Pathfinder Module D4: Hungry Are the Dead (OGL)

Oh my, finally all will be revealed...hopefully...
Can't wait to get this in my hands, so I can finally start the Falcon Hollow series.
And the cover looks so cool!

Oh my, finally all will be revealed...hopefully...

Can't wait to get this in my hands, so I can finally start the Falcon Hollow series.
And the cover looks so cool!

I swear Falcon's Hollow must suck to live in, Doesn't Carnival of Tears happen there aswell?

Dryder wrote:

Oh my, finally all will be revealed...hopefully...

Can't wait to get this in my hands, so I can finally start the Falcon Hollow series.
And the cover looks so cool!

I swear Falcon's Hollow must suck to live in, Doesn't Carnival of Tears happen there aswell?

Yes... but at least there's a carnival before... you know... the tears.

Hello All,

Does this adventure take place before or after the Carnival of Tears?

Actually what is the correct sequence of Falcon's Hollow events with all the current available adventures in the area?

Thanx!

Erik

Does this adventure take place before or after the Carnival of Tears?

Actually what is the correct sequence of Falcon's Hollow events with all the current available adventures in the area?

Because the adventures can take place any time, there is no set order for them. That said, running D1.5 before D1 doesn't really make sense. The best way to determine the order of events would be to look at the APL the module is designed for. In that case, you're looking at D0, D1, D1.5/E1, D4.

If I preordered this, can I download the pdf?

heheheh....Falcon's Hollow is domed.

If I preordered this, can I download the pdf?

If you preordered it as part of an ongoing subscription you will get an email when it ships indicating that the pdf is available in your My Downloads page. If you preordered a print copy of it a la carte, you will get the dead tree copy as ordered, but not a free pdf. Those are a benefit of subscribing. The for-sale pdf should be available in a few weeks.

heheheh....Falcon's Hollow is domed.

I think they hit doomed a while ago, especially with what the carnival churned out (oh and the horrendous taxes from the lumber consortium :P)

Now with this little gem about to have its way on Falcon's Hollow... it's safe to say all bets are off! I cant wait :D

Golarion Goblin wrote:

If I preordered this, can I download the pdf?

If you preordered it as part of an ongoing subscription you will get an email when it ships indicating that the pdf is available in your My Downloads page. If you preordered a print copy of it a la carte, you will get the dead tree copy as ordered, but not a free pdf. Those are a benefit of subscribing. The for-sale pdf should be available in a few weeks.

Gotcha, dankou very much.

as a fan of the undead, I must say this is excellent module. Thanks guys!!

Now I just need to try & convert the main villian into miniature form.

RM

Except if you run them all, you'll have to adjust some adventurers encounter levels. There's a large swath of them that run at the 5th-6th character level.

"Cause this is thriller, thriller night; And no one’s gonna save you from the beast about to strike!"

Sorry... had to. Looks like a great module!

When will the pdf be available? Do you get to download the pdf immediately if you purchase the print copy? I have a camping trip coming up with my friends next weekend and would love to run this but need time to prep.

When will the pdf be available? Do you get to download the pdf immediately if you purchase the print copy? I have a camping trip coming up with my friends next weekend and would love to run this but need time to prep.

The PDF will be available for sale to non-subscribers on the product's retail release date, which is November 12. Subscribers (and only subscribers) get a free PDF when their subscriber copy of the print edition ships. I see you just started your sub with this module, so you'll be getting access to the PDF when we fulfill your order—which should happen within the next couple of days.

Uh, D4: Hungry Are The Dead? I didn't see this was set in Darkmoon on Wednesday. I don't think I saw it Wednesday at all. A new adventure for the Darkmoon Vale mini-setting? BAD PAIZO! BAD! BAD! PAIZO!! I haven't even gotten my Gazetteer yet! BA(thanks PAIZO!!! for making the world's most famous RPG into The World's Most Exciting RPG!!!)D Paizo!!! We love you ALL!!! I can't wait. 'Course, there is this weird thing called a "holiday" coming up with "None Shall Pass" written all over it. I CAN"T WAIT!!!!!

Great module - we played an abridged version of the module last weekend. Two criticisms in an another wise entertaining module:

1) No room dimensions in the opening room descriptions. The players need to know this anyway - it would be helpful to add this into the decription paragraph.

2) The monsters were way too hard for the pre-gens - and, I expect, way too hard for a similar party of 4 x PCs.

That being said, loved it (after some editing to fix the aforementioned problems), as did the PCs. Can't wait for the "Vault of the Whispering Tyrant," (which I know is already a Paizo miniature...).

