Kamel guru why don't you "put on your rules lawyer hat" and go put Greg Vaughn in his place on the ten page thread his adventure spawned. After all he only worked on the project for FOURTEEN YEARS, I'm sure he'll see that you are right and he should have used straight bestiary stat blocks instead of customizing everything to keep things surprising for seasoned veterans.
Give me a link and I'll go in there and ask him about it. It's not "surprising for seasoned veterans", it's bogus. Surprising would be changing up resistances, descriptions, maybe even how many rounds it takes- have the dance take one less round but do less damage.
But summoning bombs is just plain wrong- and it's cheesy.
The OP said they were doing a retconn (though most people don't like to do this), they are playing a very deadly game (which the GM told them in the beginning), rule #1 is that it is the GM's world and if the GM decides to throw an extra monster or two at a tough group that's well within their purview, and no matter what there are always different interpretations to the RAW for everyone so the rules lawyers decide they need to hop on and flame the OP as well with, "you should have done this or you should have done that or you are just wrong."
Plain and simple a lot of the forum members like to jump down the throat of some poor GM who just asked a simple question of fairness then later says, "thanks I am good and I don't need people piling on me anymore." When that happens, the rest of us should lay off and leave them alone as they fixed the fairness issue.
Again, I say to everyone who keeping piling on their BS to just back off as the issue was resolved.
Well, the whole "knew the job was dangerous" thing is bogus as I pointed out. What are the players gonna do, say "Hey yeah Mr DM, we know you just spent big bux buying this and spent hours reading it, but since you just said it's extra lethal, we'll pass." Heck, players will go into ToH.
And we have backed off the OP. But now we're discussing the module and it's fairness.
I would rather see creatively deadly within the rules as well. It does kinda put the "game" in role-playing game. In a way it brings things around full-circle to the roots of the game in tactical war games.
I doubt the vrocks encounter was optimized in lethality, it is jsut that 3 vrocks are a tough deal period, some flavorful changes do not really matter that much. It summons dretches instead of another vrock.. boohoo, seriously, as I see it, it took a possibly very tough encounter away from being a chance to summon an extra vrock 35% (x3) by allowing them to summon some dretches, makes the encounter one that is more predictable and most likely weaker.
The ability says dancing and chanting as a full round action, it doesnt say they can move or not, but they might suppose.. quite likely they have the option to move or stand still dancing, sure it could be more clear but it isnt too much of a stretch, neither does it say they have...
It wasn't that they were summoning dretches, they were summoning 500# bombs to be used like a B-17. Dretches would be easy to dodge incidentally.
And you know full well you can't do any real movement during a full round action. No chasing down the party.
Kamel guru why don't you "put on your rules lawyer hat" and go put Greg Vaughn in his place on the ten page thread his adventure spawned. After all he only worked on the project for FOURTEEN YEARS, I'm sure he'll see that you are right and he should have used straight bestiary stat blocks instead of customizing everything to keep things surprising for seasoned veterans.Give me a link and I'll go in there and ask him about it. It's not "surprising for seasoned veterans", it's bogus. Surprising would be changing up resistances, descriptions, maybe even how many rounds it takes- have the dance take one less round but do less damage.
But summoning bombs is just plain wrong- and it's cheesy.
I'll give you that about the bombs, like I say, I forgot you can't summon things into thin air without a surface to support them. I thought everyone was just upset that he changed a vrock around to summon Dretches instead of Vrocks. Changing the laws of magic as they pertain to Conjuration spells seems way more awkward to me for some reason. If that's the part that bugs you, I can dig it.
Anyhow as Grimmy says, perhaps it's not even the module author's "fault"Doing the dance in mid-air I did not see written into the adventure, but I do remember someone keeping campaign journals of actual play on a blog and describing this tactic, so maybe the op got the idea there.So now people don't have to worry about defending the author against not including new rules, and we can all blame some random guy's adventure journal for the idea. Perhaps OP read the journal, thought it was a cool way to do it, and didn't remember the rule on summoning. Like I said in my own thing above, had I been a player, and he remembered it later (for example, if I decided to use summons to drop bombs), well, stuff happens and I'd roll with it no problem.Being the story teller, not simply the guy who moves the NPCs on a battle mat.You probably also didn't mean this quite the way it came off. IMO the DM and the players are the storytellers - it's collaborative, not "Story Time." If it's "Story Time" you don't need rules at all, of course.
One reason I didn't like WoD products was how they themed GMing.
Nope let me be clear, the Dretch bombing is most definitely called out in the adventure. Just not the Dance of Ruin while airborne. That part was from the "actual play" journal on some blog.
