Palace of the Vampire Queen, the 5e version (Inactive)

Game Master Terquem

Myna- just pick and lead on.

Thanks everyone, for keeping us moving

I'm swamped with unexpected family coming home for Thanksgiving, be back soon, I hope

Happy Turkey day to y US friends!

Indeed...Happy Thanksgiving to all!

Happy Turkey day to you U.S. people..we already had ours a month ago..lol

Also, for some reason this thread does not show-up on my list of games...I keep having to go to the character then access his posts....can this be fixed?

Happy Thanksgiving all. Will be rather busy with all the cooking soon.

Well thanks to everyone who stuck it out over the holiday. Now I think it important to mention that if you are new, it is going to be important that you take a moment to review the house rules on the campaign info tab

You've been continuing with the map!!! Here I was beaming with pride at my sketch interpretations...

Yes for the "maze-like" area only, if you see now I did not update it for the room you just entered, and that should be the end of that (unless I get a lot of complaints, I am for some ridiculous reason, trying to recapture the "old days" of my youth in first playing this adventure).

I'll fix the "marching Order" map tonight, and would like input on where everyone wants to be - you can make any assumptions you want about Marching Order (you can suggest to me what the Marching Order will be for a ten foot wide passageway, and a twenty foot wide passageway, for door opening exercises, those sorts of things, and I will make a map for each and that will be what we fall back on for establishing initial conditions for encounters

The "Elves join the party" map will be deleted...SOON

About my recent comments regarding Perception and Investigation, skill checks

I hope no one takes offense at my comments. I just really dislike the blanket

"I make a perception roll, now tell me what I've found"

approach to playing these kinds of games recently. I'm sort of asking, and I know it is more than the game requires, for the players to put a little more effort into telling me where they are searching, and how much time they are willing to put into that effort, whether they are casually looking around for clues that might pop out at them (Perception Skill) or intensely examining something like a section of wall, a weapons rack, a treasure chest, or other object, to uncover its mysteries (Investigation Skill)

MY bad! I got lazy at work and threw up a post. I'm reading the discussion part first before I check out the new gameplay posts. I'm inclined to be interested in the Black Oak craftmanship. Is there anything particularly special about black oak? Commonality? Hardness? Value? et cetera

I'll shape up I promise.

EDIT: and now having read the gameplay posts, 5 minutes on the construction of the weapon rack, 5 more minutes on the north wall from the floor to halfling height.

Oooooo, is there anything special about Black Oak...well no, not really as trees go it is in the oak family and not particularly special

However, in this campaign setting it is special

A Halfling (from the continent) would probably not know why, but there is a small chance

*Hey, just found this PBP -- hope you don't mind my lurking -- I had no idea WotC did a remake of Palace of the Vampire Queen, first ever published adventure. Looking forward to lurking and catching up on the adventure so far.

This is not a WotC adventure. I am running it as a adapted adventure from my original copy. But thanks for dropping by

I am having some difficulties with the number and nature of House Rules in this game. 5E was supposed to streamline and simplify gameplay. I feel as if the house rules are bogging down play. Characters make a perception check, the DM sets the DC, and then determines if we find the secret door. Why does it need to be so complicated? The same holds true for the rounds and the restructuring of time in the game. Why are we not simply playing by the rules of 5E? What makes this House Rules better?

If the reason is simply DM preference, then I think that we should re-open the House Rules for further discussion. I am contemplating dropping from the game due to the complexity. I love 5E, but it is just not flowing well for me.

Those are valid issues. I would hold no hard feelings if you decide this is not what you want to play. However, in my defense the original recruitment flatly stated this would be a heavily house ruled 5e game trying to create a 1e feel, and so that is what it is. I realize that it is a departure from a basic 5e game, but again this is something I wanted to take a shot at

No problem, I respect you immensely as a GM, and you should be able to run the game as you see fit. I had to also try, despite the House Rules because it was one of the few 5E games out there. I am going to respectfully bow out. Thanks to all, and good luck.

I checked with the GM, and he said it was okay. I am recruiting for my own 5e game. That is going to be pretty by the book for the moment. You can check out the recruiting thread here

The games I am recruiting for are...
a 5e converted Baldur's Gate
a 5e converted Icewind Dale
and Tyranny of Dragons

Yeah, saw your recruitment and was very very tempted but I'm GMing 3 games and involved in 3-4 more so I don't think I can take on another game. The BG game does look good.

Filios - right back at you, I think you are a superior player, patient, and accommodating of my shortcomings. No hard feelings at all.

Morgrym - good luck with those games they look great.

Now, before we press on, does anyone else have any issues I should address?

nah

nope I am good to go...just want to make sure I clarify the rules is all. I like the idea of elves noticing secret doors..a real 1e feel to the game, and I do understand what you mean about perception...i just forgot..sorry

Beldak's decision to Disengage raises an important question. I'm not using tactical maps, and not using attacks of opportunity, so that seems to mean that disengage has lost its meaning. I think I will ponder on a suitable use for this action within these house rules.

