

In the reefclaw's bestiary/monster stat block entry it has a special attack of tenacious grapple, but there is no description of that special attack. I'm assuming it gives some sort of bonus on grapple checks since the reefclaw is a small creature with 10 STR, but has +5 grapple check with only +1 base attack. Can we possibly get a write-up on this description so we can apply it to an advanced reefclaw of larger size?

Is the Paizo staff close to announcing a release date on the PDF yet? I'm assuming like Rise of the Runelords that the PDF of the Player's Guide will be a free download and print copies will be $2. Really looking forward to taking a look at this - urban adventures rock!!!

What types of stories do others want to see?
I would like to see a Q series that focused on Quests - most would likely be quests for magic items, but there could also be quests to save important figures (like the 2nd Ed Iuz adventure). I think an adventure path dedicated to a magic item quest could be a nice change of pace from the usual "Save the World from the BBEG" that it seems most of the paths have revolved around.

Jakoov, I wish more players were like yours- ie. actually acting like good guys. Too many people I've player with or DMed for have acted like a bunch of tiresome mercenary jerks.

It can be very gamebreaking to allow druid animal companions to grow. We had a druid in our campaign with a wolverine and he believed that adding hit dice should follow the size rules in MM. When the wolverine grew from Med to Large, he added the +8 Str (on top of the Str increase from being an animal companion). This creature far outdistanced the PC fighter in melee with its 20-something Str plus reach for being large. It was obviously broken. I believe one of the Sage Advice columns (can't remember which Dragon issue) addressed this topic and ruled animal companions do not increase in size per the MM.

Two DM/players trying to recruit players (2-4 additional) for weekly Friday night 3.5 D&D in the Milwaukee/Madison area (game will be held either in New Berlin or Oconomowoc). One DM will run Ptolus-based urban campaign while other will run Pathfinder adventure path. Sessions will rotate between the two campaigns. Looking for players able to commit to the weekly schedule and who are character and story-focused. If interested, e-mail mcummi5714@wi.rr.com.

Our group has also been tossing around the idea of improvements to 3.5. Here are some of the suggestions I'm proposing:

Iterative attacks - after the first attack or two, I think these basically become worthless. I would rather see some type of increased damage scaling rather than additional attacks that have little or no chance to hit. I think this would also make the fighter-types more viable as compared to the spellcasters at higher levels.

Grappling - basically impossible for characters to beat large or larger creatures. Plus what you can or cannot do is always a question that requires looking it up in the PHB and slowing down the game. Not sure how to improve - maybe just dump?? Give monsters with improved grab a replacement ability.

Skills - (a) 4e looks to be moving towards a trimmer skills set, combining Move Silently and Hide into Stealth and Spot/Search/Listen into Perception. This makes sense to me - often times you're asked to make multiple skill checks (Spot & Listen or Hide & Move Silently) - what does one success & one fail mean? or two successes? Seems more intuitive to have one check in these cases - either pass or fail. (b) base skills more on race, at least as far as skill points gained. It also appears 4e is going to address this as well. My thoughts were to have skills available at new levels based on class but have points gained based on race (for example, regardless of class Humans gain 8 skill pts each level, half-orcs gain 2 pts, elves & dwarves maybe 4 or 6). Again, this more closely matches the approa ch for monsters in the MM. It would also allow some different archetypes - the stealthy human fighter (taking stealth skills cross-class) and the scholarly human wizard (more points to spend on Knowledge skills).

Turn Undead - both the RAW (undead cower) and the optional rule (I believe from Complete Divine - 1d6 dmg per cleric lvl) do not appeal to me. Not sure what I'd do to fix it, but there has to be a better way.

Actions - I have not been a big fan of the swift/immediate actions since they came into existence. To me they are unbalanced, as they generally favor spellcasters granting them the ability to do more than the fighter-types. Plus it's additional bookkeeping to track. I would prefer a simpler system of having a set number of actions per round (2 or 3) and limiting casters to one spellcasting action per round (though a caster could cast a spell and use a magic item in the same round). This would also be a good replacement system for the iterative attacks - fighter types can attack once per action, so if we go two actions they could double attack - two attacks at their base attack bonus.