Great module - we played an abridged version of the module last weekend. Two criticisms in an another wise entertaining module:

1) No room dimensions in the opening room descriptions. The players need to know this anyway - it would be helpful to add this into the decription paragraph.

2) The monsters were way too hard for the pre-gens - and, I expect, way too hard for a similar party of 4 x PCs.

That being said, loved it (after some editing to fix the aforementioned problems), as did the PCs. Can't wait for the "Vault of the Whispering Tyrant," (which I know is already a Paizo miniature...).

Thanks SUN KING!

cool cover

I liked the adventure, but I'm afraid the editing is not up to snuff. The monster numbers and types are wrong in several places, and there's a plot item that's nowhere to be found in the actual text of the adventure. The stat blocks appear to have a lot of contradiction as well (for an example, compare the item that gives flight with the flight speed listed in the relevant stat block). I'm perplexed by the references to the "High Academae", as the NPC in question doesn't appear to be from Korvosa, the name isn't right for Korvosa anyway, and I don't see why on earth the PCs would think to bring something back there from an adventure set in Andoran. Seems like an excised plot thread that was incompletely removed.

Some more specific problems:

I'm really hoping to see a step up in the quality of the Pathfinder Modules. Pathfinder itself sets the gold standard, and nearly all of the Chronicles and Companion products are good, but the modules continue to struggle.

I have to agree with Russ on this; both this module and the Pact Stone Pyramid have been major dissapointments for me. Neither of them are inspiring in anyway. I have started to notice a recent trend of linearity with the modules where a lot of the plotting is very pre meditated and rely a lot on an endgame that seems forced on the PCs.

I would love to see more modules along the lines of the Lost City (B4), the Sinister Secrets of Bone Hill etc. which might be more skeletal but provide a lot of open endedness. If any of the older modules are similar to the ones i have mentioned, please do let me know- I would love to pick them up.

I liked the adventure, but I'm afraid the editing is not up to snuff. The monster numbers and types are wrong in several places, and there's a plot item that's nowhere to be found in the actual text of the adventure. The stat blocks appear to have a lot of contradiction as well (for an example, compare the item that gives flight with the flight speed listed in the relevant stat block). I'm perplexed by the references to the "High Academae", as the NPC in question doesn't appear to be from Korvosa, the name isn't right for Korvosa anyway, and I don't see why on earth the PCs would think to bring something back there from an adventure set in Andoran. Seems like an excised plot thread that was incompletely removed.

Hey Russ,

But you'll find that out soon enough. :)

(PS: Shoot me an e-mail so we can coordinate our own upcoming inconsistencies)

I have to agree with Russ on this; both this module and the Pact Stone Pyramid have been major dissapointments for me. Neither of them are inspiring in anyway. I have started to notice a recent trend of linearity with the modules where a lot of the plotting is very pre meditated and rely a lot on an endgame that seems forced on the PCs.

I would love to see more modules along the lines of the Lost City (B4), the Sinister Secrets of Bone Hill etc. which might be more skeletal but provide a lot of open endedness. If any of the older modules are similar to the ones i have mentioned, please do let me know- I would love to pick them up.

Thanks...

Not inspiring in anyway huh,
Dang. That's pretty harsh.

Actually, HatD takes off where the earlier Falcon's Hollow stuff leaves off, plus it was originally going to be part of the gen con dungeon crawl. That's why its linear.
Then again, last time I did a sandbox adventure (Carnival of Tears), folks complained the structure was too non-linear.

You can't please everyone I suppose.

Thanks...
I would have expected a little more support from one of my own faction members.

Not inspiring in anyway huh,
Dang. That's pretty harsh.

Actually, HatD takes off where the earlier Falcon's Hollow stuff leaves off, plus it was originally going to be part of the gen con dungeon crawl. That's why its linear.
Then again, last time I did a sandbox adventure (Carnival of Tears), folks complained the structure was too non-linear.

You can't please everyone I suppose.

Carnival of Tears seems to be one of the most discussed modules in recent times for 3E and also to have had a lot of positive feedback ( I saw a thread on it on Enworld too). :) I absolutely love the Great City CS and the related adventures- A Pound of Flesh and Road to Revolution. Well done on both; i'll write up a review on both in due time.

In terms of faction support, I thought Pact Stone rocked :) I like that it's not just Entombed repeated. Looking forward to more about the countdown clocks in the future.

Tim Hitchcock wrote:

Thanks...
I would have expected a little more support from one of my own faction members.

Not inspiring in anyway huh,
Dang. That's pretty harsh.

