The issue with that is it would just trivialize too many high end encounters. The best course of action for any fight would be use shrink until success upon success you win basically, since you could at that point wall the creature into an area and plink it to death.
Surely, though, that's an argument for bolstering ... once the target makes the save, they're immune to such attempts for a day, afterwards, or something.
Mind you, that's just off the top of my head.
I would think that there would be a version of the spell that can be used to diminish enemies (albeit not to "Tiny" size at one go ... more like 1 size category at lower levels and more at higher...)
Hey there, fellow gamer-folk,
Has anyone else noticed that "Reduce Person" (now known as "Shrink") requires a "willing target"?
How is this spell useful in any but the most limited cases? Also, how is there not a higher-level spell that reduces size requiring a Saving Throw?
Does anyone think this could be a typo or oversight? Or is the game just ruling out that kind of transmutation attack?
Byron Zibeck wrote:
Depends on the creature. The ghasts in Sombrefell have their noxious and sickening aura of bad smell. When you save versus one, you're only bolstered against that one. But if you have multiple ghasts with overlapping areas of effect or moving enemies that constantly expose PCs to differing, overlapping effects, it becomes really tough to chart.
The Once and Future Kai wrote:
I, too, completely loved numeric conditions at lower-levels. I ran into a few problems tracking them starting in "Sombrefell Hall" (especially in figuring out who was bolstered to which undead's special ability and for how long) but it really got complex and burdensome during "Undarin".
The difficulty comes in how many can be active simultaneously.
If the amount of conditions are few (regardless of whether they are created by PCs or critters) this is a joy and makes things really easy to track! But once we get up there in how many spells and abilities can spawn trackable conditions, it becomes too cumbersome.
I'm not sure how I would address that.
I mean I really like this idea! But it doesn't scale well, it would seem.
Anyone have any ideas we could pass on to the developers?
Or, perhaps, is this just something Kai and I are running into as a problem?
Mark Seifter wrote:
No worries, you found a useful bug that we need to fix. It's natural that if you're emotionally invested, a playtest can be frustrating. But it's how we're going to make the game better. And if you need to step back for breathing room at any time, that's cool too. Thanks for your help!
Thank you, Mark.
Going forward, I'll still try to keep my comments constructive and actionable.
Be well and happy gaming!
I do have to wonder why that sea serpent is in there, at all. It's so beyond the PCs' ability to defeat it (especially using the underwater combat rules) that our ref had to hand-wave our escape just so we didn't all die.
And if dying was an option, we would have expected there to be something important about the encounter or at least have it balanced against the level of the PCs. But the critter moves too fast and quickly gets out of range before anyone can do anything.
Mary Yamato wrote:
An excellent question; not easy to answer.
But I shall try...
The fiddliness of high-level play was definitely a part of it. I had to keep checking rules and putting more graphics on our battle map to indicate overlapping areas of reverse gravity, swamp of sloth (or whatever the Hezerou has), the PCs' divine, anti-fiend field or blessing, making all those "hidden" Perception rolls (such as for the Omox), and deal with all sorts of Enfeebled, Grabbed, Grappled, and differing conditions with different end-points and countdowns.
I'd say that about a third of my problems were keeping track of all the nonsense. Of the remaining 66.67%, I'd say that about half (33%) was the unwinnable scenario and the last 33% would be level design: aka the fact that this was nothing but a slog.
So, oddly, in answer to your question, it turns out about equal portions contributed to my unhappiness:
Does that make sense?
An excellent analogy. It is exactly like that!
And, yeah: Sombrefell Hall also wore out one of my players who, later, admitted to me that the slog-like nature of it made him want to quite some 4 hours before it actually ended.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Say, Mark: I just want to say it is not my intent to be a surly, annoying, demanding, entitled gamer. Some of my review was doubtless more snarky than necessary. I have only 1 published module to my name from years and years ago. You are an expert currently working in the industry. I do not, in any way, want to impugn your skill and experience.
I've been a bit unhappy with some things, of late, and I believe that may be making my participation in the Playtest to be more combative than intended or necessary.
Same boat, here.
I'm playing this incredibly strictly. After all, that's what I expect Paizo wants and needs: real play-testing by actual gamers in the trenches.
The result of this is that I'm running into tons of really rules-broken scenarios and situations that seem to be a combination of simplification of PF1 rules and rushed module design that has bugs and mistakes.
