| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to say, I'm really loving the stories of PCs accidentally killing the farmer and/or his wife. Really lends tragedy to the AP, ESPECIALLY if the party had a paladin.
Because my party had a paladin, and used Detect Evil on every scarecrow at 60 feet. Either the ghoul was dead before it could get near them, or they'd rescued someone. So you can read it one of two ways: Either the paladin proved her worth to the party by preventing them from killing innocents (my take), or the paladin spoiled your "fun" as a GM by keeping the party from killing the victims. I personally really loved watching my party successfully rescue all the innocents, in spite of the massive odds against them, all because they had a paladin and listened to her.
I *LOVED* the scarecrow fields precisely because they give every paladin a chance to shine (Detect Evil) or fall (shoot first). And yes, in my world, if they killed any innocent farmers, it would be an instant fall for the party paladin precisely because it's so easy to tell whether or not they're ghouls far before you have to engage them...
(Yeah. I'm in two campaigns with paladins. One by a player who fundamentally understands what it is to be a paladin, and has been one of the most epic paladins I've ever had the pleasure to game with (Raesh, of course), and one by a player who just 'wants to kill evil' and never thinks twice about her actions or their repercussions. Wonderful juxtaposition, and reinforces my position that paladins can be the best class in the game when played by good players, and can be the worst in the hands of the 'kill 'em all if they Detect as Evil' crowd.)
I would absolutely be fine with a paladin used detect evil to look for ghouls. It's a solid idea. Depending on circumstances(I don't remember the layout for that bit very well) but I might have roaming ghouls try to swarm the paladin if it was obvious what was going on, but not to punish them for the idea but just as an obvious reaction.
The setup has all the ghouls tied up and immobile until the party gets within 30', so it made for a really easy trip through the fields.
GMs who don't like to reward that kind of thing tend to turn the ghouls loose, and I have no issues with that. I just chose to run it as written.
EDIT: Replying to your post below (because I love to confuse things), I did a double-check just to make sure, and yep, it's 13 tied-up ghouls, then 6 in the barn and a ghast in the house proper. No loose ones in the fields unless the ones in the barn hear the commotion outside. And my group did use Silence on every ghoul before shooting the living daylights out of it, so watching the party burn its single-most-expensive item (a wand of Silence) really made me feel not too bad about the whole thing.
Gotcha. Like I said its been a while. Thought there were some free roaming. I'm not normally a big fan of people neutering an encounter with a super low level ability, but I understood these encounters to be more about theme than actual danger. I think the paladin checking each and saving lives adds to the theme.
I would absolutely be fine with a paladin used detect evil to look for ghouls. It's a solid idea. Depending on circumstances(I don't remember the layout for that bit very well) but I might have roaming ghouls try to swarm the paladin if it was obvious what was going on, but not to punish them for the idea but just as an obvious reaction.
Not sure I see the reasoning behind the ghouls swarming the paladin simply because he/she is using detect evil. The paladin doesn't need detect evil to detect the moving ghouls - anyone can see (and likely smell) them as wrong. The paladin's detect evil only really works to determine whether the masked scarecrows are dangerous. But the ambulatory ghouls don't give a crap about them - if they did they would have brought them back to the barn to rise as ghouls they could control. They hung the proto-ghouls out there because they are cruel and perverse. It's merely coincidental that some of the nearly dead haven't died and risen as ghouls yet - this isn't really a trap designed by the ghouls to get the guards to kill innocents. It's a let's-mess-with-our-victim's-as-much-as-possible kick in the teeth.
The ghouls might attack the paladin if the group is moving slowly enough to let the paladin detect evil in a full 360 before moving, etc. Keep in mind the paladin's power isn't detect evil in 360 degrees - he has to concentrate in each direction so this is a sweep in a circle, move 60', sweep in a circle, etc. Very tedious - though safe! In this case the ghoul's ability to ambush is much reduced if not eliminated and I would have the ghouls retreat to the farm where there numbers can be maximized.
Of course, all that being said, in a previous campaign with a pc paladin, my default tactic for undead and evil outsiders was that unless a better tactical option was available or the options were close to equal was Attack the Paladin. Kill the glowy, smite evil, heal his buddies, give them saves vs fear guy and get in good with my boss/diety is generally a good idea.