Actually, HatD takes off where the earlier Falcon's Hollow stuff leaves off, plus it was originally going to be part of the gen con dungeon crawl. That's why its linear.
Then again, last time I did a sandbox adventure (Carnival of Tears), folks complained the structure was too non-linear.

You can't please everyone I suppose.

Carnival of Tears seems to be one of the most discussed modules in recent times for 3E and also to have had a lot of positive feedback ( I saw a thread on it on Enworld too). :) I absolutely love the Great City CS and the related adventures- A Pound of Flesh and Road to Revolution. Well done on both; i'll write up a review on both in due time.

Gratsi!

In terms of faction support, I thought Pact Stone rocked :) I like that it's not just Entombed repeated. Looking forward to more about the countdown clocks in the future.

ha!

But yeah, Mike's stuff is always killer. FYI He secretly wishes he was a Qadiran.

Tim: I know not your email, but mine is rtaylor@cmc.net.

Loved this adventure -- can't wait to run it with a group. Absolutely loved the gravedigger as a NPC -- will introduce him as early on as possible in our run through Falcon Hollow!

Loved this adventure -- can't wait to run it with a group. Absolutely loved the gravedigger as a NPC -- will introduce him as early on as possible in our run through Falcon Hollow!

Thanks Doomlounge!

I get a real Marty Feldman vibe from the gravedigger. I'll probably run with that when I GM the adventures.

So ... how is it? So far I've only seen one mixed review.

-The Gneech

Does anyone know more about the location of Falcon's Hollow and Darkmoon vale in the world of Golarion? I think it is kept intentionally vague as located "in a remote forest" for modular compatibility with other settings, which I appreciate; however, I am curious as to where in the world it is located. I am considering using the D series of modules as a jumping-off point for my exploration of the world of Golarion, and I'd like to know where it's situated.

an adventure set in Andoran.

Oh, I see now. Helps to read the whole thread before posting, I guess. ;)

Does anyone know more about the location of Falcon's Hollow and Darkmoon vale in the world of Golarion? I think it is kept intentionally vague as located "in a remote forest" for modular compatibility with other settings, which I appreciate; however, I am curious as to where in the world it is located. I am considering using the D series of modules as a jumping-off point for my exploration of the world of Golarion, and I'd like to know where it's situated.

I think what makes Falcon's Hollow such a great jumping off point, is no one in their right mind would want to spend their entire lives there.

So ... how is it? So far I've only seen one mixed review.

-The Gneech

Yeah, I was kinda bummed about the review myself, not because I can't take criticism or deal with plain old "I think your adventure sucked".

I kind felt like the reviewer missed the point on how many of the elements in adventure were constructed, and without looking into why I laid stuff out the way I did, chalked it up to poor understanding of the d20 system.

Perhaps its just me, but I kind of think if there was anything in the adventure that pushed the mechanics envelope too hard (or poorly), Sean would have caught it during his editorial pass. Niether is Sutter a slouch in the mechanics department. So really, with all the editors that took a pass at the text (and there were plenty of revisions), I think the reviewer's comments weren't entirely accurate.

Anyway, if you like Falcon's Hollow, slightly gross undead, and a dungeon crawl- that's what the module does.

Admittedly, It's probably more than a little frustrating for rogues, being as there's a lot of undead (no back stab), and...

I could definately talk it up more for you, but I'll assume you want someone else's opinion aside from mine. I mean seriously, I'll have only good things to say about it. However I've kinda been feeling the need to say something about a few of the charges of that review.

I agree with what Tim said.

Funny how many poor reviews actually stem from things having nothing to do with the product in question, like unfamiliarity with the d20 rules, a bad GM, and so on. :/

I agree with what Tim said.

Funny how many poor reviews actually stem from things having nothing to do with the product in question, like unfamiliarity with the d20 rules, a bad GM, and so on. :/

Well, when you open reviews up to the public, that's sort of what you get. How many negative movie reviews can be attributed to people who had noisy people sitting behind them or a lazy projectionist? If you want all reviews to be from experts, there shouldn't be a "Please write a review for me, even if you're unqualified" button on every product page. :-P

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

I agree with what Tim said.

Funny how many poor reviews actually stem from things having nothing to do with the product in question, like unfamiliarity with the d20 rules, a bad GM, and so on. :/

Well, when you open reviews up to the public, that's sort of what you get. How many negative movie reviews can be attributed to people who had noisy people sitting behind them or a lazy projectionist? If you want all reviews to be from experts, there shouldn't be a "Please write a review for me, even if you're unqualified" button on every product page. :-P

Interesting you should say that about lazy projectionists... that, or theater management under the misguided idea that turning down the brightness of the bulb in the projector will lengthen the life of the bulb. It doesn't; all it does is makes your theater's movies look muddy and dark and washed out, which makes the movie's makers look like morons.