Also, what you said about collaborative, not story time... You beat me to it I wanted to say that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What DrDeth said.
Refluffing or changing up monsters? Fine. The GM is well within his right to create new things, as long as they conform with the CR system and he allows the PCs with relevant knowledge checks a fair chance.
Breaking the rules of the game? No. If the GM gets to be "creative" then the players should get to be "creative", and as a GM since the final days of 1E D&D, I know where that road leads.
And even if you were to invent a feat to allow summoning in mid-air, falling stuff does NOT get your attack bonus unless you spend another standard action to actually throw them, which requires the vrocks spending yet ANOTHER round grappling them. Something that falls without being thrown prompts a Reflex Save DC15 to avoid all damage. Something a lv8 character should have more than a passing chance to make.
I would also like a round for round rundown of what happened in the fight. What did the players do between the vrocks started dancing, and round 3? Summoning dretches disallows dancing, so the players should be able to focus fire on them and at least bring ONE down, unless horribly unoptimized.
I'll give you that about the bombs, like I say, I forgot you can't summon things into thin air without a surface to support them. I thought everyone was just upset that he changed a vrock around to summon Dretches instead of Vrocks. Changing the laws of magic as they pertain to Conjuration spells seems way more awkward to me for some reason. If that's the part that bugs you, I can dig it.
Yes, and based upon the "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" rule, a 7th level druid can now summon a huge shark, which would do 64 d6. At a -4 to hit, of course! It gets worse at higher levels. "Save the whales" takes on a whole new meaning. ;-) Think of the damage dropping a earth elemental would do....
And sure the PC's could have just not investigated the vultures flying over the wolf encounter... like players really do that. I mean, they could have just skipped the entire adventure by just staying home by the fire.
Yeah I have to admit you guys might have this one. Usually he uses custom monsters from Tome of Horrors or custom stat blocks that appear only in the adventure, but this is different, it kinda just breaks the rules.
I doubt the vrocks encounter was optimized in lethality, it is jsut that 3 vrocks are a tough deal period, some flavorful changes do not really matter that much. It summons dretches instead of another vrock.. boohoo, seriously, as I see it, it took a possibly very tough encounter away from being a chance to summon an extra vrock 35% (x3) by allowing them to summon some dretches, makes the encounter one that is more predictable and most likely weaker.
The ability says dancing and chanting as a full round action, it doesnt say they can move or not, but they might suppose.. quite likely they have the option to move or stand still dancing, sure it could be more clear but it isnt too much of a stretch, neither does it say they have...
It wasn't that they were summoning dretches, they were summoning 500# bombs to be used like a B-17. Dretches would be easy to dodge incidentally.
And you know full well you can't do any real movement during a full round action. No chasing down the party.
I haven't actually read the module so I do not know how abusive the tactic was, it just seemed more fluff than added lethality.
Moving can be included in a full round action, charging is a good example. Doing a limbo dance might be a full round action and you'd still move.
Now I do not think it is much of an actual 'dance' at all, rather it is some frantic 'move to the beat of chaos rising' kinda thing, I do not see it as particulary problemetic to do that flying, though a DC 15 fly check might be in order, which they can make without rolling if they have heroism active.
Note : My appoligies to Porphyrogenitus, I did not intend to sound particulary snarky there, and meant it more as a general 'you' than singling out anyone in particular.
What DrDeth said.
Refluffing or changing up monsters? Fine. The GM is well within his right to create new things, as long as they conform with the CR system and he allows the PCs with relevant knowledge checks a fair chance.
Breaking the rules of the game? No. If the GM gets to be "creative" then the players should get to be "creative", and as a GM since the final days of 1E D&D, I know where that road leads.
And even if you were to invent a feat to allow summoning in mid-air, falling stuff does NOT get your attack bonus unless you spend another standard action to actually throw them, which requires the vrocks spending yet ANOTHER round grappling them. Something that falls without being thrown prompts a Reflex Save DC15 to avoid all damage. Something a lv8 character should have more than a passing chance to make.
I would also like a round for round rundown of what happened in the fight. What did the players do between the vrocks started dancing, and round 3? Summoning dretches disallows dancing, so the players should be able to focus fire on them and at least bring ONE down, unless horribly unoptimized.
Those things seem much more likely to be bad design, I can not really judge it thoroughly though since I lack specifics from the source.
I'll give you that about the bombs, like I say, I forgot you can't summon things into thin air without a surface to support them. I thought everyone was just upset that he changed a vrock around to summon Dretches instead of Vrocks. Changing the laws of magic as they pertain to Conjuration spells seems way more awkward to me for some reason. If that's the part that bugs you, I can dig it.
