|
Very interesting approach. While there are a number of things I think are borderline, I can't see where you violated any rules in a direct fashion. I do think your DM significantly failed to carry out his duty, in that:
(1) He ignored the rules on page 13 of the DMG regarding game balance:
A balanced game is one in which one character does not dominate over the rest because of a choice he or she made (race, class, skill, feat, spell and so on). It also reflects that the characters aren't too powerful for the threats they face;yet neither are they hopelessly overmatched. (emphasis mine)
Page 13 goes on to instruct the DM to handle a balance issue - and clearly there was one here given that the characters were "too powerful for the threats the characters faced" - to handle the issue either in game (by ramping up the challenges so the characters would be challenged) or out of game (by telling the player that the character has gained too much of an advantage relative to the planned scenario and that the character had to change). Since your character was constructed within the rules and I do not believe you would want the DM to handle the issue out of game, he was compelled to handle the issue in game, something he failed to do.
(2) He ignored the 3 10th level wizards' abilities to thwart such attacks with magic of their own (and given his violation above, these wizards should have been much more powerful than 10th level. Even excusing this dereliction, the attack should not have happened so easily):
(a) There should have been Faithful Hounds guarding the premises, certainly one in the main room at all times. This would have prevented the simaculrum from entering unseen
(b) At least one wizard should have had Prying Eyes up watching the external and internal corridors of the manor for intruders or attacks on the guards.
(c) The wizards and the BBEG should have several permanent effects upon them (see invisibility for certain but since it is only gold and the BBEG has a good deal of it, just about every effect that can be permanent should have been on the BBEG and the wizards at the very least, maybe the guard captain as well.)
(d) Mage's Private Sanctum or False Vision should certainly have been continuously available in the main room where the BBEG was to prevent scrying.
There are obviously more things the bad guys could have done (intelligently using their incorporeal undead, for example) and that is only in the unequipped (relative to the character) and underpowered (relative to the character) scenario you provided. I hope the DM will rise to the challenge the next time. If you can select a better-prepared scenario, he may not have to change as much, but certainly, even a well written scenario may require him to perform some prework so he does not violate the game balance expectations. He should also focus on using the provided information as intelligently as possible rather than leaving foes to stand around, defenses down, waiting to be killed.
|
Do you remember that we are playtesting? What you demand is the result of the playtest, not the start of it. If you start with the assumption that every game with a good DM is balanced, since a good DM will balance it - you can be even right; but it is little help for all those who cannot play with that mythic DM.
BTW, you forgot also that we don't use DMG here - this is the forum for playtesting Pathfinder RPG Beta rules, and nothing else. And funnily enough, those words are nowhere to be found in the Pathfinder rules.
I kind of agree with Lich-Loved.. though I said it in a much shorter way.
I think they picked a poor adventure to play test a 15 level wizard. The quest the picked could be easily handled by lower levels.
I think in the future to get a true view of the abilities of a 15 level 'Solo' they need to pick a quest that is actually challenging for a 15th level.
I think they were limiting themselves to free quests. I will look and see if i can find some and pass them on.
|
|
Squirrelloid, Have your DM look at this one
Though Not perfect, I think it is a little bit more challenging 15th level quest and it is based on the 3.5 rules.
|
|
Do you remember that we are playtesting? What you demand is the result of the playtest, not the start of it. If you start with the assumption that every game with a good DM is balanced, since a good DM will balance it - you can be even right; but it is little help for all those who cannot play with that mythic DM.
This is a poor argument. Using this reasoning, chess is unbalanced because one player with considerable experience can defeat another with less experience. Clearly Squirroid is an "expert" player. For their to be a game, the DM must rise to his level or pack up his dice for it isn't a game at that point, it is a demonstration. Don't forget that in this playtest, it isn't just Squirrloid playing, it is the DM as well, and nominally they are playing cooperatively. If the DM can't handle his end in the game Squirroid is playing, then the results of the playtest become moot. I can show how a monk is overpowered by making a well built monk and running him against a novice DM. Such an example doesn't prove the monk is overpowered, it proves that the DM should learn the game.
At the very least, the DM should play the wizards he has with at least the same amount of cunning as the players play. To do less is to allow the player to impale himself on the Snowflake Fallacy, something that absolutely happened in this case.
BTW, you forgot also that we don't use DMG here - this is the forum for playtesting Pathfinder RPG Beta rules, and nothing else. And funnily enough, those words are nowhere to be found in the Pathfinder rules.
Ha! This slice of entertainment should be savored. Thanks for it!