I once saw, over on ENworld, a really REALLY scathing and hateful review of Red Hand of Doom. Curious, I went to check it out, worried that I'd made some horrific error in writing the adventure, but no... turns out that the guy who wrote the review had a list of a dozen or more legitimate complaints, but none of those complaints were things from the adventure. They were ALL things his shabby, poor GM added to or subtracted from the adventure, but since the only window into the adventure for the player was his GM, he had no way of knowing that his GM sucked hard. Lame.

I agree with what Tim said.

Funny how many poor reviews actually stem from things having nothing to do with the product in question, like unfamiliarity with the d20 rules, a bad GM, and so on. :/

Ah, yes! This is one of my pet peeves. It's like Amazonians (patrons of Amazon.com) who give a product one star because it got held up in the mail.

Yeah, I was kinda bummed about the review myself, not because I can't take criticism or deal with plain old "I think your adventure sucked".

I actually really like constructive feedback, or useful feedback.
I kind felt like the reviewer missed the point on how many of the elements in adventure were constructed, and without looking into why I laid stuff out the way I did, chalked it up to poor understanding of the d20 system.

Perhaps its just me, but I kind of think if there was anything in the adventure that pushed the mechanics envelope too hard (or poorly), Sean would have caught it during his editorial pass. Niether is Sutter a slouch in the mechanics department. So really, with all the editors that took a pass at the text (and there were plenty of revisions), I think the reviewer's comments weren't entirely accurate.

I agree with what Tim said.

Funny how many poor reviews actually stem from things having nothing to do with the product in question, like unfamiliarity with the d20 rules, a bad GM, and so on. :/

Hello.

Chris Mortika, the reviewer in question here.

Tim, if you felt the need to talk, why didn't you shoot me an email?

The Paizo product review area is fairly restricted in wordcount, and I didn't want to spoil anyof the encounters in a new release. So, those were my reasons for being brief and vague.

Here are some of my concerns, spelled out:

Many of the encounters read well, but the descriptions leave out important crunch.

For example, in the initial assault on the town,

Lucimar is an interesting character,

The sidebar on page 11 notes that a trip back to town "is probably out of the question". Why? There's no sense of urgency.

First trap I'm concerned with, page 12

The second series of traps I'm concerned with, page 13

One more: Cilos and Grimbal

--+--+--

As I said in my review, there's a lot of crunch that is missing, that the Dungeon Master either has to handwave or determine herself.

If you and Sean still think I'm ignorant of the d20 rules, I apologize. I should probably stop writing reviews.

I can't fit my review in a measly 2000 character count so I'll post the entire thing here:

Wow I almost skipped over this module because the reviews are so low compared to others. That would have been sad because I almost overlooked a module I really like. Hopefully this review will prop it back up to where it belongs. I also will throw out that I play 4th edition (sacrilege!). So I look at these adventures differently than the normal 3.5 player. I ignore mechanics like Challenge Ratings traps etc. and could care less about typos. I look for pure story, characters, and things that would spark my players' imagination since I'm re-creating all the combat encounters.

Usually in an undead heavy adventure there are little opportunities to role-play since so many undead are un-intelligent. This adventure avoids that completely. There are many opportunities to role-play as well as very interesting characters. The characters are fleshed out enough to capture my attention and get me intrigued enough to plan how I will act out each one. In my opinion they need a tad more personal touches but the seed of personality is definitely there to make me want to do that. It doesn't hold your hand and tell you which ones to best employ though. It's up to you and your style of DM'ing.

The plot is somewhat simple so I will go into the things that I like about the module: the characters and the scenes depicted.

Usually a dungeon crawl is room full of monsters, followed by next room full of monsters. This module is totally not like that, you get to speak with and encounter different personalities, but you as a DM, have to expand on the excellent seeds that Hitchcock wrote.

Hello.

Chris Mortika, the reviewer in question here.

Tim, if you felt the need to talk, why didn't you shoot me an email?

Sorry about that Chris, perhaps next time I will. I didn't mean to offend here, however a public criticism can be publically countered I suppose. Basically I was was just trying to clarify a few points for someone interested in the Module.

I can't fit my review in a measly 2000 character count so I'll post the entire thing here:

Thanks James! Glad you liked the Mod!!!

BtW where in NYC are you? I'm in SI right next to the ferry terminal.