Yes, and based upon the "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" rule, a 7th level druid can now summon a huge shark, which would do 64 d6. At a -4 to hit, of course! It gets worse at higher levels. "Save the whales" takes on a whole new meaning. ;-) Think of the damage dropping a earth elemental would do....
And sure the PC's could have just not investigated the vultures flying over the wolf encounter... like players really do that. I mean, they could have just skipped the entire adventure by just staying home by the fire.
Now I do not agree to the goose and gander theory, mostly since the objective of the GM and players are different. The players try to survive and 'beat' the encounter, the GM does not try to 'beat' the players he just tries to make an interesting encounter. It is like saying 'if the GM gets to play a Pitfiend we should be allowed too', being fair is not the same as using exactly the same ways to build characters.
Now if the GM wants to have an ability to drop dretches on party memebers for relatively low damage for a 'feat' it is fine, he should not have to exactlywhat the 'feat' does outside these circumstances, he just has to judge the power in this particular encounter.
A player given access to that feat would try to make optimal use of it since he has something to 'beat' and would come up with decidedly more silly things like dropping whales from the sky from both thematic and 'how to balance' PoV.
The way it was written, each vrock summoned 2d10(!) dretches. The Dretches made attack rolls against touch AC to deal 4d6 bludgeoning damage.
|
I do and don't think you were unfair. I never let the random dice give them info on what they want to know. The PC are always seeking out resistances, damage reduction, special abilities, etc. So if they're looking for something specific, chances are it's going to be a higher DC to figure it out. Unless its a favored enemy, or they've fought them before. The 22 check isn't high enough to give them the special abilities. It's not an "easy" question. They're demons. I would have said "Unfortunately, with that check, you don't know what they're doing up there. However, you do recognize them as vrocks, which are demons, which means that they're likely resistant to acid, cold, and fire. So you don't know what's going on, but if you're wanting to stop whatever they're doing, you might not want to use those kinds of attacks."
I'll give you that about the bombs, like I say, I forgot you can't summon things into thin air without a surface to support them. I thought everyone was just upset that he changed a vrock around to summon Dretches instead of Vrocks. Changing the laws of magic as they pertain to Conjuration spells seems way more awkward to me for some reason. If that's the part that bugs you, I can dig it.
Yes, and based upon the "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" rule, a 7th level druid can now summon a huge shark, which would do 64 d6. At a -4 to hit, of course! It gets worse at higher levels. "Save the whales" takes on a whole new meaning. ;-) Think of the damage dropping a earth elemental would do....
And sure the PC's could have just not investigated the vultures flying over the wolf encounter... like players really do that. I mean, they could have just skipped the entire adventure by just staying home by the fire.
Duly noted. Good points.
Let's look at this from another view.
Let's say they're not Vrocks. It doesn't matter what they are, what matters is they're dancing, they're dancing for a reason, and that reason is generally known to at least a small percentage of the population.
The question "Why are they dancing?" has an answer, and that answer should be answerable by a related knowledge check.
Why does this statement suddenly become not a question if a creature ability comes into play?
Sense motive check DC 25 to get hunch DM best friend and worst enemy
Let's look at this from another view.
Let's say they're not Vrocks. It doesn't matter what they are, what matters is they're dancing, they're dancing for a reason, and that reason is generally known to at least a small percentage of the population.
The question "Why are they dancing?" has an answer, and that answer should be answerable by a related knowledge check.
Why does this statement suddenly become not a question if a creature ability comes into play?
since motive check DC 20 for hunch core rule book or PRD. I do not know what this dance is but I think they going to do some mean to us. It dose not look like a friendship dance to me..... Run!!!!!!!!
As posted earlier, I don't think the dm was unfair. However, I do think the adventure module was a bit too tough. As much as there is contention with summoning and ancing in mid-air, I think the main part of the problem is the CR of the encounter relative to the current party level. Siply put, it was too much for them. An APL+5 approximately, that will wipe the floor with any party. The only exception is if the party optimized themselves to the s++*house. With multiple 18s at level one and multiple powerful magic items coming out of their ears every 2nd level or so. That I personally dislike but thats a separate issue. AS adamantine dragon stated, if the players you have are the ones who don't mind or even enjoy their party's TPKs, thats fine. Otherwise, its just throwing players against a brick wall they can't take. I feel this is a horrible example of how to design any encounters for the party. While I agree that it should not be a cake walk, it shouldn't be a case of "flee or PC death" straight from the get-go.