Mordenkainen's Disjunction.

Just plain nasty!

I'm excited by the reviews so far. I have an Age of Worms campaign starting at some point in the future and am basing the campaign in the Realms. I really didn't like the Champions Belt adventure so planned to incorporate some Skullport/Undermountain in its place. In looking at the table of contents on Expedition to Undermountain it seemed as if it was somewhat modular which had me excited to be able to pick and choose sections to fill-in to Age of Worms. The death of Halaster and doom on the horizon fits in well to the overall premise of the Age of Worms. Ordered my copy and have not yet received it. Definitely anxiously awaiting its arrival.

Hey Russ,

My name is Mike - 32 yr old living in Oconomowoc been playing D&D since 9th grade. My e-mail address is mcummi5714@aol.com - I'd be interested in joining if you'd have me. Also have a buddy from Madison that might be interested. Let me know by e-mail if the spots are still open and what races/classes are needed to round out the party.

Duskwood Lodge

Symbol: duskwood tree on forest green standard
Background, goals, & dreams: The Duskwood Lodge is all that remains of an ancient druidic culture that inhabited the North over 1,000 years ago. Current membership numbers around 30 - a mix of druids, rangers, clerics of Silvanus, and scouts. Most members are human, elven, or mixed half-elf heritage. Most established members follow the Old Faith - a doctrine that teaches nature is wild and untamed. The Old Faith views the incursion of civilization as a major threat. Younger members are questioning this approach. Dubbed the New Order, members wish to spread an appreciation of nature to civilization and preach balance for the betterment of all. Tensions are escalating between the two factions. The overall leader of the Lodge is Keldias Moonshadow, a half-elf ranger/cleric who is firmly entrenched in the Old Faith.
Type: druid circle (social)
Scale: 9 (regional/barony)
Affiliate score criteria:
Criterion - Affiliation Score Modifier
Character level - +1/2 PC's level
Charisma 13 or higher - +1
Ranger or druid - +2
Parents or siblings in affiliation - +2
10 or more ranks in Survival - +2
Cast 5th lvl or higher spells - +3
Possesses magic item significant to the affiliation - +1 per 10,000 gp value
Does not have animal companion - -2

Titles, benefits, & duties:
The members of the Duskwood Lodge are renowned in the area as being expert guides and trackers. Those who advance up the ranks gain insight and respect.
When one climbs to the pinnacle of the circle they are noticed by Silvanus himself as keepers of the balance.

Affiliation Score Title: Benefits & Duties
3 or lower none
4-10 Duskwood guide: +2 circumstance bonus on Survival checks within 50 miles of Duskwood Lodge
11-15 Duskwood agent: gain Quick Reconnoiter as a bonus feat
16-20 Beastmaster: Add +4 to effective level when calculating animal companion bonuses
21-25 Duskwood master: 24 hrs to seek out and slay CR 8 creature, +2 inherent bonus to Wisdom or Charisma
26-29 Forestmaster: +2 inherent bonus to whichever score wasn't raised as Duskwood master, receive a token - when activated it brings into effect an Oakheart spell (see Faiths & Avatars p. 147). The damage absorbed must be repaid to the Great Duskwood tree at the center of the Lodge - the Forestmaster does not heal naturally until this occurs.
30 or higher Favored of Silvanus: personal honor guard of 4 treants - will not venture more than 5 miles from Duskwood Lodge unless circumstances are extreme (war, powerful creature) - if any of these guards dies protecting the Favored One, reduce the Favored One's Affiliation Score by 4 per dead treant

Executive Powers: Beatify, Craft, Holiday

I am running AoW in the FR so I changed Bronzewood Lodge to Duskwood Lodge. One PC - a druid/fighter - will belong to the Duskwood Lodge as part of the New Order. He will eventually challenge for leadership of the Lodge.

Just wondering if anyone out there is making use of the Affilation rules from PHB2 in AoW and how they are working out. I am looking at creating rules for the Bronzewood Lodge - party will have druid PC. I'm also thinking of modifying LoLR so that PCs access to Tilagos Island requires ritual to open a portal from Bronzewood headquarters. I plan to have PC at odds with Bronzewood leader and a power struggle to ensue. Potentially, PC will become leader of the Bronzewood Lodge.