Brooklyn here btw :)
Sheepshead Bay to be exact, hello Staten Islander!

I have not played it but read this adventure and I liked it. I am with what some of the others have said. I don't mind a few typo's or bad stat blocks ect. I buy adventures for good stories that are interesting and fun to play. I can tweak the other stuff and typically do anyways so thats not a problem.

But then i am in the minority of I would rather adventures have no stat blocks other than for mobs not in the main MM to save space for more adventure other than obviously ones that have class levels or are a one of a kind then they have to. I feel I can get a index card and fill it out for stat blocks before the game and stick them in the adventure pages for when i run it and save space.

Anyways just thought I would chime in.

{ghouls walk slowly within a small pack of zombies, trying to blend in among the lesser undead. That's an innovative technique, but difficult (ghouls are, among other things, purple).}

Since when are ghouls purple? I don't see anything in their description saying that.

{It's important to give the Dungeon Master the mechanics to tell if they succeed. (Spot check, or Knowledge (religion)? What DC?)}

Untrained Disguise check would easily cover that.

{but a terrible liar. He only has Bluff +5, and his lies are almost certain to be immediately transparent.}

In which case he runs away. Not all villains have to be masters at everything.

{You note that he detects as evil, but suggest that the PC's could shrug that off as the pervasive evil of the area or his physical form. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the area isn't unhallowed or desecrated.}

Page 10, "He detects as evil, though the entire area is faintly suffused with evil, and his alignment could easily be a result of the dark power embodying him."

{And detect evil isn't confused by an outer form. An angel, bent on doing evil, shows up as evil. A goblin, intent on doing good, doesn't.}

Where in the rules does it say that an evil goblin doing a good act doesn't detect as an evil creature? Or that a good outsider doesn't detect as good?

{He's also undead, which the party might notice -- but what's the Spot DC? (What kind of undead? An intelligent corporeal undead that doesn't paralyze or drain levels?)}

It's obvious that he looks pretty undead ("the wolf looks unhealthy, perhaps even undead"), and him being "cursed" into that form is a perfectly suitable explanation for why he detects as evil.

And why do the PCs need to have a DC to determine exactly what kind of undead he is and what his powers are? "He looks undead, you aren't sure what kind" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

{More to the point, Lucimar has magic jar prepared. However inconvenient his current form, he's only in it for so long as he wants to be.}

No, Luc has that spell in his spellbook. He doesn't have it prepared... probably because he lacks the focusing crystal needed to cast the spell.

{You write that Lucimar can tell when Drazmorg dies. How? There's nothing in his stat block that gives him that kind of awareness.}

Not every ability requires a one-paragraph writeup in a stat block. "Lucimar can detect when Drazmorg dies" is a perfectly adequate explanation for this sense, it doesn't need to be in the stat block.

{And, as he's a Wizard, he has a spellbook full of spells the PCs will want to get. When the party Ranger tacks Lucimar back to his hide-out, what spells are in the spellbook? What other gear does he have?}

That's all listed in his writeup on page 28, under Gear.

{The sidebar on page 11 notes that a trip back to town "is probably out of the question". Why? There's no sense of urgency.}

Perhaps if you read the very next sentence, which says "unless the PCS are willing to give whatever controls the undead two full days with no interruptions to work on its plans." That, and the unknown risk that the evil force might animate another army of undead.

{This is listed as a trap, and the next paragraph allows that the party might disable the trap. What's its DC?}

It's not a Disable Device check. You'd have to use darkness, pass the eyes with invisibility, cast dispel magic, etc., that's why there's no DC listed.

{Now the party's in the chamber of gears and needs to pass through without setting off the traps. What's the CR for defeating them? But that's a minor issue. The Search and Disable Device DCs are listed.}

Because they're not traps any more, they've been repurposed as weapons. They don't go off automatically.

{Grimbal is a wraith without a head. He has blindsense. Is he blind? Does he have a 50% miss chance on every attack? If so, he should probably not be CR 5.}

"It can see and hear perfectly well without eyes and its darkvision allows it to spot almost anything that enters this room."

The wraith has no head ... but it also doesn't have a body, it's an incorporeal undead. Being headless isn't really a hindrance. And there's nothing in the stat block that says it's blind. Blindsense does not mean blind.

{As I said in my review, there's a lot of crunch that is missing, that the Dungeon Master either has to handwave or determine herself.}

Fortunately, GMs are not robots, they are humans with brains, and sometimes they have to make rulings on things, even obvious things.

First let me state that I really like the adventure!