In many ways, I'm wondering if PF2 is kinda like their take on DND5 rather than an evolution of PF1.
Does that make sense?
I mean, if it is, sure... I get that. DND5 is a damn fine game! But it's really, very different from PF1, DND3.5, and DND4. Trying to find a single system to comprise a blend of those would be really tough and potentially unwieldy. If that's, indeed, what they're trying to do. I dunno; that just sorta popped into my head, the other day.
I still think that 2E has the possibility of becoming a game that I personally will enjoy more than 1E in its current bloated state. But I admit that I'm getting less and less optimistic about it as time goes on.
Sadly, that's how I'm feeling, too. The weird thing is, the game seems almost entirely new rather than an upgrade or series of fixes to a new edition. While not to the depth of the problem, it reminds me of 4E's change from 3E, right now.
I fully expect the actual 2E to be significantly different than the Playtest version. I expect Paizo to fix 2D10 of the major problems and only introduce 1D12 major problems with those essentially untested fixes. My hope is that those 2D10 roll high AND cover almost all of my top 15 flaw list and that 1D12 rolls low and doesn't create any game breakingly bad fixes.
<laughs at your analogy> You, my friend, are someone I like! :)
It's not like the Paizo folk are bad or untalented! These are really skilled individuals who work under very difficult situations of social media scrutiny and an enormous amount of expectations. I totally take my hat off to the difficult task they've undertaken!
I'm really hoping that what comes out of this is evolutionary as opposed to revolutionary, though; like 2E to 3E or 3.5E to PF1. I'm getting a bit slow in my aged, addled brain for learning new systems all the time ... even good ones!
You bring up a very good point regarding play-balance. While the GM is usually on-hand to balance things out, this PF2 system seems to work more of those controls directly into the core rules. For me, there are so many rules and subtle differences now that I keep confusing one edition's ruling from the other's.
Hmmm... Let me see if I can say that in a more constructive and "explained" way...
A significant problem that I'm finding with the Pathfinder 2 playtest is that the game, itself, is more revolutionary than evolutionary. It is a complete do-over in many senses. But, at the same time, it uses 90% or more of the same terminology as first edition. But many of those terms now have such significantly different meanings (or subtle changes) that they can easily get confused. For people who have spent years learning and memorizing the rules of first edition, this makes adjusting to 2nd edition more difficult than learning a completely new game system. It's not just learning new rules: it's learning rules that sound similar to rules you already knew and, then, end up getting confused by subtle and not-so-subtle differences. My nearly-a-decade of experience with PF1 is clashing with the differences in PF2. Many of the new exceptions in the Playtest rules (or the special cases) are summed-up in only a couple words and easily missed or overlooked because the player's or GM's brain thinks it knows this stuff, already.
Does that make sense? I'm hoping that explains what I think is at the core of my difficulty with these rules.
I hear ya.
And, yeah: PF1 has plenty of flaws. I'm not particularly fond of how spontaneous casters are handled nor barbarians with their rage.
But, over the years, the gradual house-rules and home-fixes have provided a really good social framework of fellow GMs to address these issues. Plus, plenty of fixes from Paizo have been excellent! Unchained, comes to mind, with regards to the Crafting rules.
I'm just ... feeling totally disconnected (more and more frequently) with 2E. If the final product ends up being anything even remotely like the playtest version, I'm really not going to enjoy it at all. And the more today has gone by, the darker my mood has gotten.
I appreciate your support (you clearly get it); I'm just looking at all the TPKs people are reporting, all the arguments over rules interpretations, all the rising tide of dread while the official channels keep saying "this is the greatest thing since sliced bread" rather than giving us any hope that the problems so many are talking about are being heard...
I feel like that adherent to 2nd edition AD&D who refuses to go on to 3rd edition because 2nd was "perfect". And I swear: I'm not that gamer! I love so many different systems! But the more I see the divide widening between people who are having real problems with the Playtest and those who defend it: the more I feel as if there's a portion not being listened-to ... that, in fact, the decisions have already been made and this is going to be the direction the game goes in.
I think that may be compounding my problems with the Playtest: that as things get increasingly monotonous, I'm losing drive, ambition, and desire to play it.
Does that make any sense?
Or, honestly: am I just a fluke, here? I mean, I could very well be too close to my reactions and be the only one having this many problems.
It's hard for me to see.
Ran this last night.
The characters didn't hit the ceiling and were stranded about 40-feet up.