There are many possibilities for Affiliations in AoW - Twilight Monastery, Garrison, Emporium,... Anyone else incorporated these rules to their campaign?

I'm actually going to use chitines in place of grimlocks. An underdark race to replace an underdark race. Grallak is being replaced by a choldrith. Since I'm running the campaign in FR, I am adding Bhaalspawn template and making her a cleric of Bhaal.

I'm actually thinking I will replace Raknian with the real Faceless One and have him be the master of the ulgurstasa. I'm not planning on running the gladiator games, so I'll have some re-working to do. Party should be 9th-10th lvl by then, so they should be able to handle a roughtly 13th lvl wizard (which is what lvl Faceless One would need to be to cast simulacrum).

I'll be using several sourcebooks for the Skullport piece of the adventure - some older 2E stuff (City of Splendors, Skullport sourcebook, Ruins of Undermountain) plus 3.5 Waterdeep book.

I did a conversion of the shadowraths based on their entry in 2E Monstrous Compendium Annual 4. Here are those conversions:

Shadowrath, lesser
Medium Undead
HD: 4d12 (26 hp)
Initiative: +5
Speed: 30ft
AC: 14 (+3 natural, +1 dex)
Base Attack/Grapple: +2/+4
Attack: Slam +5
Full Attack: Slam +5
Damage: 1d6+3 plus 1d4 Str damage
Space/Reach: 5ft/5ft
Special Attacks: Strength damage
Special Qualities: Damage reduction 5/bludgeoning and magic, spell resistance 13, darkvision 60ft, undead traits
Saves: Fort +1, Ref +2, Will +5
Abilities: S:14 D:13 Co:-- I:11 W:12 Ch:14
Skills: Hide +12* Jump +9 Move Silently +8 Spot +8
Feats: Improved Initiative, Weapon Focus (slam)
Environment: Any
Organization: Solitary, gang (2-5), or troupe (3-8 plus 1-3 greater shadowraths)
Challenge Rating: 3
Treasure: None
Alignment: Always neutral evil
Advancement: 5-12 HD (Medium)
Level Adjustment: --

This creature is an undead being; appearing as a blackened skeleton, its eye sockets aglow with red, deadly energy.

Strength Damage (Su): The touch of a lesser shadowrath deals 1d4 points of Strength damage to a living foe. A creature reduced to Strength 0 by a lesser shadowrath dies. This is a negative energy effect.

Undead Traits: Immune to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, & morale effects), immune to poison, sleep effects, paralysis, stunning, disease, & death effects, not subject to critical hits, nonlethal damage, ability drain, or energy drain, immune to ability damage, fatigue, & exhaustion, immune to any effect that requires a Fort save unless it also works on objects or is harmless.

* A lesser shadowrath receives a +4 racial bonus on Hide checks.

Shadowrath, greater
Medium Undead
HD: 7d12 (45 hp)
Initiative: +7
Speed: 30ft
AC: 18 (+5 natural, +3 dex)
Base Attack/Grapple: +3/+7
Attack: Slam +8
Full Attack: Slam +8
Damage: 2d4+6 plus energy drain
Space/Reach: 5ft/5ft
Special Attacks: Energy drain
Special Qualities: Damage reduction 10/silver and magic, spell resistance 19, +2 turn resistance, darkvision 60ft, undead traits
Saves: Fort +2, Ref +7, Will +7
Abilities: S:18 D:17 Co:-- I:15 W:14 Ch:17
Skills: Hide +17* Jump +14 Listen +14 Move Silently +13 Search +12 Spot +14
Feats: Alertness(b), Improved Initiative(b), Lightning Reflexes(b), Weapon Focus (slam), Improved Energy Drain (LM pg. 27 – gain +1 to atk, save, & skill/ability cks for each neg lvl drained), Ability Focus (energy drain)
Environment: Any
Organization: Solitary, pair, or troupe (1-3 plus 3-8 lesser shadowraths)
Challenge Rating: 6
Treasure: None
Alignment: Always neutral evil
Advancement: 8-21 HD (Medium)
Level Adjustment: --

At first glance, it appears this creature is human. But a closer look reveals that its skin is sickly gray in color, its eyes and mouth are filled with crackling purplish-black energy, and its hands have transformed into sharp black-nailed claws.