One of 3rd editions innovations was that every effect had a rule/mechanic behind it.
So from a "correct" 3rd edition view Lucimar can not detect if Drazmorg dies unless an extraordinary/spell like/superantural ability, a spell or an item says he can.
Lucimar's ability is introduced like it would have been in a 1st edition adventure.

I love it!

It always irked me that, if I wanted to stay true to 3rd edition spirit, i would have to find a speicific spell or make up an ability for the monster to do XY.
Of course any effect that has a direct effect on the players or might mess with existing rules should have a mechanic written up.
But Lucimar's ability does not take away power from the players nor does it mess with existing rules. And the space that a spell/item/ability would have taken up could be used more effectively. In the end, the players never most likely will never even know that Lucimar knew of Drazmorg's death.

I have one thing to Nit-Pick though:

Good day, Sean. Thank you for the courtesy of a reply. I really never intended to engage on this kind of level about the module. Tim wrote it, you, Chris and James developed it, and I bought it. I put up a review. I never intended to dig this deeply, or this publicly, into my misgivings. Among other things, this kind of discussion makes it seem as if I didn't like the adventure, and that's not the case. I gave it a generally favorable review, and that remains my position.

Since when are ghouls purple? I don't see anything in their description saying that.

Monster Manual, page 119. You can speak to this more definitively than I, but I have assumed that the reason Wizards paid so much for artwork is to show people what creatures look like.

Untrained Disguise check would easily cover that.

That's a reasonable ruling, but certainly not the only obvious one. For one thing, it gives the ghouls only a +1 modifier against the party's spot checks, which means it's very likely to immediately fail. Is that the intent? "You see a couple of ghouls shuffling among the zombies, laughingly trying to blend in"?

If I were writing the encounter, I think I would rather require a Knowledge (religion) check, because the trick is to identify the creatures as not-zombies, rather than to see them, and that requires a familiarity about zombies.

In which case [Lucimar] runs away. Not all villains have to be masters at everything.

Fair enough; it even says he runs away if threatened. But that's a single sentence after a half page of description and interaction providing the DM with information about how to run this as a non-combat encounter. I can't help thinking that Tim expected this to be a creepy conversation talking with a mysterious, ambivalent creature. Why, then, does the stat block not support this?

Lucimar certainly doesn't have to be a master at everything, but he's not very good at lying, which is his chief m.o. here. What's a DM to make of this?

Page 10, "He detects as evil, though the entire area is faintly suffused with evil, and his alignment could easily be a result of the dark power embodying him."

That text is my point, Sean. I'd be happy to be corrected, but that's not the way I understand detect evil to work. He shows up as strong evil, for the simple reason that he's a 9HD undead. No other reason is needed. And --again, correct me if I'm wrong-- all undead in Golarion really are evil, with the possible exception of some ghosts. Anybody passing a knowledge (religion) check would know that there's no such thing as a whiny, angsty undead.

And why do the PCs need to have a DC to determine exactly what kind of undead he is and what his powers are? "He looks undead, you aren't sure what kind" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

Why do they need to have a DC? Because that's how the d20 system handles knowledge (religion) checks. Maybe the players, by fiat, don't get any information about him. But for the DM, what kind of undead is he? (My best guess would be vampire spawn, but that doesn't quite fit, either.) I think it's great when something like a "maggot mummy" shows up. It's frightening and different, but it's explained as a variant mummy, and it's got all its rules behind it. It would have been great if Lucimar had gotten the same, brief, explanation.

No, Luc has that spell in his spellbook. He doesn't have it prepared... probably because he lacks the focusing crystal needed to cast the spell.

True: I was looking at the wrong place on the stat block. My mistake.

Not every ability requires a one-paragraph writeup in a stat block. "Lucimar can detect when Drazmorg dies" is a perfectly adequate explanation for this sense, it doesn't need to be in the stat block.

Not the stat block, no. But, seriously, how? Is this part of the kind of undead he is? Is it part of the evil miasma, that everybody can tell how it ebbs and flows? Is it because he made a high-DC Spellcraft check?

(For what it's worth, Tharen the Damned, I agree with you; this has an early AD&D feel to it.)

The sidebar on page 11 notes that a trip back to town "is probably out of the question". Why? There's no sense of urgency.

Perhaps if you read the very next sentence, which says "unless the PCS are willing to give whatever controls the undead two full days with no interruptions to work on its plans." That, and the unknown risk that the evil force might animate another army of undead.

Sean, I did read the end of the sentence. The party has no reason to believe there's anything working its plans. At this point in the story, the party has no idea what's down there, except for some zombies. Undead are not the most time-sensitive of opponents, and there's no reason at this point to suspect that rushing in unprepared is called for. (And indeed, there is no time pressure. The party can withdraw, heal and recover multiple times, and Drazmog will just wait for them.)