Interestingly, the spell doesn't penalize floating characters in any way except for movement. So, they used their vantage point to use ranged attacks on the Glabrezu and the one Hezerou that showed up.
Also, they got lucky with a banish spell in Round One and sent one of the two Glabrezu, packing. I rolled so badly on the critter's save that it just vanished back to the Abyss.
There's also the problem of floating at 40-feet and moving along the "plane" between the two gravity zones.
There are no rules provided to cover it!
I adjudicated that unless they had a way to move magically, they would (at best) be able to "swim" or flounder around in the air, moving at most 5-feet per action spent on movement. Since the map put church pews in there, and the Glabrezu had caught those in the area of effect, one PC very smartly decided to kick-off against one pew and propel his character to the edge of the reverse gravity where, then, he was able to use the Cat Fall Feat to reduce the damage from falling to negligible.
I was surprised that there was no penalty on attack rolls mentioned in the spell description at all. Because, honestly, floating about at the top of a 40-foot column of reversed gravity or bouncing about between one zone of gravity and another, should play havoc with one's equilibrium and coordination.
But, as it was, I figured that they were screwed enough in this adventure, as-is, and didn't need any more curtailed abilities. Even with the lucky failure of Glazebru #1 on its Will save to avoid being banished, I still knew the PCs were screwed.
Oh, and I did do the whole "dent the columns to bring down the ceiling" thing but, honestly, the demon didn't really get the chance before the PCs closed with it (getting out of the reverse gravity) and occupied all its time. The placement of pillars even prevented it from fleeing after a bit once its mirror image got taken out.
All-in-all it was a very frustrating run.
I'm glad it's over.
Good evening, fellow GMs,
I just finished running session one of "the Heroes of Undarin". It's almost midnight, here in Minnesota. I'm exhausted and drained. I knew what the adventure was like before running it but, honestly, it's so much more draining to run a game knowing you're going to kill your players' characters than I thought it would be.
By the end of it, as we were breaking up, I asked if they wanted to set-up a special run between now and our normal, next session in two weeks: to see if we could finish it.
They had made it through about the first third of Wave 1/Event 3. We stopped because one player had to go (other commitments; he volunteers some days) and another also had to leave because combat had taken so long and his ride back to Wisconsin had arrived.
None of them wanted to go on. To quote one: "It was a slog".
And, honestly: I was glad. It was a slog for me, too.
I get that the goal of this adventure is to stress-test characters, seeing how long it takes to kill them. And I get that this is a necessary part of play-testing.
That said, it was such a grind. And I had to wear my enthusiastic "GM Face" the whole time, running it like it was any other adventure.
It was the Pathfinder equivalent of the Kobayashi Maru. Only despite how cool that kinda sounds, it wasn't. It felt like a relentless death march and, for me, that's just not fun. At all. And it wasn't for my players.
So, yeah: we won't be continuing this one. We'll go on to the next.
But, still, I'm not sure I want to. I'm so worn out.
Maybe it's because it's so late and this was a very crunchy game session requiring tracking so many conflicting and overlapping conditions, spells, powers, and abilities that I'm figuratively seeing cross-eyed right now. But maybe I'm starting to think that this version of the Playtest, even with the updates, just isn't that good of a game. Parts of it are, sure; I really like several parts of it! But so much of it ... hurts. It's just not enjoyable.
Is anyone else having these feelings?
Or, to the contrary, does anyone else have any suggestions that could rekindle my cheer and enthusiasm for the Playtest?
I've been playing tabletop RPGs for 38 years and I've not encountered so troubling a game session before. This really did a number on me.
Any encouragement or commiseration welcome!
Franz Lunzer wrote:
I'm going with a hardness of anywhere between 28 and 30 with 2-3 dents required for destroying them.
I'm of two minds on this.
Later, the risen dead are clearly just-now activated and didn't exist, before-hand. I was thinking the same for the ghosts.
Then again, if the lich and demilich have been down there for centuries and, only just now, awoke ... you could be right.
<chuckles> Well, still a cool icon! :)
Mostly, I was thinking that the banshee being added is particularly un-containable. She's only added to increase difficulty for 5 PCs but she drastically changes the entire calculus of the encounter just by being incorporeal.
Once the Demilich-and-friends appear, the Demilich's aura of baditude (aka flying, telekinetic debris) pounds the living crap out of the shambling mummy-retainer corpses.