The best part about my group is that they DO have a paladin, and he's generally very good about takign care of his paladin-ly duties. He even prepared two Detect Undead spells for the encounter. He completely neglected his Detect Evil, however, which probably would have been much more useful than the party's chosen tactics of, "I poke the scarecrow with my glaive. Does it move?" and "I set it on fire." Coincidentally, the ones they poked all turned out to be real scarecrows, and ones set on fire were either living or ghouls.
So yeah, the LG Paladin and the CG Cleric watched a woman burn to death, and have to explain to her husband why she is dead. On top of that, the Über pragmatic rogue keeps asking the party if he should just kill the man to put him out of his misery and to prevent him from turning from the Ghoul Fever. That should make for some fun times next session.
Not sure I see the reasoning behind the ghouls swarming the paladin simply because he/she is using detect evil. The paladin doesn't need detect evil to detect the moving ghouls - anyone can see (and likely smell) them as wrong. The paladin's detect evil only really works to determine whether the masked scarecrows are dangerous. But the ambulatory ghouls don't give a crap about them - if they did they would have brought them back to the barn to rise as ghouls they could control. They hung the proto-ghouls out there because they are cruel and perverse. It's merely coincidental that some of the nearly dead haven't died and risen as ghouls yet - this isn't really a trap designed by the ghouls to get the guards to kill innocents. It's a let's-mess-with-our-victim's-as-much-as-possible kick in the teeth.
I actually disagree with this, partially. From an IC, story point of view, yes, the ghouls probably don't care about the scarecrow ghouls or the living people -- they weren't put there by the ghouls to trick anyone into killing innocents, they were put there as a sadistically cruel joke by the ghouls.
However, from a story-writing, tension-building perspective, I guarantee you that Richard Pett had exactly that in mind when he wrote this encounter. What better way to create tension than to create a scenario in which your PCs might actually accidentally kill an innocent, and to top it off, possibly have to explain this to that innocent's spouse?
I actually disagree with this, partially. From an IC, story point of view, yes, the ghouls probably don't care about the scarecrow ghouls or the living people -- they weren't put there by the ghouls to trick anyone into killing innocents, they were put there as a sadistically cruel joke by the ghouls.
However, from a story-writing, tension-building perspective, I guarantee you that Richard Pett had exactly that in mind when he wrote this encounter. What better way to create tension than to create a scenario in which your PCs might actually accidentally kill an innocent, and to top it off, possibly have to explain this to that innocent's spouse?
Just to clarify, completely on board with dramatic tension and significant risk to PC's killing innocents and all kinds of angst generating scenarios. I was simply responding to the suggestion (as I read it) that the ghouls would attack the paladin because he was using detect evil and preventing it. The ghouls really wouldn't have that as a motivation and it potentially creates a player vs. DM meta-gaming vibe. "Wait, the paladin was using his abilities as they were meant to be used and helping the party so the monsters ganged up on him. Oh, the DM didn't like that."
Just to clarify, completely on board with dramatic tension and significant risk to PC's killing innocents and all kinds of angst generating scenarios. I was simply responding to the suggestion (as I read it) that the ghouls would attack the paladin because he was using detect evil and preventing it. The ghouls really wouldn't have that as a motivation and it potentially creates a player vs. DM meta-gaming vibe. "Wait, the paladin was using his abilities as they were meant to be used and helping the party so the monsters ganged up on him. Oh, the DM didn't like that."
I actually disagree with this, partially. From an IC, story point of view, yes, the ghouls probably don't care about the scarecrow ghouls or the living people -- they weren't put there by the ghouls to trick anyone into killing innocents, they were put there as a sadistically cruel joke by the ghouls.
However, from a story-writing, tension-building perspective, I guarantee you that Richard Pett had exactly that in mind when he wrote this encounter. What better way to create tension than to create a scenario in which your PCs might actually accidentally kill an innocent, and to top it off, possibly have to explain this to that innocent's spouse?
Ah, well then we're in agreement!
I didn't explain myself very well...also, I was running on a misunderstanding of the scenario. First off, I don't know if it was something I changed when I ran it years ago, or if I just misremembered what was in that part of the adventure to begin with, but I had it in my head there was a band if not multiple bands of ghouls free roaming the corn fields, ghouls who were not recent turns but had been turned by Foxglove previously.
What I was getting at with the paladin comment, was if one of those packs of ghouls saw one of the group of adventurers concentrating, zoning in on scarecrow ghouls, and then instructing the rest of the adventurers which scarecrows to attack and which to avoid...the free roaming ghouls would likely deduce that person was a paladin or cleric, and thus probably the biggest threat, so would try to single him/her out when they attacked.