I'm pretty sure that there is a 1e rule for backing out of combat, withdrawal, and such, so as soon as I get back to my 1e books I'll do a little research and see if we can make this a useful option

All I know is the little bugger has left 3 hp me to also take the brunt of his goblins attack.

Beldak's decision to Disengage raises an important question. I'm not using tactical maps, and not using attacks of opportunity, so that seems to mean that disengage has lost its meaning. I think I will ponder on a suitable use for this action within these house rules.

I'm pretty sure that there is a 1e rule for backing out of combat, withdrawal, and such, so as soon as I get back to my 1e books I'll do a little research and see if we can make this a useful option

The following is an entry on page 70 of the 1E DMG:

Breaking Off From Melee:

At such time as any creature decides, it can break off the engagement and flee the melee. To do so, however, allows the opponent a free attack or attack routine. This attack is calculated as if it were a rear attack upon a stunned opponent. When this attack is completed, the retiring/fleeing party may move away at full movement rate, and unless the opponent pursues and is able to move at a higher rate of speed, the melee is ended and the situation becomes one of encounter avoidance.

(Sorry for popping in but I have been following this game a little bit for its old school goodness.)

Thanks Logan, now I seem to remember a few other options were mentioned toward the back of the Player's Handbook.

All I know is the little bugger has left 3 hp me to also take the brunt of his goblins attack.

OMG I didn't realize you were dying!

Beldak's decision to Disengage raises an important question. I'm not using tactical maps, and not using attacks of opportunity,

I also forgot the rule on no AOO's... :( ... My reason for disengaging is mainly not create unrest but that I'm not a melee character. I also don't trust myself to roll high twice for a disadvantaged spell casting in melee combat. I never played 1e either... I would have at least attacked if I knew that I was just going to get stabbed in the back.

And, I am still learning new things, about 5e, and about the characters in this game.

Morgrym, should you have 11 hit points, and not 12? And for some reason I thought you had 13 listed earlier, which is why I had you at -7, but I think, *gasp* you might actually be at -9 (11-20), and stable, *whew*

Edit - Ahah! dwarven toughness, +1 hit point, so you do have 12, and are now are -8, and stable. Okay.

Thanks Logan, now I seem to remember a few other options were mentioned toward the back of the Player's Handbook.

From pages 104 and 105 in the 1E PHB:

Participants in a melee can opt to attack, parry, fall back, or flee. Attack can be by weapon, bare hands, or grappling. Parrying disallows any return attack that round, but the strength "to hit" bonus is then from the opponent's "to hit" dice roll(s), so the character is less likely to be hit. Falling back is a retrograde move facing the opponent(s) and can be used in conjunction with a parry, and opponent creatures are able to follow if not otherwise engaged. Fleeing meads as rapid a withdrawal from combat as possible; while it exposes the character to rear attack at the time, subsequent attacks can only be made if the opponent is able to follow the fleeing character at equal or greater speed.

Thanks again Logan! I was reading my 1e PH last night and found the whole section on Initiative and Combat sort of refreshing

Thinking it over I believe it really becomes a non issue. We are not going to use Opportunity Attacks (which as far as I can see are only related to Movement and not to casting spells). Disengage is only relevant to Movement (See Below), so it would seem that there is no reason to even have a rule for disengaging.

However, this is where I think having a lot of experience with Pathfinder makes it tricky

Melee and Ranged Attacks (Including Spells that require Attack Rolls): Now you would think that this is where Disengage becomes relevant, but it is not. You see, Disengage is an Action, and when it comes to spells you cannot choose the "Cast a Spell Action" and the "Disengage" action in the same round (some spells can be cast using Reactions or Bonus Actions, and could then be combined with Disengage, but this does not have anything to do with Opportunity Attacks and only effects the Disadvantage rule, which is what Beldak was trying to avoid in the first place). So even if we were playing it straight, by the rules, technically Beldak cannot avoid the Disadvantage rule if he is in melee and wants to cast a Spell that requires an Attack Roll and the selection of the "Cast a Spell" Action (see above). And I think that is fair.

It seems that a lot of the actual ins and outs of combat in this edition are tied to working out the Advantage and Disadvantage situations, getting a lackey to "Help" in combat could change your caster's Disadvantage to a regular roll for example, or thinking of creative ways to undo the Disadvantage situation.

Here is what I think will be the final say, for my game where Tactical Maps, Movement and Opportunity Attacks are not being used and Determining if a Caster has Disadvantage on a Spell Attack Roll is critical

A Caster has Disadvantage on an Attack Roll associated with a Spell when it is cast using the "Cast a Spell" action in any round where the Party does not have the initiative.

I realize that was long, sorry for all that wordiness.

Also, just as a reminder, the Doors you have encountered in the Palace so far do not have any handles, they are huge stone slabs balanced in a master craftsmanship sort of way. However, they can be wedged and blocked by spikes shoved under them or weapons in a pinch.