The party was fighting 3 Vrocks, which were flying 90 feet in the air and began dancing (Dance of Ruin ability). The wizard rolled a 22 on her Knowledge: Planes check to identify them, which gave her one piece of useful knowledge. The player (who knew out of character exactly what the creature was and what the dance did) wanted to be told what the dance was. I ruled that the character could get one offensive ability determined by chance and rolled a die - it came up that the character knew about the Stunning Screech ability, not the Dance of Ruin.
This encounter killed multiple characters, including the wizard, and I've been b!&#~ed at for being unfair with the knowledge check and that since the character saw the Vrocks dancing, that's what she should have known. As I see it, a knowledge check determines exactly what the character already knows about the creature, and seeing it do something doesn't influence what the character already knows.
Was this ruling unfair?
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
With that line of reasoning see a spell cast would never give you chance to make a spellcraft check. no more info or way to ID a spell.
|
|
Also, the players probably should have known the vrocks were up to something and wouldn't just start randomly dancing in the air for no reason -- I'd say that's enough reason in itself to either get the hell out of Dodge, or try to stop them from dancing.
This. If you dont know if an enemy might be too powerful for you, it is par de course to run away.
That said, this encounter does give you some useful informtaion: They cant handle enemies with that kind of power yet, and you could make the following fights easier.
The way it was written, each vrock summoned 2d10(!) dretches. The Dretches made attack rolls against touch AC to deal 4d6 bludgeoning damage.
It may have been more legal if one of the Vrocks held a 2x4 piece of wood that one by one the dretches appeared on tip of them jumped toward players as summoned (summons readied action when summoned).
But that would require DM to remember they must appear on a flat surface that could hold them.
Plus, you might notice a Vrock holding a 2x4 piece of wood.
We have a winner^^^^
A large part of it was definitely written for 3.5, the author worked on this adventure for 14 years, and it just saw publication this year updated for PF.
I would think twice before tossing it in the garbage though, it would fetch over a hundred bucks.
The way it was written, each vrock summoned 2d10(!) dretches. The Dretches made attack rolls against touch AC to deal 4d6 bludgeoning damage.It may have been more legal if one of the Vrocks held a 2x4 piece of wood that one by one the dretches appeared on tip of them jumped toward players as summoned (summons readied action when summoned).
But that would require DM to remember they must appear on a flat surface that could hold them.
Plus, you might notice a Vrock holding a 2x4 piece of wood.
Any chance telekinetic would count as a surface to summon them onto?
I would think twice before tossing it in the garbage though, it would fetch over a hundred bucks.Oh well a strained encounter or two doesn't = ruined module anyhow. Just run it without the dretch bombs and it's plenty challenging. Modules are made to be modified by DMs.
Any chance telekinetic would count as a surface to summon them onto?
Only if one of the Vrocks has a level of Bard and the DM is willing to simulate its use of Bardic Performance by singing "Cheeseburger in Paradise" while running the encounter.
What DrDeth said.
Refluffing or changing up monsters? Fine. The GM is well within his right to create new things, as long as they conform with the CR system and he allows the PCs with relevant knowledge checks a fair chance.
Breaking the rules of the game? No. If the GM gets to be "creative" then the players should get to be "creative", and as a GM since the final days of 1E D&D, I know where that road leads.
...Dresden Files RPG, Amber, Smallville RPG? Or any number of modern games where players have control over the narrative.
I'll agree, that it isn't D&D but giving the player's control won't ruin a game, provided the players are willing to go that route.
I would think twice before tossing it in the garbage though, it would fetch over a hundred bucks.Oh well a strained encounter or two doesn't = ruined module anyhow. Just run it without the dretch bombs and it's plenty challenging. Modules are made to be modified by DMs.Any chance telekinetic would count as a surface to summon them onto?Only if one of the Vrocks has a level of Bard and the DM is willing to simulate its use of Bardic Performance by singing "Cheeseburger in Paradise" while running the encounter.
Why are you so funny !?
Also, in 3e I don't believe it was specifically stated that you had to summon a creature on a surface that could support them. I seem to remember there being "whale drops" during 3e and that the support surface text was added in 3.5 to specifically to stop such things as this to happen.
I would hazard a guess that the writer began this project during 3e, tried to update it to 3.5 and then after it was shelved updated it again to PF. This appears to be an example of an error that was carried over from editions.