I don't feel this is punishment for use of class abilities, so much as a natural response to an observable phenomenon. I'm of the mind that using Detect Evil doesn't exactly send glowing halo of flares above the paladin's head or anything, but at the same time there is something more involved than a purely mental action. And even if it were purely mental, with no outward sign, there would still be the matter of one party member accurately telling the other party members which is a ghoul and which isn't.
Except that these individuals are a distance apart from one another (usually) and only really start reacting when someone is within 30 feet of them. Wandering the fields, people really would run into them only a couple at a time, with perception checks to see if other recently-turned ghouls realize there's a commotion going on.
Looking at the map (restarting Rise with a new group that is going to sack Thistletop soon...so prepping for Skinsaw now) I realize how off I was...but like I said, repeatedly at this point...my comment originated on a situation that wasn't part of the adventure as written. The group of ghouls I'm thinking of doesn't exist in the actual adventure...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looking at the map (restarting Rise with a new group that is going to sack Thistletop soon...so prepping for Skinsaw now) I realize how off I was...but like I said, repeatedly at this point...my comment originated on a situation that wasn't part of the adventure as written. The group of ghouls I'm thinking of doesn't exist in the actual adventure...
Not to keep arguing but you were right the first time :)
(AE Version referenced)
Area A1 creature section states: If the ghouls in the barn become aware of any intrusions (perhaps because of a shrieking ghoul leaping off its scarecrow frame), one group of three moves out into the fields to seek out intruders, while the remaining three move into the farmhouse to join Rogors.
So if noise is made in range of the barn (I'd argue that's possible anywhere on at least the left half of the Farmlands map) some ghouls will head out to find intruders.
lol Not sure if that was the case in the original, which is what I was running at the time, but it certainly would explain where I got the idea of roaming ghouls from.
I would say the chances are remote with my group, but I'm going to laugh pretty hard if someone makes a paladin when when I reboot this in a month.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Very minor nitpick - Caizarlu Zerren's writeup has him having 14pp, 4gp, 14gp
I'm assuming that's supposed to be 14pp, 4gp, 4sp - just throwing this out here so when JJ reads through it he can add it to his corrections list if it's not there already.
Very minor nitpick - Caizarlu Zerren's writeup has him having 14pp, 4gp, 14gp
I'm assuming that's supposed to be 14pp, 4gp, 4sp - just throwing this out here so when JJ reads through it he can add it to his corrections list if it's not there already.
Edited:
Oof. Misread the post. Though I think you meant to say 14 sp? Carry on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's something regarding the Anniversary Edition printing of the AP:
In the Story Reward section at the end of this chapter, it mentions "if the PCs recover the list of 'Sihedron Sacrifices' and..."
There is no prior mention of this list anywhere in the book. The only other time a list of Sihedron sacrifices is mentioned is in regards to Lucrecia and the gambling barge. Is this is a mixup, or should I add in somewhere a list of Xanesha's victims and prospective victims?
There's also a list given in the community created stuff thread with lots of names on that list.
Another question regarding the haunts in Skinsaw; I know the rules and all, but this here is a little specific and I couldn't find it after reading this thread or any other haunt related thread:
Some haunts are tied to specific PCs which I get to assign/pick; on p. 90 in the AE version it reads:
When a haunt of a certain category manifests, it only affects the assigned PC—-other characters can aid the PC in question and can even observe the haunt’s effects, but are not endangered by that haunt’s effects.
How have you played this? Do all PCs who are able to get a Perception check and can give a shout about what's going on (if within the room for example)?
I read that this is usually the case (there's a post about a group sending a scout ahead to trigger the haunts) but these are special haunts, so...
Quick example: the burning haunt in the entrance hall--does only the PC who will be attacked get to roll Perception or do all?
Thanks in advance.
Ruyan.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's how I read it - those characters that are not targeted by a haunt can see the physical manifestations of the haunt and aid the target(s) if practical. I interpret the reference to the "haunt's effects" in the line you quoted to apply explicitly the Effect section of the Haunt detail which often but not always only describes the game rule or physical manifestation. Example: Iesha's Vengeance (B9, p.95) PC's who are not targeted can see the scarf wrap around the target and may be able to help by pulling it off. They do not experience or see Aldern's ghostly image strangling the target. Another example: Dance of Ruin (B7, p.95) PC's who are not targeted cannot see Iesha as the dancing partner, but they see the target dancing with an imaginary partner and can attempt to grapple the target to stop the dance (with consequences as described.)