I think they picked a poor adventure to play test a 15 level wizard. The quest the picked could be easily handled by lower levels.
The playtest is interesting, but (as Squirreloid himself pointed out) an assault on a static target with little or no time limit is not very exciting. Even a 15th level fighter (or a 15th level commoner) could probably handle this (send in a teleporting cohort to help your "employer" escape, then snipe on any bad guys who come out of the building from 1000' away, say).
|
|
------
Re: rebuilding NPCs to pathfinder - We didn't because its a lot of time for little benefit. As it stands, it wouldn't have mattered at all in this adventure as best as i could determine. Rebuilding NPCs is a real hassle, and I wouldn't expect a DM who was using modules to do so regularly. Maybe for the BBEG, but certainly not for all the mooks.
That is a problem then.. Because in many cases some of the classes are more powerful in pathfinder then they are in 3.5, so you are not truly testing the capabilities of the 3.5 classes.. all you are doing is testing pathfinder classes vs 3.5 classes... unless that is your goal.
I must say.. if you do not put in the work to truly test it..what is the use?... why even bother?..
Cool the wizard is strong..they were in 3.5...
What is the point of this solo?
If you are not picky on what adventures you pick and are not willing to change them around if they are poorly written for 15th level encounters, you are not really getting anything out of this.
Lich-Loved: Part of the point is to run the adventures exactly how we find them.
I guess my question is this: is this playtest report representative of how you normally play D&D? If not, then why are you playtesting it like this? It seems a bit strange to pick some artificial situation that's nothing like how you normally play and use that as a basis for your criticisms. Why don't you play a typical campaign instead? Maybe all of the other players could use "Races of War" classes and you could try a "Pathfinder" class (if they're not into playtesting Pathfinder).
|
|
Lich-Loved: Part of the point is to run the adventures exactly how we find them. I agree, the wizards should have countermeasures active and running, but as written they don't. This is a problem. In fact, in one particular encounter (the barracks) the enemies are specifically mentioned as being unaware and otherwise distracted.
The DM is mostly being a referee here for the sake of balance. He's not trying to rebalance the encounters, he's running them exactly how the adventure tells him.
I mean, the DM knows what character I'll be playing - having him tailor the encounter is hardly ideal circumstances if we're looking for a more objective repeatable standard. Limit your variables to a countable set.
Do I think this adventure was awful? Yes. It was absolute crap. There will be more adventures - I'll see how typical this is.
First and foremost, thanks for taking my comments in the spirit in which they were intended. As you well know, I am against using mages optimized in the extreme to use as a yardstick for the other classes; I fear it will drive the fighter deep into wuxia territory and basically move the baseline of the game from where it is now (for me and my style) to something I won't find nearly as palatable. I am afraid it will have the effect of turning a fantasy game into a supers game.
When you ask the DM to act only as an impartial judge and do not demand the creativity out of him that you supply to your characters, you are doing a serious disservice to the game and distorting the playtest. While it is convenient and perhaps even logical on the surface to blame the module writer, if the DM does not try to match your style (in this case character optimization in extremis), imputing to the NPCs under his control the same degree of expertise you use, then you will always find that your highly customized builds are far superior to the tasks given them.
While I understand the charm of laying the blame on the module writer and generally agree with your assessment of this module, it is still the DM's job to situate the module in his world. If his world has only the strictest RAW interpretation to back it up, then his wizards (for example) should be as well aware as your character concerning the intricacies and "tricks" available to high level magical foes they might face within that RAW framework. If your DM is up to the task, then that is great for you, and the two of you can play a game where ultra-optimized wizards via for control of the world. If however, you intend that to see all games become this game, or that fighters join this fray by becoming wuxia supermen to compete, or by nerfing mages to the degree that some version of the high level power game is no longer available to anyone, then you are simply trying to impose your particular playstyle upon the rest of us in order to resolve problems that are largely self created (self created because you have intentionally set out to play a game where the characters are highly optimized and the foes are apparently completely unaware such optimization exists).
The current ruleset is a loose one, it allows for a great deal of interpretation and therefore abuse by those looking to find holes. I believe this effect was in some parts unintended (I certainly see where there are rules issues that could do with some polish) but it was also done to allow players and DMs to use various playstyles and as much freedom as possible in building exactly the game they want (e.g. yes there are ring gates and you can cast spells through them, but since the rules don't say you can see through them, in my world, you can't). This first playtest tells us only one thing: an expert player that pushes the character creation rules to the max can destroy a poorly written adventure with a DM that intentionally chooses not to meet the challenge the character represents using the tools that are at his disposal.