I think I'll have to have the flying skull-of-doom move elsewhere on its turn to allow more cadavers to escape the churned soil and actually have a chance of...
Aw, who'm I kidding? They're cannon-fodder. Only the banshee stands a chance of hurting anyone. (We have 5 PCs so, now, there's a banshee.)
And if she, like the others, are here to go after the heroes in the basement with the White Theorem, isn't she just going to fly, incorporeally, with her 60-foot movement down those stairs without anything to stop her?
The more I think about it, incorporeal critters in this are a mismatch for the stated goals.
I think I'll have to override the goal in her case and just have her attack the PCs.
Just realized something while going over the module again and familiarizing myself with the updated critters and their abilities.
Ghosts are not immune to fear or mind-affecting effects.
Therefore, in Wave 2/Event 5, the position of the ghost mages is decidedly within the area-of-effect of the lich's fearful presence. Nothing about that Bestiary ability says that it does not effect allies.
And, so, I pre-rolled their saves.
Naturally, all succeeded but not critically. Therefore, on the first round of combat, the ghost-mages will suffer from the Frightened-1 condition.
This seems ... wrong.
As a side-note, I started looking at how they handle breaking things, now, and am considering having the larger demons just try to break those annoying pillars.
Please note, however, that those reaching all the way to the ceiling are denoted with black tops ... like the walls. The pillar in the north-west foyer (about 25 feet away from the broken-down, main door) is different. In that case, I'm viewing it has difficult terrain or a raised dais: a broken-off pillar that only goes up a few feet.
That said, I've been going over materials strengths via Hardness on page 354 of the Playtest book trying to figure out how difficult it would be to break those pillars. In short, it would take more than 2 dents to give any one of them the "broken" condition.
I'm essentially trying to engineer the hardness of stone pillars which, using the nomenclature of this new system, would be something like a "Structure" thickness of ordinary stone. Since normal (ie: "not thin") stone has a hardness of 7, it would clearly be higher than that. And, looking at Adamantine and other special materials (in the "Crafting with Special Materials" section), it seems that regardless of the quality of the crafting, "Structure" doubles "Item" hardness. Therefore a stone structure should have a hardness of 14, right?
But then we get into thickness of that structure.
A rocky cliff should have more hardness than a rocky pillar and a 2-foot-diameter stone pillar should be tougher (ie: "more hardness") than a pillar made out of stone, twice the diameter at 4-feet across.
So, the question comes to be, "When thinking of a stone structure, what are they thinking of?" I'm guessing walls. And, cross-referencing with the original breaking-stuff rules, stone comes in as having a "per 15-inches thickness".
Therefore, if a standard stone structure (a wall) is assumed to be 15 inches thick and have a hardness of 14. On the map, the pillars are between 4 and 5 feet diameter. For simplicity's sake, I think I'm going to go with their hardness, therefore, to be 3-times normal due to thickness but lessen that, somewhat, because of how old they are and how crumbly the whole temple looks.
Therefore: the temple pillars (in my game) are going to have a hardness of 44/45 minus a fair number of points due to age, structural instability, and overall crumbliness leaving each with a (again, for simplicity's sake) 28-30 hardness (2-3 dents).
Given some of the bigger demons can dish that out fairly easily with a couple blows (ie: "dents"), I'm thinking the roof may be coming down in some sections once the big bads find out that they're too big for their badness to be unleashed, effectively.
You rock! That is an excellent breakdown of how the physics would work in the area of that spell!
I know it goes beyond the scope of the playtest but I think I'm going to use that should it come up in my game when I run it this coming Saturday. :)
Also: I studied physics back in my college days as well as astrophysics but the mathematics was always something that my brain would rebel against. I really respect the work you did on this!
Yeah: I said the same thing in my feedback survey. When I pick up a module, I want everything laid out for me.
And I'm happy you enjoyed my maps!
By the way: I love your user icon! Is that fox from something specific that I'm just not familiar with?
One of my players asked a very solid question while creating his "demon-hunting hero" for "Heroes of Undarin". Basically, "So, what do we actually know about demons"?
The module/adventure doesn't say.
So, I created the following hand-out. You may wish to use similar logic in your own runs of the adventure. I'll let you folk know how it goes.