For the Burning Haunt - the target automatically smells burning hair the first time he/she passes through the room. On the second time, only the target gets the perception check. Only the target takes damage or has a risk of catching on fire. Other characters can aid in putting such fires out if they do start.
Thanks, Latrecis. I'll run it following your description.
Ruyan.
Thanks, Latrecis. I'll run it following your description.
Ruyan.
In the community created stuff there is a word (open document actually) document that basically has the haunts done up in a very nifty way.
They are arranged with 'tare off' lines to hand out to your players - the way I'm doing it for specific haunts the player gets the handout (unless someone does an active perception check - non of my players have trapfinding - and I'm still unsure how that interacts with haunts) - only the player affected will notice something until they react to the condition.
These are (IMO) well done and give the player the description of what happens - and lets them roll play it out without the other players knowing what is going on specifically.
I downloaded that a while ago (and forgot about it...). So: thanks! I'll have look at it and see how it works out.
Ruyan.
My pc's suspected some kind of lair or other danger beside the farmhouse so they rather methodically searched the entire area (the farmland map) and eliminated all the "scarecrows." Taken one or two at a time, they were not much of a challenge. For a brief moment I thought they might start shooting the scarecrows from a distance (after the first one broke free right next to them) but at the last minute one of the players asked how they could be sure all the scarecrows would be dangerous? They had taken a somewhat direct path to the farm but did encounter a few farms along the way, finding some vacant (with signs of violence.) That suggested there might be survivors. Especially since they had learned that ghoul fever worked as a disease and you might not become a ghoul immediately (pending how your encounter with the ghouls went.)
Since they brought local guards along, they did know generally where the farm was (on the farmland map) and I thought they might leave after visiting the farmhouse and barn. But along the way, they ran into ghouls and survivors and that drove them to make sure all (of both types) had been dealt with.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Disrupt Undead works to identify actual ghouls, because it has no effect on either living creatures or mundane scarecrows. And you can stay safe while using it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
About eh Carrionstorms (Area B1)
As soon as anyone comes within 30 feet, the ravens take to the air and swoop to attack, only then revealing their true natures..... The carrionstorms can sense Vorel's influence in the area, and although the evil spirit cannot control them directly, the birds do their best to kill anyone attempting to escape the manor.
They pursue foes as far as the Lost Coast Road, but do not follow those who flee back into the manor-their goal, after all, is to return the intruders to Vorel's cradle for him to deal with personally.
Since it is unlikely that the party exorcize the manor during this adventure, it seem that they will be attacked and pursued until they reach the Road (more than 1 mile..)when they exit after the Skinsaw man defeat.
This encounter can be deadly!
Did I misunderstood something?
SPENDING THE NIGHT
The adventure says:
Any character foolish enough to sleep in Foxglove Manor exposes himself to Vorel's presence even more. Such PCs experience disturbing dreams... In either case, a sleeping character must make a DC 15 Will save upon waking to avoid taking 1d4 points of Wisdom damage from the horrific dreams. A character who take sWisdom damage also wakens fatigued.
Ok, apart the Will save and, possibly, the Wis damage and fatigue status, would it be possible for a caster to recover spells? In my opinion this should be allowed only to divine or spontaneous casters.
Do you agree?
I agree with both of your previous posts:
- Carrionstorms are deadly for parties that don't have a method of dealing with swarms. Considering divine casters will be able to channel energy and arcane casters should have (at the very least) Burning Hands, parties that completely deplete their resources and then try to flee back to the Lost Coast road really are in for a horrible time.
- Arcane casters who fail the Will save should not be able to recover their spells. Sorcerers and bards still have the "8 hours' sleep" requirement, so there's no reason to treat spontaneous casters any differently from prepared casters.
Have fun! Make them HATE Misgivings! It gets even more fun when they try to burn it down and have to deal with the Phantasmal Killer!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just finished the Foxglove townhouse and the Seven's Sawmill last night, and I've got one simple question.
Just what is that room on the first floor of the townhouse on the left of the main entry? I mean, I can guess the purpose of pretty much every other room on that floor, but that one escapes me. (It's th 15'x15' room with the weird circle thingy on the floor which is probably a rug of some sort.)