Energy Drain (Su): Living creatures hit by a greater shadowrath’s slam attack gain a negative level. The DC is 18 for the Fort save to remove a negative level. The save DC is Cha-based (+2 for Ability Focus feat). For each such negative level bestowed, the greater shadowrath gains 5 temporary hit points.

Undead Traits: Immune to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, & morale effects), immune to poison, sleep effects, paralysis, stunning, disease, & death effects, not subject to critical hits, nonlethal damage, ability drain, or energy drain, immune to ability damage, fatigue, & exhaustion, immune to any effect that requires a Fort save unless it also works on objects or is harmless.

* A greater shadowrath receives a +4 racial bonus on Hide checks.

I am setting AoW in FR, and to get the players acquainted with Diamond Lake I thought I would create a Volo's Guide. Here is what I have so far (I actually set the town on the Surbrin River, between Nesme & Yartar). If anyone wants to pitch in, feel free.

Volo’s Guide to Diamond Lake

Well met again, friends. It is I, Volothamp Geddarm. My travels have brought me to the burgh of Diamond Lake in the North. I am not sure this town deserves detail in my penned journals, but I am here and the mood strikes me, so prepare to partake of my knowledge and share my experiences.

Geography: Diamond Lake is situated on the banks of the River Surbrin (how Lake became part of the town’s name is beyond me – they sit on a river!! Silly peasants) as it passes through the Surbrin Hills. It is about halfway between Nesme and Yartar, though travel time to the latter is quicker since it is downstream. The Surbrin Hills and nearby Evermoors are both dotted with ancient tombs, which is what brought me to this area. However, prospective treasure hunters soon find that these cairns have long since forfeited their treasure to earlier grave robbers.

Economy: Diamond Lake’s main business is iron and silver mining. Nearly everyone in the town makes their living either in the mines or in a business that caters to the miners.

Law: Ha! If ever there was more of a mockery made of a word I do not know what it would be (except perhaps to claim Elminster as an archmage). At the top of the town’s hierarchy is Governor-Mayor Lanod Neff. This power-mongering bully only retains his position due to his brother Allustan, town sage and wizard. Mayor Neff employs a town sheriff and group of pocket police that are little more than his personal enforcers. The sheriff, Cubbin, should be avoided at all costs. He’s arrests people on a whim.

Places of Interest:
1. The Emporium –

2. Lazare’s House –

3. The Feral Dog –

4. Church of St. Cuthbert –

5. Tidwoad’s –

6. Sheriff’s Office –

7. General Store –

8. The Hungry Gar –

9. Jalek’s Flophouse –

10. Smenk Residence –

11. Deepspike Mines –

12. Garrison –

13. Lakeside Stables –

14. The Midnight Salute –

15. The Spinning Giant –

16. The Captain’s Blade –

17. Venelle’s –

18. Allustan’s Residence –

19. Tilgast Residence –

20. Old Piers –

21. Able Carter Coaching Inn –

22. Parrin Residence –

23. Mithral Hall Covenant –

24. Gansworth Residence –

25. The Rusty Bucket –

26. Moonmeadow Residence –

27. Osgood Smithy –

28. Smelting House –

29. Diamond Lake Boneyard –

30. Neff Manor –

31. Dourstone Mines –

32. Abandoned Mine –

33. Menhirs –

34. Old Observatory –

35. Dourstone Residence –

I looked at the powers, & I think they transfer well to the FR deities. The bloodlust is right up Bhaal's alley. The spiritual weapon can be Bane's - I would have it manifest as a large black hand that smacks the PCs. And the healing from resisted spells seems to fit OK with Myrkul.