(1) The goal here is to allow reproducibility. Ie, if the DM runs the adventure exactly as is, other DMs can do it the same way, and comparative data can be generated.
I suspect, however, that if I said I ran the same module and my 15th level wizard died horribly, you would just say "you are a moron and you did it wrong".
You and I had the same issue when I was running a barbarian against a variety of monsters at a variety of challenge levels. When I ran them, I was mostly successful, but when you ran the same thing you were mostly unsuccessful. So what does that prove? Not much -- only that someone can underplay (or overplay) the PCs or the NPCs depending on what particular point you are trying to make (e.g. "wizards are awesome" or "wizards are weak").
That is why I suspect that running an actual campaign would give more valuable data (although this kind of thought experiment is worth something, I guess).
I agree that using modules as written is useful and appropriate for a playtest. I think, though, that modules like the one you chose will demonstrate mainly that some scenarios are drawn up in a way that totally fails to engage the capabilities of high level PCs. This doesn't really put much of a spotlight on the specific rules of Pathfinder: it would happen much the same in 3.0, 3.5, or Pathfinder. (I think all we found out here is that you probably should not be able to see through a Ring Gate.)
Is it possible for you to do some of the AP scenarios? I know they're not freely available, but they are very widely available to members of these boards. And they are in general much better constructed, especially in terms of being aware of high level magic and its capabilities.
_Sins of the Saviors_ from RotRL would be an interesting choice--a little low in nominal level, I think, but very high-magic and reasonably well constructed, and it stands on its own pretty well. (_Spires of Xin-Shalast_ much less so, unfortunately--I think it would be hard to run fairly as a stand-alone.)
I believe the appropriate adventure from SCAP would be the Fiery Cyst, which also has reasonable treatment of magical defenses. Or the scenario before it, the defense of Cauldron--that would be a useful one as the time limit is very tight, so in-and-out tactics are impossible.
From AoW you could try the Spire of Long Shadows or Tilagos Island (the one in between, Prince of Redhand, is a very poor standalone and not really playtest material anyway). Long Shadows is notoriously a module which is very easy for some parties (it was for mine) and a killer for others; it would be interesting to see how your party fared.
Finally, thanks for posting this: it was interesting food for thought. I have a gut feeling about the unsuitability of some scenarios for high-level play but seeing such a well worked out bad example helps me move from gut reaction to real understanding.
Mary
|
|
I'm not saying you're wrong that adventures should be made challenging for the characters. I'm saying that modding adventures doesn't allow benchmarks of performance to be determined, or repeated performances to be attempted.
I agree with you completely on this point. However, I still contend that the imbalance you see in your playtests is a result not of the character's imbalance but of the rigid manner in which you ran an admittedly inferior adventure. Your establishment of initial conditions of (A)a highly optimized character and (B)an un-modified module are inherently biased and while repeatable do not truly test that which you want to test, which is wizard power relative to fighter power. I would suggest that you re-run the same module with a highly optimized fighter, taking advantage of all the rules to build the character and changing nothing on the module side and see if the fighter (and his cleric cohort don't forget - or maybe an optimized rogue for UMD *snicker*) can pull off the same sort of victory. In all honesty, I doubt the fighter could, but it is a start at showing the kind of disparity you want to show without building in an inherit bias in the name of reproducibility.
Again, I appreciate the effort you have taken to provide concrete examples of this bias.
|
|
First of all, to correctly remember the intentions of people participating in this discussion, we should always remember that we take part in the playtest. Therefore, someone who shows eg that the wizard class is powerful, does not in fact intend to strengthen the wizard. To the contrary, the natural consequence of such result of playtest would be the weakening of that class.
I think we can both agree that if we assume that if in all cases the wizard outpowers the fighter, then either the fighter must be improved or the wizard reduced. The disagreement comes in when we examine the phrase "if in all cases". You contend this is the case, I contend that it has not been shown beyond reasonable doubt to be the case. The playtest here that attempts to show this is biased from the outset in the name of repeatability.
From the above-quoted comments, it would seem that the purpose for which you participate in this playtest is not making the game balanced, but the contrary: to keep the fighter as weak as possible ("not wuxia" using your terms, although most of the proposed changes had nothing to do with wuxia), and the wizard maximally powerful.
Prima facie, this would seem to be a case of intentional vandalism, ie - of an intentional attempt to make the game worse, perhaps motivated by some personal motive or by dislike of Paizo.
