I'm going to risk going a bit off topic here. My party consists of four straight SRD characters only. They had pretty tough time with the AP so far (we're at foundation of flame now). The fight with tongue-eater was particularly bad.
I think what happens is that with each new rules expansion (i.e. hardcover), the power level of a character goes up by a fraction. Not only because you get more options, and are therefore better able to optimize your character, but also because the power level of the best spells, feats and items is just a bit better than the best spells, feats and items in the previous book, or the core books. It's not unbalancing in itself, but after something like 20 books, it adds up.
In itself, this is not a bad thing. However, as a GM, you have to adjust for your party's new power level by toughening up the baddies a bit. SCAP was written when during the transition from 3.0 to 3.5 It is balanced for a slightly lower power level than is currently available to most players.
As a case in point, look at your own experience. The party beat tongueeater with ease, and mostly used spells that were not available when the adventure was written. In fact, the only spell they did use from the core books was haste, which, together with fireball is the most powerfull spell at 3rd level.
That's just plain lame.
The way I run my game, everything has to be cleared by the DM unless it's from the core books. If a player requests something silly or unbalancing (such as most of what your players are using), I won't allow it. That will prevent this sort of god-gaming.
Alternatively, if you want to allow the players neat powers like these, you've got to go in and change the monsters so they have them too.
Also, why the heck would you allow your players to be level FIVE by the time they fought Tongueeater? The Lucky Monkey is a dungeon designed for a party of four/six level 3 characters.
I think battles in D&D are pointless unless there's a chance of dying. With a group of level 5 characters, a CR 5 encounter has virtually no chance of killing them. So it should be strengthened.
I completely agree with you. There's a part of me that regrets letting the players use books outside the SRD, but at this point, there's no going back. The various splatbooks do give players some fun options, but there's a lot of potential for abuse. I'll see how the beginning of the Kopru ruins goes and bump up the competition as needed.
Alternatively, you could consider toning down the XP for a few adventures (perhaps up to bhal hamatung) so the pc's are behind the xp curve. That should make the adventures more challenging without sadling you up to the aditional burden of adjusting all the encounters in the AP.
|
That's just plain lame.
The way I run my game, everything has to be cleared by the DM unless it's from the core books. If a player requests something silly or unbalancing (such as most of what your players are using), I won't allow it. That will prevent this sort of god-gaming.
Alternatively, if you want to allow the players neat powers like these, you've got to go in and change the monsters so they have them too.
Also, why the heck would you allow your players to be level FIVE by the time they fought Tongueeater? The Lucky Monkey is a dungeon designed for a party of four/six level 3 characters.
I think battles in D&D are pointless unless there's a chance of dying. With a group of level 5 characters, a CR 5 encounter has virtually no chance of killing them. So it should be strengthened.
It depends entirely on your players as to how outrageous their power level gets. I allow content from all the books I own in my campaign (which is most) but my players don't go hog wild. I have a hexblade, bard, cleric/shadowcaster, scout and psion. None of them are using anything remotely overpowered. Heck, some of their class choices alone are rather underpowered.
As for what level Flood Season is for, the hardcover says the party should be 4th at the beginning. However, if you add up all the xp in chapter 1, it's just about enough for a party of 6 to be 4th level. Granted, not every party may get all that xp, but it's there. I can see a thorough party being 5th after going through Drakthar's Way.
I remember a similiar situation which happened to me when we were playing 2nd edition when Unearthed Arcana came out and all of a sudden I had two cavaliers. In the end, to make sure the party was sufficently challenged, I had to throw far greater creatures at them that their level would otherwise suggest.
It's an ever present problem in D&D as TSR/WoTC continue to create new resources and ways to improve a character. Perhaps reading over a new resource first yourself before agreeing to any new class/feat/spell/ability/rule would give you a bit more control on what comes into your game and what doesn't.
If the party are keen to use a new anything ask that you can look over it first before they spring it on you.