The median level of demons (as a group) in the Playtest Bestiary appears to be around 10 or 11. Most are "Uncommon" which is a "high" DC for "Recall Knowledge" checks with Lore. Almost all of you would have this sort of experience given your backgrounds. I would adjudicate that knowledge of a group or type of critter (ie: "demons") would come from encountering differing types of them over time. This would increase rarity of knowledge but not level. So, if we shift the average of "high" (for "uncommon" creatures) to the right on the DC chart and use a level of 10 or 11 we would get a DC of 29/30. Since this knowledge would be gained over time (like taking a 20; but I don't see this in the Playtest rules ,,, at least not by that terminology), if we go off of logic, I would say that you would probably have some basic knowledge, having gotten at least a '20' several times in your long careers of fighting demons.
Since you are level 12 characters, I'll limit your information to creatures of up to 1 level higher than you: lvl-13.
So, here's what you know:
Demons are fiendish natives of the Abyss who seek to twist mortals to sin. Demons seek to drag more beings into the pit following their death and final judgment. Many different types of demons exist; they possess weaknesses to cold-iron and good sources of injury and damage.
The Weaknesses of Sin
Additionally, many demons can cast the Abyssal pact ritual to coax others of their kind into servitude. This is, essentially, the "Summon Demon" ability from 1st edition. The creature can call in a favor from another demon with a level of, at most, twice the spell level of the Abyssal pact, two demons up to 2 levels lower than that, or three demons up to 3 levels lower than that. If the ritual succeeds, the summoner owes the summoned demons a favor, depending on their nature and eagerness to pursue whatever tasks the summoner had in mind.
Demons you have heard of (using the Playtest Bestiary) include the following:
*Those, above, marked with an asterisk are considered the toughest that you know of: your equal or even tougher.
Beyond these, you've heard rumors of more powerful types going by such names as Marilith, Shemhazian, Balor, Nalfeshnee but have no personal experiences or even much knowledge about them in a general sense. Specific Lore ("Recall Knowledge") checks will be allowed during the game for you to recall more specific information.
I may have some insight as to what happened. Or at least a possible clue.
To get where I'm coming from, though, you should understand how I run my games.
I use Photoshop with various layers turned on/off for "Fog of War", secret rooms, creature Tokens, PC Tokens, etc... In order to run these Playtest adventures, I open the PDF version of "Doomsday Dawn", right-click on the embedded map image, and save it before opening it up in Photoshop to prep it for my run.
When I first did this, the map came out maimed; distorted and stretched. No other map that I did this for (in the previous adventures of "Doomsday Dawn") acted like this. Furthermore, when I went back to do it, again, I would frequently not get this problem.
I'm thinking that it was distorted to fit into the final, published version and, perhaps, this indicates that it was originally larger and of a slightly different shape/proportions. Hence, maybe this points to the floor tiles being truly representative of the initial, intended scale of the place.
But, that said, even in the PDF, the grid that overlays the map clearly says "1 square = 5 feet" on it and those squares contain 2 floor tiles on a side.
So, while it may be that this is a bug that came up when they were preparing the final version of the adventure, we still are stuck with 50-foot-high ceilings, a temple too narrow for 1/3rd of the critters attacking it, and references to 10 events when the adventure says there are only 9.
("THERE ... ARE ... FOUR ... LIGHTS!")
So, yeah: I may re-size my map. Or, I may look into "damaging/breaking things" and see if the Huge-or-larger critters can start taking down the pillars in the temple.
Because, as my friend and co-GM puts it, "I may take up a 5-foot Space but to go down a 3-foot-wide hall, I don't have to squeeze and it doesn't slow me down."
But if we're here to test the rules and adventures, as written and presented, we're finding some real problems...
While prepping for next weekend's running of this adventure, I was giving the module a second read-through and discovered a potential typo. It's not too crucial but I was wondering what others thought of it.
On Page 62 in the "Lighting" sidebar, it says "The sun has fully set for Events 6 through 10". Additionally, under "Concluding The Chapter" on page 67 in paragraph 3, it says "If, somehow, the characters managed to survive the assault, defeating all 10 events...".
There are several ways to interpret this:
Personally, for the fun of it, if any of my players' characters survive all the way to the end, I think I'll throw in a quasit for Event 10 so someone can step on it and roar to the blood-read heavens in victory...
So, in prepping for "The Heroes of Undarin", one of my playtest players wanted to know if he could take +3 elven chain for his +3 armor that he gets as part of character creation. He is creating an elven ranger who has spent the better part of the previous decade battling the forces of the Abyss in the Worldwound and, now, is traveling the land with the other PCs avenging the dead mortals and ridding the land of evil.