[Drazmorg's scrying eyes are] not a Disable Device check. You'd have to use darkness, pass the eyes with invisibility, cast dispel magic, etc., that's why there's no DC listed.

Thank you, Sean; that's good to know. The trap is supposed to trigger "as soon as any living creature reaches the water" If lack of light sources, or invisibility foils the trigger, the adventure should have spelled that out. In any case, Sean, it's a magical trap, and rogues should be able to bypass it. (Rogues don't get to do much in this adventure; let's not take away their few chances to shine.)

Because they're not traps any more, they've been repurposed as weapons. They don't go off automatically.

They don't? But they do have Search DCs and Disable Device DCs. So, a party using hide from undead can just pass through and not worry about the tripwire? Okay. Do you see how that's confusing?

This room reads fine: the undead spring the traps, which is a cool idea. And no module can address the myriad party strategies. But this description doesn't cover what I understand to be fairly common PC tactics.

Fortunately, GMs are not robots, they are humans with brains, and sometimes they have to make rulings on things, even obvious things.

Of course. And in my initial review, I said I liked the module. It's atmospheric, with a lot of cool characters and creepy scenes. It's fun to read. And as other reviewers noted, if you're not worried about the mechanics of 3.5, it's fantastic. I wholeheartily stand by that.

But when I reviewed this adventure, I believed that "GMs have to make ruling," while absolutely true, isn't sufficient to leave a module with this many rules gaps and plot holes. When I run this adventure, yes, I can make up a DC for disabling the trap in the stagnant pool. I can determine how the party can make a Healing check on someone they can't touch. But there comes a point at which I say, "This adventure simply needs some better rules support." And, for what it's worth, I felt that "Hungry are the Dead" had reached that point.

My uppity-ness yesterday was from Tim's, and your, assumption that my complaints stemmed from my ignorance of the d20 rules. You're welcome to disagree with me; obviously, you do. But I'd appreciate it if you didn't just presume that I don't know what I'm talking about. You took the time to reply to my last comment, and I appreciate the courtesy and respect that implies.

{Monster Manual, page 119. You can speak to this more definitively than I, but I have assumed that the reason Wizards paid so much for artwork is to show people what creatures look like.}

One piece of art does not define what the entire race looks like.

{That's a reasonable ruling, but certainly not the only obvious one.}

Funny, it's obvious to me that when someone is trying to pretend to be something else, it's either a Bluff check or a Disguise check. ;)

{For one thing, it gives the ghouls only a +1 modifier against the party's spot checks, which means it's very likely to immediately fail. Is that the intent? "You see a couple of ghouls shuffling among the zombies, laughingly trying to blend in"?}

Why do you assume that the ghouls assume there are Xth-level adventurers hiding in this little logging town? Most commoners wouldn't know a ghoul from a zombie, and that's who they're expecting to fool. And for that purpose, Disguise +1, perhaps with a DM's Best Friend Modifier of +2, is more than enough to fool a commoner. If it doesn't fool a PC, oh well.

{Fair enough; it even says he runs away if threatened. But that's a single sentence after a half page of description and interaction providing the DM with information about how to run this as a non-combat encounter.}

I'm sorry you had to read an entire half-page to know how to handle this encounter. :p

{I can't help thinking that Tim expected this to be a creepy conversation talking with a mysterious, ambivalent creature. Why, then, does the stat block not support this?}

I'm sorry that you think a +5 Bluff check is insufficient to support this encounter. Personally, I'd rather have Luc be statted as an effective necromancer first and a non-master liar second (which fits his backstory better than a master liar who happens to be a necromancer).

{That text is my point, Sean. I'd be happy to be corrected, but that's not the way I understand detect evil to work. He shows up as strong evil, for the simple reason that he's a 9HD undead. No other reason is needed. And --again, correct me if I'm wrong-- all undead in Golarion really are evil, with the possible exception of some ghosts. Anybody passing a knowledge (religion) check would know that there's no such thing as a whiny, angsty undead.}

I contest your blanket assumption that all undead in Golarion are evil.

And it seems you're ignoring my point that it's plausible that (as he suggests) the dark power that has changed him has made him evil (explaining why he detects as evil), and he is fighting it for as long as he can, but it is a losing battle, and that's why he wants the PCs' help. Golarion isn't a black-and-white world.