When I first started playing 3rd ed I found the party were progressing through the levels far to quickly. They never had the time to use their new abilities before they were given even better abilities. Also the party never got a chance to develop mentors, allies, enemies or relationships as low level characters before they were already high level. This made the characters seem very hollow.
In the end we agreed that we would half all experience points awarded effectively doubling the time the party had before reaching a level and giving me more scope to include extra side treks and adventures that helped build on their backgrounds and the plot as a whole.
If your party are becoming more powerful than their levels may noramlly suggest perhaps doing something similiar may help. The alternative is increasing the strength of all the encounters but this could become quite time consuming and tedious.
Good luck
Delvesdeep
My party ran up against Tongueeater tonight. They didn't exactly wipe the floor with him, but between the dwarven paladin's smites, and the warlock just hanging back and blasting at him, he went down pretty quickly.
|
|
I remember a similiar situation which happened to me when we were playing 2nd edition when Unearthed Arcana came out and all of a sudden I had two cavaliers.
Just as an aside, I think you mean 1st edition. Unless 2nd edition also had an Unearthed Arcana with a Cavalier class. My first real foray into D&D was in 1986 and the party had a Cavalier out of UA, and that was definately 1st edition. 2nd came out in 88 or 89 iirc. Your post struck a cord though...those were the good old days. :)
My party was 4th level and they didn't have much trouble with Tongueeater. Perhaps he isn't as tough as some people may think. I really enjoyed the thread a long time ago about making him more feral; any new DMs may wish to consider bumping him up a bit.
My party was 4th level and they didn't have much trouble with Tongueeater. Perhaps he isn't as tough as some people may think. I really enjoyed the thread a long time ago about making him more feral; any new DMs may wish to consider bumping him up a bit.
If the PC's have weapons capable of hitting him (silver or magical) then Tongueater isn't so tough. without such weapons, he's a worthy adversary.
My group struggled in their intial fight with Drakthar for that reason; they didn't have the weapons required to hit him. By the time they ventured to the Lucky Monkey in Flood Season, they were suitably prepared, and Tongueater fell without too much fuss.
When I first started playing 3rd ed I found the party were progressing through the levels far to quickly. They never had the time to use their new abilities before they were given even better abilities. Also the party never got a chance to develop mentors, allies, enemies or relationships as low level characters before they were already high level. This made the characters seem very hollow...Delvesdeep
Delvesdeep has a good point, as usual. I will begin to slow by my PCs progression. They will hate me but they will learn to know and play their character better - that is going to be their reward.
Delvesdeep has a good point, as usual. I will begin to slow by my PCs progression. They will hate me but they will learn to know and play their character better - that is going to be their reward.
When I first started playing 3rd ed I found the party were progressing through the levels far to quickly. They never had the time to use their new abilities before they were given even better abilities. Also the party never got a chance to develop mentors, allies, enemies or relationships as low level characters before they were already high level. This made the characters seem very hollow...Delvesdeep
Thanks Anglachel. Don't feel like they will hate you. Just tell them your concerns and ask them if they would feel comfortable/be kind enough for you to try a new idea involving XP and slowing up level advancement. Let them know the reasons why and tell them that it will allow their characters more time to do what they want to do rather than just following alone with the campaign. Mention to them also that by slowing the XP it will give them more opportunities to make stronger allies, more memorable NPC relationships, memorable enemies and more cherished characters.
Finally tell them if it is not working out after a handful of sessions and the players aren't enjoying the extra time afforded to work on their character's backgrounds, interests etc and the plot in general, you will be more than happy to revert back.
In short tell them they have nothing to lose by trying something new :)
Delvesdeep
I remember a similiar situation which happened to me when we were playing 2nd edition when Unearthed Arcana came out and all of a sudden I had two cavaliers.Just as an aside, I think you mean 1st edition. Unless 2nd edition also had an Unearthed Arcana with a Cavalier class. My first real foray into D&D was in 1986 and the party had a Cavalier out of UA, and that was definately 1st edition. 2nd came out in 88 or 89 iirc. Your post struck a cord though...those were the good old days. :)
I think you're right Talon. That Cavalier class allowed you to end up with a strength of 18/00, a dex of 18 and a constitution of 18 plus gain a myriad of abilities that were head and shoulders above almost every other class at the time. Unearthed Arcana was a fantastic book though, revolutionised many of the old stayed rules and ideas at the time.