Since I know that the purpose of this chapter is testing the impact of magic items on combat and staying power, I have been inclined to say yes.
I mean: who better than to have a freakin' suit of elven, mithril chainmail than moderately-high-level elf who has just spent most of his recent life fighting demons?!! That's just ... appropriately cool!
But when I looked into it a bit more, I found that elven armor is very high-level as far as items go. And, in terms of game mechanics, all it does is have a lower Bulk than equivalent armors and lack the noisy condition. So, basically, it only has practical impacts upon Encumbrance/Bulk and the occasional Stealth check. And, yet, it's a very high-level item.
I've decided to tell the player, "No", because—in some conceivable scenario—that non-noisy armor might have an impact on how the adventure plays out. I sincerely doubt it but, hey: it's possible. And I don't want to allow something that could skew the results of the playtest.
What are your thoughts on this?
Sure, making it a high-level item for the sake of role-playing makes sense, when we're just doing a one-shot adventure it doesn't look like this is all that well-balanced. Every other magic item has a lot of intrinsic balance with other items (mechanically speaking, that is) but this ... this just seems to be bling.
So, Vampire Spawn Rogues ... right out of the Playtest Bestiary.
They don't have Thievery.
But the adventure advocates that "if their entry is blocked, they use spider climb to search for entrances on the second floor."
The only entrances on the second floor are the balconies in back. Oh, sure, there are those windows on the 1st floor rooms in the back of Sombrefell Hall, but they're looking at the 2nd floor.
And the Hall doesn't have a 2nd floor in the front.
Several rooms mention windows that are not on the maps. I went through and tried to figure out which rooms were supposed to have windows that got left out of the maps by accident and which did not. I spent hours re-doing the map ... especially the 2nd floor which was bigger than the corresponding section below it. (I invented a patio area, in back, beneath the 2nd floor bedrooms.)
So, anyway, I had the Vampire Spawn Rogues that had no Thievery, break in on the first floor. I gave one Thievery (improvised to fit in with the rest of their Skills) and had the other just break a window. The one with Thievery actually lasted a while because, after jimmying a window open and Stealthing into the Hall, he was able to use Stealth to his advantage and try to locate the hiding professor. Still, he died once the PCs found him.
Anyway, this map and adventure seems strangely lacking. Are these little mistakes an artifact of poor game design, intentional "mistakes" intended to see what GMs would do to address problems, or oversights?
The Narration wrote:
You're very welcome! I hope your players get good, solid use out of 'em!
Franz Lunzer wrote:
Maybe, long-past, the ancestors who had the manor built were half-giants? :)
Has anyone else looked at the maps for the first and second floors of Sombrefell Hall and noticed that they don't match? When I took them into Photoshop to create layered regions (which I could show/reveal on my TV monitor to the players) this became really obvious.
Basically, just count the depth of squares on the 2nd Floor and notice where the upper part of the stairs match the stairs on the 1st Floor map.
From the edge of the railing (overlooking D2) to the back wall (with the balconies) it's 8 squares. At 5-feet each that's 40 feet from the front of the railing to the rear wall of Sombrefell Hall.
But on the 1st floor map, if you line up the top of the staircase in D2 with the top of the staircase in the 2nd floor map, you find between 4 and 6 squares (20 to 30 feet) between D2 and the back of the house. It depends on how you line up the upper landing, to be sure, but those diagonal walls at the rear of the house only allow for lining up the two floors in a few, limited ways.
I know there are trellises on the back leading up to the balconies, but the balconies are an additional 5 to 10 feet jutting out towards the lake.
Basically, the 2nd floor looks as if it has a 20-foot-deep alcove beneath it.
So, uh, as I prepped for this game: that area became a sun-sheltered deck, the trellises protected from sunlight off the lake.
Anyone else notice this? Or interpret the maps differently?
Yeah, this is another argument for supplying maps with every module!
The Narration wrote:
Thanks for these. The fact that they didn't include maps for half the encounters in the adventure was extremely annoying. I've got enough on my hands familiarizing myself with the module, the monsters, the NPCs and the new rules without also needing to draw a bunch of new maps. It wouldn't be an issue if it were an IRL game where I was drawing with wet-erase markers on a battlemat, but running it on Roll20 makes drawing new maps a major pain.
You're very welcome!