My players speculated it was Aldern's hot tub.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just finished the Foxglove townhouse and the Seven's Sawmill last night, and I've got one simple question.
Just what is that room on the first floor of the townhouse on the left of the main entry? I mean, I can guess the purpose of pretty much every other room on that floor, but that one escapes me. (It's th 15'x15' room with the weird circle thingy on the floor which is probably a rug of some sort.)
My players speculated it was Aldern's hot tub.
Holy carp! You and I have been corresponding for HOW many years and you're only in Foxglove's townhouse!??!?!
I'm sitting around dropping hints to my players that the future of the world depends on the name they're going to hear next session in WotRAnyway, on the map we see an obvious entry hall, staircase, kitchen, bath, dining room, and den. And then the bizarre room you mention with a green square on top of a red circle, with windows on all sides.
Given its position in the building (off to the side) and relative opulence (the circle is obviously some kind of decoration in the tile floor), I would guess this is the family "trophy room" where they keep records of their exploits. I'd put in glass cases full of various stuffed creatures, a bearskin rug, and so forth.
Maybe not what was originally intended, but a well-lit, well-organized, well-decorated room like that screams for something the family wants to show off...
Just finished the Foxglove townhouse and the Seven's Sawmill last night, and I've got one simple question.
Just what is that room on the first floor of the townhouse on the left of the main entry? I mean, I can guess the purpose of pretty much every other room on that floor, but that one escapes me. (It's th 15'x15' room with the weird circle thingy on the floor which is probably a rug of some sort.)
My players speculated it was Aldern's hot tub.
Funny, I was just looking at that map the other day and wondering the same thing. My group will probably get there in the session after next. They have some cleanup left in Misgivings.
For a while I considered making it a magical laboratory and the floor decor would actually be a magic circle for summoning and such. But too many windows given Vorel was a necromancer and likely trying to keep that a secret. I settled on Conservatory. As in the Ugothol did it in the Conservatory with a Longsword.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, what can I say, NobodysHome, we play biweekly for about three hours or so. That sort of limits how much I can get done in that range. I also have a bad habit of interspersing the actual plot with stuff written exclusively for the players at the table. (Sounds familiar when I say it like that for some reason.) We've been playing for about a year and a half, which means they'll have finished with the campaign in roughly three years. (*sigh*)
Anyway, trophy room and conservatory. I think I like Latrecis' suggestion the most - it's just off the path to the garden, so it's probably some sort of sitting room or something.
Quick (hopefully easy) question about the Haunts in Foxglove Manor (RotRL Anniversary Edition) ...
It says that I should select specific haunts for specific characters based on which characters are more violent, seek revenge, obsessed with burning or fire, etc ...
But How can I guarantee that that specific character is the one that will trigger the respective haunts by being the closest, or picking up an item, etc?
|
I just had the haunt go off once the person was in the room. Once they were under the haunt's thrall, I handed them the page detailing their experience.
Which works until one party member refuses to enter a room unless necessary after his first haunt encounter (having to run upstairs to check on the kid).
|
|
I just had the haunt go off once the person was in the room. Once they were under the haunt's thrall, I handed them the page detailing their experience.Which works until one party member refuses to enter a room unless necessary after his first haunt encounter (having to run upstairs to check on the kid).
I figured that if the triggering character wasn't in the room, but was close by, or more specifically had a line of sight to the room, the haunt was triggered and he was affected.
Granted, some of the haunts require specific interaction, but for the most part, they all got triggered eventually. *maniacal laugh*
|
|
If your party is absolutely refusing to enter a room because of the possibility that something might happen to his character, then I consider that "working as intended," Martin. >:)
Also, like a trap that is never discovered or set off, they don't get XP for untriggered haunts. My party never experienced the Worried Wife haunt for that reason. If they go back and lay Vorel's spirit to rest, then I'll be retroactively giving them that XP as well.
Tried to see if this has been mentioned somewhere else in this thread, but I couldn't find it. My apologies if this has been mentioned before. Has anyone noticed that the Skinsaw Man has a listed alignment of CN? I would have thought because of the fact that he's a ghast he would be CE.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes; I posted that a couple of pages ago and James helpfully responded that he should indeed be CE.
|
|
If your party is absolutely refusing to enter a room because of the possibility that something might happen to his character, then I consider that "working as intended," Martin. >:)
Also, like a trap that is never discovered or set off, they don't get XP for untriggered haunts. My party never experienced the Worried Wife haunt for that reason. If they go back and lay Vorel's spirit to rest, then I'll be retroactively giving them that XP as well.