When I first DMed (I was 13 at the time) my much older siblings I thought awarded one of them a Axe of Dwarvish Might was a great ideas which had Death Ray as one of its abilities. Now that took the fun right out of the game for me and every other player.
Sometimes you need to just talk to your players about your concerns and hope they compromise dropping an overpowered spell/ability/item but if they doesn't work them sometimes you have to just make the tough call either directly or in game.
Luckily you don't sound like you party has gone to the same extremes as my first group did so you aren't travelling alone that baddly yet :)
Delvesdeep
My party was 2nd and 3rd level (6 characters) when they fought Tongue eater, they assaulted the kitchen first, he was killed rapidly enough but some died later against the thugs.
If the PC's have weapons capable of hitting him (silver or magical) then Tongueater isn't so tough.
Or if you have a stupid Warlock in your party shooting things with his stupid Warlock shooty powers.
My party has been chewing through the AP with ease (Up until entering bhal where there currently running and swimming for there lives.) and now I know why. I couldn't see any problems with there levels and powers and have spent many a night going through each character sheet making sure the maths was correct.
I didn't realize that the AP was design for the edition before 3.5
Thanks for cluing me in.
|
|
If the PC's have weapons capable of hitting him (silver or magical) then Tongueater isn't so tough.Or if you have a stupid Warlock in your party shooting things with his stupid Warlock shooty powers.
Yeah, pennton said his wizard was using the Fiery Burst reserve feat. Those reserve feats are broken and destroy the flavor of the pre-4e wizard. Not only are they strictly forbidden in my games, my players get penalized if they even mention them.
Balance is fleeting at best in most any game system, including D&D 3.5. Just browse the character optimization board over at the Wizards site to see what I mean.
Poster1: "Warlocks are totally overpowered, so my DM won't allow them."
Poster2: "No, they're not." <presents convincing argument for player to argue his case>
You can make the same cases for or against core druids, illusion magic and so many other components of 3.5.
I didn't want to get into any of that. I wanted to run a published adventure, and I wanted to allow all official 3.5 WotC material. I wanted my players to be able to optimize their PCs as they saw fit...as made them happy. For I have some players who get as much pleasure out of optimizing their characters as they do role-playing them. Sure, those splat books can make for more powerful PCs, but why limit my players' fun, when some simple adjustments on my end can make it all worthwhile?
Still, an adventuring party can be quite formidable without feats/spells/classes from the splat books. My group just finished up at the Lucky Monkey, and Tongueater went down pretty quickly. A well-placed grease spell (first level, core) can have devastating effect, and it was complimented by the group's archer still having silver-tipped arrows (core) left over from battling Drakthar. Add to that a web spell (second level, core) and a rogue's Sneak Attack ability (core), and it's easy to see how quickly a smart group can down a powerful foe, while avoiding taking much damage in the process.
Our Shackled City game is somewhat complicated because we have seven players. Adjusting encounters for party number can be difficult, because as the BBEGs get tougher, the chances that one of your players will die goes up significantly. This is especially true with groups that have more than six players, because the player's hit point pool is spread out, as opposed to dealing with more powerful, i.e., higher-level, PCs. It's easier to add more mooks or medium threat creatures, but you have to be careful with the BBEGs.
I'm still learning how to mod the encounters to better balance them for my group. For BBEGs, it seems that adding to their hit points and making them a little more difficult to hit keeps them around a bit longer to account for the additional player. They're not dealing more damage in any one hit, but they're able to put out more damage total and provide a threat longer before going down. It's also an easy change on the DM's part.