Usually, I just throw together maps in Photoshop with the PCs' tokens in their own layers and monsters/NPCs in their own layers. Then, hooking up my laptop to the TV, everyone can see it, we can zoom in (for those of us with bifocals and other visual impairments), and do battles in fairly good comfort.
I hope the pre-embedded grids don't mess things up for Roll20!
I tried using Roll20 but I must be doing something wrong; I just can't figure it out.
I agree with both of you ... to a degree.
That's why I waited until after the surveys for that portion of the playtest had ended.
I did find one of the battle maps questionable, though. The final map covers a very key part of the characters' journey: right outside the dungeon. As it is, not having that supplied in the module made me a bit frustrated. Anything that could significantly impact the result of getting into the tomb should at least have its own, provided map.
But, that said, it was easy for me to whip one up.
Then again, on what must be the third-hand by now, the Gnoll Camp map was very poorly described compared to the others. I had to draw it 3 times before I finally got it right! (I think I got it right. I'm still unsure.)
But, yeah: I definitely hear your point.
I'm providing these maps for those who want to play the module but not do the build-a-map parts.
Hope that explains it.
Here we go... I hope this works; I've not done DropBox, before.
I have each of the Battle Maps in there as well as a single ZIPped file for mass-download, if you like.
Let me know if this works!
I hope folk enjoy them!
Hey there, everyone,
In case there are some refs out there who need quick Battle Maps for "In Pale Mountain's Shadow" here are the maps I came up with for my group. I created them using assets I purchased and my own Photoshop skills. I tend to display these on the TV from my laptop but I suppose they could also be printed out.
I figured I'd share them, here, for refs who may need them and don't have the time or inclination to draw up their own.
If anyone is interested, let me know: I'll try to find a way to post them.
Does anyone have any suggestions for the best means to post a ZIP-file of PNG-images? By that, I mean, the method that a majority of folk, here, would prefer to use.
I'm fond of Backgrounds, so far, but would like to explore them in greater depth when it comes to creating them for a GM's specific campaign. For example, what if a referee crafting a setting wanted to include some potential Backgrounds that offer only a single Ability boost but extra Skill feats or Skill trainings?
For example, using the "Magical Survivor" example, above, I could envision a variation that boosts a single physical Ability score of the player's choice but grants a bonus to Perception. (Or something like that.)
Do you see what I'm trying to describe? I hope I'm making this clear.
Basically, I'd be interested in a ruleset for developing Backgrounds that are still play-balanced but not necessarily using the Ability bonus/Skill bonus/training format that they all share, at the moment.
I have a house rule for combat that's really proved helpful when dealing with creatures with reach who attack past a front-line combatant to reach someone just behind the first.
It just feels logical.
Matt Filla wrote:
Sorry: I should have been more clear.
He claimed he hadn't been cheating on his initiative rolls as I had thought he was. He just admitted to cheating on other rolls...
Good day, one and all,
Thank you, everyone, for your insight and suggestions. I eventually spoke to him, face-to-face. I don't entirely believe what he said, but he claimed he hadn't been cheating but admitted to fudging combat rolls and saving throws. He was a bit chipper about it and took full responsibility.
On the other hand, it's similar to what we all do as kids: deny the crime we got caught for and hope to evade punishment by copping to other crimes (not knowing how much the accuser knows and hoping that, by admitting it, you lessen any repercussions).
At least it didn't turn into an explosion.
My plan will be to introduce a shared dice rolling system of some sort.
I normally hook my laptop up to the HDTV in my friend's living room so I can share maps (I erase blacked-out sections in Photoshop) and player aids. What I think I'll try to do is see if I can find a shared log-in dice roller I can put onto the screen and have all the players log into it. I can do it under the rubric of "Hey: isn't this a cool widget" and still not call undue attention to my problem gamer.
The problem is, I don't mind a certain degree of fudging: I fudge die rolls all the time to keep my players alive. (In the last session, I actually rolled three criticals against one player so I fudged the last two and dealt damage normally.) My dilemma is that "once in a while" is okay. Statistically significant alteration of one's die rolls on a repeated basis is not.
My solution would put everyone out in the open.
Yes, I already use Hero Points (so they can save themselves) but I still end up feeling ... awkward about the solution.
I know I'm an old, greying geek who's been playing long into his years of bifocals and bad hearing, but I wouldn't mind perspectives from fellow gamers who may have an alternate approach.
Thank you, one and all, again.