{Why do they need to have a DC? Because that's how the d20 system handles knowledge (religion) checks.}

It sounds like you have been bullied by players into coughing up information about monsters, because all the Knowledge skill actually says on the matter is "A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster." For what it's worth, "it's a maggot mummy" is more than "a bit" of useful information. And not every undead has to fit into a cookie-cutter categorization of skeleton, zombie, ghoul, vampire, wraith, wight, lich, ghost. Sometimes "you can't tell anything about this creature because there's nothing definitive about it to define it into a particular category."

He doesn't eat corpses, so he's not a ghoul. He's not mindless, so he's not a zombie or skeleton. He's not bodiless. He doesn't have a fear aura or a phylactery so he's not a lich. He doesn't drink blood or create spawn or drain levels so he's not a vampire or wight. He's simply "an undead worg," and that's all the PCs would learn by trying a Knowledge check on him. Just because the rules allow you to build and sort things with and into little boxes doesn't mean that everything has to be made of and fit in little boxes.

{Not the stat block, no. But, seriously, how? Is this part of the kind of undead he is? Is it part of the evil miasma, that everybody can tell how it ebbs and flows? Is it because he made a high-DC Spellcraft check?}

Why does it matter? I don't know how Luc got accepted into necromancy school, or where he learned the magic jar spell, or where he grew up or what spell was used to imprison him in this form because it doesn't matter for the sake of the encounter.

{Sean, I did read the end of the sentence. The party has no reason to believe there's anything working its plans.}

Not true. They have no proof that something is working its plans. That is far different than having "no reason to believe" something is working on a plan. An army of undead attacks a town. Another army heads north toward a ruin. The PCs don't know why, but the fact that there's another undead army out there should give them cause for concern.

{And indeed, there is no time pressure. The party can withdraw, heal and recover multiple times, and Drazmog will just wait for them.}

But the PCs don't know there is no time pressure on them.

{Thank you, Sean; that's good to know. The trap is supposed to trigger "as soon as any living creature reaches the water" If lack of light sources, or invisibility foils the trigger, the adventure should have spelled that out.}

Fair enough.

{In any case, Sean, it's a magical trap, and rogues should be able to bypass it.}

It's not really a magical trap, it's a bunch of magical sensors created by an item.

{They don't? But they do have Search DCs and Disable Device DCs. So, a party using hide from undead can just pass through and not worry about the tripwire? Okay. Do you see how that's confusing?}

Ah, I misread what you were saying last time. Technically the listed traps should have CRs, but as in most cases they're used as weapons by the undead, in which case their individual CR is folded into the overall EL for the encounter. Which means if you bypass the encounter with invis or hide from undead, rather than nitpicking your PCs out of some XP, you should just give them XP as if they had defeated the entire encounter. After all, if they trigger the traps while invis or whatever, the undead are going to react and you're going to have to run the whole encounter anyway, so you either (1) handle the encounter normally, or (2) bypass the entire encounter; either way, you'd get full XP for the encounter.

{But when I reviewed this adventure, I believed that "GMs have to make ruling," while absolutely true, isn't sufficient to leave a module with this many rules gaps and plot holes.}

How many is "many"? You mentioned these things:
1) Ghouls pretending to be zombies. That's an obvious thing for the GM to rule on.
2) Lucimar. I've pointed out your errors and the things you missed, what remains is "he's not an expert liar," "he's a unique undead my PCs can't identify with a roll," and "I don't know how he knows when Drazmorg dies," all of which aren't significant or relevant.
3) No DC for the scrying eye "trap." Fair enough.
4) Questions about the undead & traps encounter, which I've addressed.
5) Questions about Cilios and Grimbal, which are addressed in the text.

So of your five comments, only one of them is an actual flaw in the adventure.

I never accused you of being uppity. However, you are letting yourself be straightjacketed by assumptions that the NPCs are metagaming their awareness of the PCs (like ghouls trying to fool PCs rather than commoners), limiting yourself to only EXACTLY what the rules say, and in some cases by things the rules DON'T say (like identifying undead from a Knowledge check), and requiring a rule for EVERYTHING (Luc's sense of Drazmorg).

The game can't be 10,000 pages long with a rule for EVERYTHING; we have to assume that the GM knows the basics of the system and can do what the DMG says: make rulings based on what is a reasonable interpretation of the existing framework of the rules. Much of the beauty of the d20 system is that it boils down to "make a d20 roll, either opposed by another creature's roll or against a set DC." The game tells you how to set DCs and gives a page of example DCs for all sorts of things. If a situation comes up that isn't explicitly expressed in the rules, the GM is supposed to be able to wing it; you have a 300-page book telling you how.