No. I do believe that fighters could use a boost and there are a few rules issues on the wizard's side that could be tweaked just to calm the cries of the purists, but I want such a thing to be slight, to keep fighter's grounded at the Conan/Gimli/Fafhrd level and the dollars Paizo must expend to close nagging wizardly loopholes to be as small as possible. To this end, I want playtests showing the wizard's strength to be fair and balanced at the outset. Nothing more, nothing less.
Such an interpretation seems supported by your claim: "If his world has only the strictest RAW interpretation to back it up, then his wizards (for example) should be as well aware as your character concerning the intricacies and "tricks" available to high level magical foes they might face within that RAW framework. If your DM is up to the task, then that is great for you, and the two of you can play a game where ultra-optimized wizards via for control of the world."
The obvious purpose of this playtest is to prove that the above situation is exactly what happens when somebody uses correctly options provided to a wizard. You are, of course, conscious of this, and try to deflect our attention from that fact by counterfactual claims that playtest uses "in this case character optimization in extremis". It is obvious that in the playtest there was used nearly no character optimization at all. The character in question is a straight wizard with no Prestige Class, who used a standard spell and an equally standard feat to gain two helpers.
I feel you miss the point while at the very time stating it. I too would love to see what happens "when somebody uses correctly options provided to a wizard" and have pointed out quite clearly that the player's wizard did not face anything of the sort in this module In fact, it is quite clear that the player's wizard didn't even face " .. a straight wizard with no Prestige Class, who used a standard spell and an equally standard feat..." When the foes your "completely nominal wizard" meets are themselves "completely nominal" then we will have a real test.
This still doesn't address the underlying issue of the fighter however, so let's focus on him for a moment. In this ensuing clash of giants a lowly fighter would indeed be outclassed, but what of one of your "purely nominal ones" (e.g. one that I would call "highly optimized")? We don't know how such a fighter would fare, because no one bothers to test it to see if such a fighter can contribute meaningfully under that situation. 200,000gp buys a lot of magic trinkets, nes pas?
If we in addition remember the obvious fact that RAW means Rules As Written, or in other word simply "rules" - the only rules which can be tested in the playtest - your intention would seem obvious: you enjoy playing superpowered wizards and resents any attempt to weaken them.
Actually, I have been playing for 30 years or so and almost without variation have been the DM. In the rare case when I play, I enjoy monks, barbarians and clerics (the non CoDZilla type).
Now your intentions become clear: you want to keep the world of D&D mysterious and fantastic, and at the same time similar to the medieval literature. The balance between classes is unimportant compared to that goal. The responsibilities for both elements - realism and fantasy - were divided somewhat unequally between classes. The fighter was left with the realistic end of the stick, and is more or less equivalent to the medieval knight. The wizard got the fantasy, and can as the result destroy whole armies with one spell, summon devils and angels, move mountains and similar.
This is not far from the mark. I draw my D&D roots from Tolkein (yes I know, Gandalf isn't a D&D wizard), Moorcock, Howard, Leiber, Lovecraft and more modernly, Zelanzy, and Piers Anthony. This is the game I want to play, and more importantly where I want the baseline of the game to be, with plenty of flexibility in the game to allow a given DM to make the game into a supers-like game if he or she chooses. I do not want the supers options trimmed from the game any more than I want the entire game to move toward a supers level. However, there are traps aplenty in such a baseline ruleset as I propose, because it allows for some players to approach the game at a supers level while others find themselves stuck, through ignorance of the rule nuances (read as bad choices if you will) or a simple desire to tell a grittier story, at the "mundane/realistic" level. Nowhere is this difference more palpable than between a supers-oriented wizard and a "gritty" fighter. You and those that support your thinking find this sort of disparity, that the rules would even allow this sort of flexibility, a highly undesirable thing. From my point of view, I am glad the rules provide this and do not want to see it go, with the clear understanding that as the DM I need to understand if my players are going the supers route or the gritty/old-school route and make my rulings accordingly.
|
|
(2) There is also a GNS component to our decisions. Effectively, we're being module simulationists - we're assuming the modules describe situations that exist in some world. Some adventurer(s) are going to come along and deal with it.
You're actually making some rather gamist assumptions, that encounters will always be built to challenge the PC(s).discussing anything related to the rules of the game.
I apologize for posting again on this topic without giving you a chance to respond, but somehow my paragraph got trimmed from my first posting's text.