My solution to bring the Faceless One back as a recurring villian - he is a simulacrum. Simulacrum is a 7th lvl spell which can be accessed by a wizard at 13th lvl. It creates a duplicate that is at 1/2 the lvl of the creator - 6th lvl. Watch your PC's eyes bug out when you tell them that after striking the final blow their foe melts into a puddle of water (simulacrum is made of snow & ice).

I'm thinking I'll have the real Faceless One just before a Gathering of Winds. I don't plan on running the Champion's Belt - don't want to run PC's as gladiators. I'm also setting in the Realms so I plan to have some of the action take place in Skullport and bring in Nhyris D'Hothek and the Crown of Horns. Thinking of a triangle with PC's, Nhyris & shadowraths, and Faceless One & Ebon Triad all vying for the Crown of Horns. Haven't decided what role the crown will play yet though.

Room #23 (Outer Sanctum) and room # 26 (Inner Sanctum) both have traps that can cause 1d4 wisdom damage. How long does this damage last? I don't see it in the description. It's not permanent is it?

Seems like this varies every month. Last month my copy came 4 days after the mail date. Month before it was like 2 weeks. This month it's already been over a week & still nothing (though I have my fingers crossed for today - really looking forward to the new AP and also the first Vampires of Waterdeep).

It is beginning to worry me that the Dungeon staff has been pretty silent of late on this thread. Maybe they got sick of the bellyaching here, but the old adage of "no news is good news" doesn't always apply. I'm still holding out hope for the Overload today, but it's waning.

p.s. not a complaint, just a downer

Do we have an ETA on when Overload will be released? I feel like a little kid on Xmas - expecting my present (Overload) to be ready & waiting under the tree (Posted online) first thing in the morning. Just hoping we could get an idea when we can tear of the wrapping paper (download it) and begin playing with it.

Just a thought here - what if Cyric were used in place of Bane in the AP? Even though he's not dead, I'm sure he lost some power with the return of Bane. Plus Cyric has always been very power hungry. I could see him hatching a plot to have those still faithful to him attempt to bring together the power of the two dead gods and give it to him to create the Overgod.

I think this would also tie in to the past Adventure Arc from 2e Dungeons (late #60's to early #70's) that dealt with Myrkul's remaining essence & the Mere of Dead Men. I plan to re-vamp these to 3.5e and use them as filler adventures that will advance the plotline of combining the three deities.

Just wondering how it works now that Bane is once again alive? My view is that Bane's minions are the most active of the Triad, though the other sects are growing with converts of Cyric (Bhaal's former portfolios) & Kelemvor (Myrkul's former portfolios).

Anyone else have any thoughts?

I'm surprised that Diamond Lake was not set in a remote location of the Silver Marches - these are still somewhat untamed lands where I could see a town like Diamond Lake residing. You could have Silverymoon as the large city, or even Waterdeep still since it's not a huge distance from the Silver Marches to Waterdeep with a lot of area in between to insert encounters/side quests. I haven't yet decided where I will be running AoW, but if I decide on FR I will probably be placing in the Silver Marches.

Just wondering if others have noticed the fact that both APs have dealt with evil cults & doomsday prophecies? I've seen mail & threads in the past that say to avoid cliches. Hopefully the Dungeon staff will realize there are more choices to build a campaign around - search for a fabled magic item, discover lost continent, good old dragon hunting,...

My current campaign is Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, so if I run both APs after this I'm looking at 3 cult-based campaigns in a row. I'll probably need to do something else in between somewhere so the cult plot doesn't get too old for my group.

My vote has to go to Legerdemain (#39 I think). Not a combat heavy adventure, much more of a roleplaying one. I think there were only two battles in the whole adventure. My halfling rogue went to the costume room and gathered an outfit similar to Darkwing Duck (mask, hat, and purple & black cloak). Then in the climatic encounter where the play was going on, he activated his ring of invisibility, walked out on the stage, deactivated the ring, and uttered the immortal words "Forsooth Yon Maiden". Then the prop dragon came out and he got trapped beneath it as the final battle erupted on stage. We actually created a new Non-Weapon Proficiency of Acting after this adventure - of course it was Cha based and the halfling came in w/ a Cha 7. He gave a new definition to bad acting.