As for dancing and flying, I know it is a full round action, but so is charge. You can certainly move when you charge, in fact that is how you do the charge. So saying that it is impossible to have movement be part of a full round action isn't true. Now the dance isn't detailed, but in 3.5 an average flier (which Vrocks were), can take 45 degree turn for every 5 ft of movement and a have a speed of 50 ft. They could return to their starting location with that maneuverability assuming that at least a single movement could be part of their full round dance action.
I found a review of the Slumbering Tsar. I found this line by the reviewer something to keep in mind: The encounters may be of a lethality level which can destroy the party, too. As with all things, the GM is the final arbiter of the dice and no encounter happens unless the GM says it does. While we frequently joke in our own game sessions that "once again, we blame Greg Vaughan" after a particularly nasty challenge, privately, most of us are blaming the GM -- as we well should, too.
And he would have got away with it if it wasn't for those meddling kids...
|
However, I do think the adventure module was a bit too tough.
I can't wait to see the whining and moaning and b+&%#ing and crying about how Orcus "isn't an level-appropriate encounter" when Rappan Athuk is released.
Frog God Games makes very tough adventures. Especially the ones that are directly related to Orcus. Live with it, or go play Padded Rooms & Teddy Bears.
Where you been? I been tellin em.
I can't wait to see the whining and moaning and b!+&@ing and crying about how Orcus "isn't an level-appropriate encounter" when Rappan Athuk is released.Frog God Games makes very tough adventures. Especially the ones that are directly related to Orcus. Live with it, or go play Padded Rooms & Teddy Bears.
Bosh. I have played in tougher adventures than you, my friend. But still, the rules are the rules. Monster can be changed, magic items can be personalized and there can be houserules, but no surprising Players with B-17 Vrocks.
Why are you so funny !?
When NORPs think of something lame they say to themselves "no, I can't possibly say [write] that, it's lame and people will think I'm lame."
When I think of something lame, I'm all, like "dude!"
Also, in 3e I don't believe it was specifically stated that you had to summon a creature on a surface that could support them.
For Conjuring, I can't remember precisely and I'm too lazy to dig it up. But I do know for a fact that for basically ever this was the rule for teleporting - you had to teleport to a surface that could support your weight.
The reason I remember this is I've often wanted to teleport into mid-air, but couldn't. This rule is a real pita; but it is what it is and has been like this since almost forever (ok, probably not the '70s - but the '80s at least).
Now, it's also true that 4ever game writer/designers have been forgetting this rule, too: for example in 0D&D, a late-era product, Wrath of the immortals, assuming the PCs don't head things off and finish the crisis/adventure beforehand, everything ends in a Mystara-shattering Kaboom, one aspect of which includes Alphata's Council of Wizards (circa 10000 36th level Magic-Users, minus those who refuse to obey Emperor Zandor's command) Teleporting into the air over Glantri City and firebombing it. (and then, left out of it - and seemingly forgotten - well, Greyhawk has it's "Great Rain of Fire," Mystara would have it's "Great Rain of Archmages," because Rad activates the "Doomsday Device" leading not only to the sinking of Alphatia but a day/week without magic. But I digress).
Now, of course, they can't do that. They could easily do the following, though: cast fly on themselves, invisiblity, teleport to the ground outside Glantri city, then fly above it. Or even more cinematically: cast Gate twice, once to another plane, and a second time back to the Prime, this time irising open a thousand Gates above Glantri City (IMO, neat; of course, IMC, things didn't reach this state, but again I digress). Do I blame Alan Varney - another good (and prolific) game writer for not including every detail in what is basically a synposis-paragraph? (Wraith was sumaries, rather than fully-fleshed out encounters; especially for "nation-level events" that may mostly be happening "off-stage in the background" while the party adventures through the wrecking of the gameworld). Not really, but if I were DM and it got to such a stage, and the PCs were in Glantri City, I wouldn't go with "you see a thousand archmages teleport into the skies above the city" - 1 because it's rule-breaking, 2 because Gates are so much kewler. Anyhow the PCs should prolly be below ground by the time that happens. If it happens.
But in an encounter they face, I don't believe in changing, say, the Teleport rules for NPCs and then enforcing them strictly on PCs. I also think - with a fairly high degree of confidence - that the same game writers who, when it comes to drafting "kewl" encounters involving the dropping of conjured whales on hapless PCs, will remember the rule against doing something so cheesy. I know I wouldn't allow this use of Summoning IMC, even if the RAW didn't specifically say otherwise (which, IIRC, it has for a long time), because this isn't the intended use of summons and is too easily abused.
tl;dr - I think conjuring/summoning has always worked this way, but I cba to look it up at the moment (all my books are in boxes).