I fully admit that my view on these matters is somewhat is gamist, and while that may have it's flaws, I contend that these tests are hardly simulationist. If these "modules describe situations that exist in some world" and the character you created exists in the same world, then the beings in the module should be aware of the same things of which your character is aware. Surely the wizards would be much much better prepared in such a world, at the very least, and fighters would have on hand a number of countermeasures to deal with the more mundane sorts of wizardly attacks. In short, while I say "the DM should raise the challenge level" which is indeed a gamist perspective, I could also say, "in the simulated world you presented, the encountered wizards and guards would have been far better prepared." Either approach has the effect of raising the challenge level to the character. Leaving the foes in some sort of static bubble (and for what it is worth I understand how and why this happened) does not imply simulationist leanings, it just unbalances the encounters from the outset.
|
|
I cast all my spells through the ring gate the simulacrum is holding, which is invisible because its gear he's carrying. Note that I'm casting the spell, so the simulacrum never makes any attacks, and thus never becomes visible.
Ah, a variation on the old magic-user in the pocket trick. It's been awhile since I've seen one of those since most DMs veto that one most promptly.
I think this is an issue with the description of the invisibility spell that Paizo can fix by adding just a little bit of clarification to the final rules. This issue stems from the conflation of two different usages of the word 'indirect.' All the examples given in the text on page 243 of the Pathfinder beta for indirect attacks involve the damage or effect being done by visible objects or creatures at least one step removed from the invisible subject. All these spells cast through the ring gate are indirect in the sense someone else is making them, but are direct in that they all issue directly from the invisible creature thus not being the same kind of indirect as the examples given.
I'd say the fix to this issue would be to add wording to the spell description to the effect that any attack issuing directly from the invisible subject, whether that subject initiated that attack or not, will end the glamer. That should do it.
Sam
I understand the problem with Ringgate and all that- but doesn't the scenario rather point out that very nearly every BBEG and at -least- his closest mooks need some ability to detect invisibility?
I mean, the ring gate was a terror sure- but even without it the same could have very nearly been done by the wizard himself after having cast Imp Invis. The RG was just used to keep himself safe- something that was never needed since he'd never have been seen in the first place.
In 3.0 3.5 or Paizo RPG the fact remains that low level spells continue to be used even in high level adventures because most PC-class based NPC's don't have adequate gear or spells to counteract them.
That seems to me to be the main problem here. If some undead, if some guard, if the main guard, if the BBEG himself, would have been able to SEe invis (through the Hound, a real dog, a spell, an ointment, Invisibility Purge on the "throne room" or whatever) then the matter of the ring gate would've been relatively moot anyway.
|
|
The attack does not issue directly from the invisible subject, it issues directly from the caster through a 'wormhole' (the ring gate).
Conflation & semantics. The effects are clearly coming from out of the glamer and it's clear this is not how this second level spell was intended to perform. Are you actually arguing that the language of the invisibility spell shouldn't be tightened up to prevent this abuse?
The caster very clearly has Line of Effect and most of us seem to agree he has Line of Sight.
Feh. The description of the item says you can attack through it and the examples given strongly imply that you can see through it. Why do you even bring this up?
Regardless, at levels where a ring gate is possible you also have ready access to greater invisibility, which doesn't pop when you attack.
Exactly. You should have used the fourth level spell actually designed to do this.
No, the only real countermeasure is that at some point most high level creatures must have some way to foil invisibility. (Preferably something they must spend an action to do rather than an always-on countermeasure for most of them, so that invisibility doesn't become worthless at high levels either.)
Such magic is common in this game and available in many different forms.
Sam
|
|
Though you've accounted for purchasing the spells, it seems that you've forgotten to account for the costs of writing your extra spells into your spell books.
Space in the Spellbook: A spell takes up one page of the spellbook per spell level. Even a 0-level spell (cantrip) takes one page. A spellbook has one hundred pages.
Materials and Costs: Materials for writing the spell cost 100 gp per page.
This will triple the expenses for your extra spells.
Sam
|
|
Please read the description of Boccob's Blessed Book. Probably without the 'Boccob's' in Pathfinder. (Not that there aren't other ways to avoid the cost of scribing, but I really don't want to get into that discussion right now).
No need, I'm familiar with it. I haven't given your build a full audit(not going to), so I missed it.
You like optimizing your characters, but you're not being optimal in how you post to this board. Either a polite "No need, I've got a Blessed Book" or "You may have overlooked that I'm using a Blessed Book" would have got a polite response something like "Sorry, I didn't see that." Acting arrogantly, rudely or in a confrontational manner detract from you message by drawing attention to your presentation rather than what you are trying to present. It is NOT optimal.