I'm certainly not going to take the time to add class levels to NPCs/monsters or make all the myriad chances for advancing creatures for every chapter. I imagine I'll do it in certain circumstances, but I'm taking them on a case-by-case basis. D&D already requires too much prep time for play as it is.
As far as player requests go, my core mechanic is to respond "Yes" instead of "No". I have a mature group, so this plan works for us. Your mileage may vary.
I understand what you mean about how the PCs could be level 5 by the time they reach the Lucky Monkey. I am running the AP straight out of the magazines -- I don't even own the big book, and therefore I don't own and didn't run Drakthar's Way. After the Malachite Fortress, which my PCs explored quite thoroughly, it only took one relatively tough side trek encounter to get the PCs up to level 4. I don't know what the book said, but my understanding was that the PCs should be a group of five level 4 characters when they reach the Lucky Monkey. Therefore, I can certainly understand why your level 5 party wouldn't have much trouble. For my party, the fight with Tongueater himself wouldn't have been all that tough, but the Inn got alerted and the thugs and Alleybashers were attacking almost simultaneously. When Tongueater entered the fray, the fight got very difficult, with two characters going to negative hp before the party emerged victorious.
I think your best solution is to do nothing. So they had one easy encounter, so what? When my 4th level party defeated Tongueater and the rest of the Lucky Monkey encounters, they earned enough XP barely to make level 5 prior to heading to the kopru ruins. According to the tables in the DMG, level 5 characters earn considerably less XPs. Therefore, they should still be level 5 when they get to the kopru ruins, which is right where they should be. I don't think you have anything to worry about -- Players love the occasional cakewalk.
|
...Cleric: Divine Metamagic/Persistent Spell build using the Ice Axe spell. 24-hour per day touch attack that does 2d12+2 cold damage... ouch.
I don't know whether you're aware of this, but there's a serious omission in the description of Divine Metamagic.
Namely, the feat description simply states 'Pick one metamagic feat...', when it should read 'Pick one metamagic feat you already possess...'.
This makes quite a difference, believe me...for a start, it can put back the learning of the feat by 3 levels, and/or force the base metamagic feat to be learned at level 1, when it may rarely see use (Oooh, a silent cantrip, how scary...).
I also think a DM is quite within his rights to forbid learning of metamagic feats until the character actually has spell slots of the minimum adjusted level, since it would be impossible to practice.
This has been a long-running issue in our campaign, with a cleric focussed on Turning, taking high Charisma, Glory Domain, Extra Turning (twice), Divine Spell Power, and Divine Metamagic (Quicken),all by level 6.
It kept getting queried that "Surely you have to be able to Quicken spells normally, before you can use channeling to reduce the spell level...". And each time the book was brought out to show the feat text.
It was also the existence of feats such as Persistent Spell which caused us to query the rules, since there are metamagic feats which also have pre-requisites of their own, and this seemed to be a rather cheap way to bypass those pre-requisites.
This all prompted calls for a house rule that "I don't care what the book says, it's absolutely stupid. All future characters need the base feats in question". It's only when the player took several weeks off, and read the errata, that he realised he'd been playing it wrong. This coincided with me, having taken over the running of his character, trying to input the data onto Heroforge, and being unable to select the Divine Metamagic feat as the pre-requisites hadn't been met.
In his case, it wasn't the end of the world, as it meant that he could drop one of the Extra Turning feats, but that means that he now has a lot less opportunities to then quicken his spells, since each use cost 5 turn attempts.
In the case of your player, not only does he need Divine Metamagic, and Persistent Spell, but Extend Spell as well, which even for a human cleric, costs ALL his available feats at 5th level, one of which he can't even normally use (since you need caster level 11 to prepare even a persistent cantrip). If he's not human, it's not even legal at all. Plus, even then, it costs 7 turn attempts, which should be his entire quota for the day, even with Cha 18 (no spare feats for Extra Turning any more...). Suddenly it doesn't seem quite so enticing, does it?
First Rule of Character Building: If it looks too good to be true, it probably is.
And, just remember,he may have had an easy ride just now, but...