The Party defeated 3+7 goblins for a total 170 experience points

Each of the five Characters receives 34 experience points

A Caster has Disadvantage on an Attack Roll associated with a Spell when it is cast using the "Cast a Spell" action in any round where the Party does not have the initiative.

This doesn't seem fair. I'm disadvantaged to my primary attack when I don't have initiative? That could be 100% of the time regardless of my proximity to any enemy.

FYI - we need to get out as soon as ppl are conscious.

We need a full day of safe rest just to come back and have a chance of living.

Todays battle was a hazardous one and we're 10% of the way needed to get to 2nd. I am ok with the pacing but we're gonna have to constantly leave and then return for a bit to come.

Generic Dungeon Master wrote:

A Caster has Disadvantage on an Attack Roll associated with a Spell when it is cast using the "Cast a Spell" action in any round where the Party does not have the initiative.

This doesn't seem fair. I'm disadvantaged to my primary attack when I don't have initiative? That could be 100% of the time regardless of my proximity to any enemy.

Yes it does seem unfair, but looking at the basic rules as they are written, as long as you are in melee, you can't escape that anyway (Unless you can cast a spell as a bonus action or as a reaction, and in those cases I would not apply the Disadvantage):

You either move, and take an Attack of Opportunity, then chose to "Cast a Spell" or take the Disadvantage penalty

But, I've already lost one good player to the house rules, so I'm willing to compromise, if we can work out something that makes you happy.

Why not have a 'rank' system for MOST engagements

1st rank... can attack and be attacked by melee in opponents first rank
2nd rank... cannot melee or be melee'd - firing into opponents first rank gives opponent cover +2 ac. can heal etc ppl in 1st rank.
3rd rank - can only heal etc ppl in second rank.

If you have double the opponents first rank then the opponents 2nd rank can be melee attacked by your first rank.

Spells with range of 30 or less may only strike ranks 1 and 2. Area affect spells of 10 only affect some or all of a single rank. 20 affects 2 ranks. Area of 30 gets all 3. Area 40 may have some over spill :) You may need to play with this a little but its simple ish

Ex, Goblin fighter x 2 = first rank. Goblin archer = 2nd rank. Gob shaman = 3rd rank.

Round 1 we have 3 melee characters - Not double the gob 1st rank... so we can only melee the 1st rank. Our archers and spell slingers can fire at ranks 2 and 3 without issue but a +2 AC cover bonus applies if firing at the gobs 1st rank.

Round 2.

A goblin is killed.

Now we are more than double - one of our guys is considered to have broken through.

Their 1st and 2nd ranks count as rank 1 and the shaman rank 2.

Terrain may only allow for x amount of people in ranks 1 and 2. Rank 3 is more ambigious.

That's a solid solution, Helaman, but I think it is too much "accounting" for the solution I'm looking for, which aims for less reliance on details of position, and less rules in general, but thank you very much for the suggestion I might use it in another game.

I'm ok with being disadvantaged to cast in melee. I'm going to do my best to not ever be in melee as well. 1d6 hp isn't much when you're getting attacked often.

Thank you, Beldak, you probably don't know how much I appreciate that, and in the future I will always be open to "Role Playing" to try and alleviate the problem

Would it be a chore if I asked for everyone to track their own experience points on their alias?

I'm getting a bit confused by the amalgam of 1st and 5th edition rules.

I'm almost inclined to drop since at this point I'm getting almost completely lost as to how things work.

I signed up for this game to get an exposure to 5th edition, and let's be blunt it really isn't that. To be fair, I was warned, but perhaps I didn't understand how much divergence was going to happen.

I know 1st edition plenty well enough, and don't really care to relive it.

No worries Haarold, do what you think is best. Don't play if it isn't fun for you.

I going to pause for a bit, and see what Myna and Morgrym are going to do

Sent a PM off to Morgrym, hope he drops in soon.

Haarold, have you decided what you will do, or are you still thinking it over?

Still kind of thinking. Probably shouldn't leave you hanging though.

Think I'll just move along. I'm having a hard time sorting out the rules that I should actually be learning to give 5th a fair evaluation.

Later all.

Well alright then. Thanks for giving it a try. Good luck!

Now we have a Fighter, a Cleric, A Rogue and a Wizard

Two Elves, a Dwarf, and a Halfling

Not a bad party, at all,

Do the rest of you want to go on?

Sure.

Is this game still active? Can't see it in my campaigns.

I think the power bump may have reset all the notifications, I realized it today when it looked like none of my games were updating and I thought everyone had given up on me.

We are still going.

Beldak, the only original character left from the beginning of the game, can show the other three of you the way to the Kobold Hovel, where you can rest safely, and maybe recover a pony. It is only a few hours away. If that is where the group decides it wants to head to.

We could return there. It's just inside town and I know the password. They have excellent provisions. I'm going to take 100cp from the chest.

We should all take 100 cp - at the least the gobbos can pay for dinner.