It was fun watching the normally brave character cower at back like a wizard (he is a gunslinger/bard).
We don't use XP so no issues there, I was just surprised how well they did. It was a day of weird rolls. They only missed two will saves but had an all or nothing day on skill checks.
|
I've got an interesting situation. Not sure if there's a thread out there just to talk about all the haunts, or if I should just talk about this stuff here.
Last week, I asked my players some questions about their characters' personalities and back stories that I wasn't sure about, so I'd know which Foxglove Manor haunt to assign to each PC. So now they're all paranoid, thinking they're walking into a situation where a mind reading enemy will use their personalities against them. Close enough. :D
Some were obvious - I already knew who Aldern's obsession was, the flame oracle gets the burning haunt, the unpredictable guy who keeps doing weird stuff gets the insane haunt, etc. That left the cavalier and paladin (who is actually immune to haunts). The cavalier said his PC would be afraid of diseases (festering haunt), and the paladin has a minor revenge element to his back story (vengeful haunt). Actually, Aldern's obsession has more of a revenge back story, but she's already assigned to the obsessive haunt. So that leaves wrathful as universal, since it's a group of 5.
Here's the interesting part: One of the wrathful haunts is the misogynistic rage, which makes the target attack the nearest woman. There's only one female PC in our group, and she's a squishy sorceress. The paladin is immune, so he'll be protecting her, but given the cavalier's dumped wisdom, he's like to fail his will saves against all the haunts, which in this case means attacking her. The oracle and ranger might, too. Also, how would the only female in the room react to getting hit with a haunt that makes her attack the nearest woman? Would she be suicidal, or should I just make her immune by default? Maybe a circumstance bonus to her will save for being female, but make her self loathing and suicidal if she fails?
So that room could be the scariest of the bunch for this group. On the up side, the paladin is not only immune to haunts himself, but he also gives his allies within 10 feet a +4 bonus to their saves against all the haunts. I'm wondering how long it'll take for them to figure that out. They've got two party members trained in knowledge: religion, though not with great bonuses (around +6 to +8 each, IIRC). But they're all pretty new to this version of the game, so I don't know if any of them has ever seen a haunt before or have any metagame knowledge. The manor could blow their minds.
Speaking of which, what is the knowledge: religion DC to know about haunts in general?
I would put the DC of haunts at 10+CR. Just like an uncommon creature.
Just a suggestion when you run it: tell all your players to roll 40 Perception checks and 40 initiative checks. For each haunt, use their rolls that they write down for you at the beginning. If they make the perception check, they act in the surprise round. And then the initiative check will determine if they beat the haunt. About half way through, if they made a knowledge religion check, I would give them a +2 bonus on the save.
This way, they still get to make the rolls, but without knowing something's "up" when you ask for perception checks.
|
|
I like the idea of rolling in advance, but I think I'll just get about 30 or 40 d20 rolls in advance, without specifying what they're for. Then I'll make a note of each of their bonuses for perception, initiative, will, fortitude, knowledge: religion, and knowledge: arcana, since I know those will all come up, and keeping track of the rolls in secret will keep the metagaming down.
Has anybody given thought about increasing the DC of Vorel's Phage for characters who get infected multiple times? For poison the DC increases with multiple doses, just curious if it would work the same with multiple infections.
How have others handled the Falling Bell CR4 trap in the Shadow Clock near the end of the Skinsaw Murders?
|
|
I handled it as the rules suggest - roll a d4, and make an attack roll against that many random PCs. If it hits them, then the bell destroys the section of stairs that they're on and a 5' square either in front of or behind them. They then make a Reflex save or fall the rest of the way. Since the faceless stalkers wait until they get about halfway up, they'd fall another 60'.
I admit that I was a bit worried about this one - if all the dice go against you, that's 12d6 damage. Not instantly fatal at 6th or 7th level, but that's a significant chunk of health. My real concern was if I happened to roll a 20 on the attack roll - now you're staring down 18d6, which could kill a PC depending on die rolls. It didn't happen when I ran it, but the threat was there.
Yeah, just like Misroi I was very worried, but ran it as-written, and it worked out well.