For instance, calling Darren Drader a moron for stuff he wrote more then five years ago. This hurt your message. He's a Paizo contributor and a respected member of the community. As a contributor, he really can't come in here to defend himself anyway without looking unprofessional. Not very sporting is it? Because of this and the way you behave, the Paizo guys are going to be looking at you rather than what you're saying, so your chances of actually influencing this playtest are probably very slim at this point. I suggest a change of identity and a change of attitude.
Anyway, this is our last exchange. I have no time or need for unpleasantness, so I'll not respond to any more of your posts. Good luck.
Sam
Polite this, polite that. He said read the description for the item and even said please. Did anyone else take that as rude? I sure didn't. Which means all this talk of semantics is pointless and unfounded.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I admit, I'm not one of Squirrelloid's biggest fans here, but I can't see anything wrong in his posting style on this thread.
I myself wouldn't have used the term "moron", because (1) it's a reference to the author, not the work, and (2) it's very possible that the original manuscript might not have had those errors (it might have been written for a much lower party) but Wizard's editors might have introduced them -- certainly, they should have caught them. We don't know who's at fault, but it's certainly an adventure riddled with plot holes.
And, as Squirrelloid says, he backed up the name with evidence.
His reference to "Boccob's Blessed Book", I thought, was fine.
And, in particular, his refusal to rise to the bait and counter-attack is really appreciated. Very classy, sir.
I'm looking forward to your playtesting a high-level wizard against appropriate challenges. Maybe Iron Crypt of the Heretics or Crypt of the Devil Lich, a notorious PC killer.
|
|
I admit, I'm not one of Squirrelloid's biggest fans here, but I can't see anything wrong in his posting style on this thread.
I myself wouldn't have used the term "moron", because (1) it's a reference to the author, not the work, and (2) it's very possible that the original manuscript might not have had those errors (it might have been written for a much lower party) but Wizard's editors might have introduced them -- certainly, they should have caught them. We don't know who's at fault, but it's certainly an adventure riddled with plot holes.
And, as Squirrelloid says, he backed up the name with evidence.
His reference to "Boccob's Blessed Book", I thought, was fine.
And, in particular, his refusal to rise to the bait and counter-attack is really appreciated. Very classy, sir.
I'm looking forward to your playtesting a high-level wizard against appropriate challenges. Maybe Iron Crypt of the Heretics or Crypt of the Devil Lich, a notorious PC killer.
I know 'me too' posts are redundant, but I want to echo Chris' thoughts. I too am not a huge fan of Squirrelloid, but he has done a great job in explaining his position and manages to (virtually) omit the venom from his posts. It is primarily for this reason that I am even bothering to read this thread and participate in it. I am also trying hard to see the problems he sees from his point of view, even if they are not problems for me personally. If the issues are indeed glaring enough at (what I call) the "supers" view of the game and solutions can be developed that do not wreck more tame versions of the game, then I will be won over and do my best to push for the types of changes he is proposing. For those of you reading that think that abusive diatribes are the only means to affect change or be taken seriously, I hope you can learn something about influencing adults' opinions from Squirreloid's example.
I also have to agree with Chris that we end users do not know where the errors in the referenced module were introduced. It is possible that the WotC editors took the author's work and "fixed it all up for him". Regardless of how to it happened, however, Squirreloid's assessment of the module is spot on - it is dreadful. Obviously calling the author a moron is unhelpful and perhaps unwarranted. The module's quality, or lack thereof, is telling to anyone interested in drawing their own conclusions.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Since this place is obviously the Uppity "let's comment on other's actions" Forum, I'll add in my bit that I think comments like
"I too am not a huge fan of Squirrelloid" are highly pointless, self-centered, egotistical, hypocritical, an absolute waste of space, and completely unrelated to the topic.
Hi, Bill. Don't blame Lich-loved for that one; I was the guy who started it.
I did it to make a point. These arguments can turn into Hatfield vs. McCoy-style, entrenched "vilification volleyball". I wanted to point out that I was rising to Squirrelloid's defense on the merits of his case, not because I'm one of his posse.
So, respectfully, I didn't see it as a waste of space.
But I'm curious: why do you consider it hypocritical?
When I call someone a 'moron' and then back it up with over a page of evidence then that description is the conclusion of an argument (following from the premises of that evidence). Of course, no one wants to argue the problems I pointed out with the adventure, because they're basic facts that are verifiable. At which point my conclusion follows. Why should I expect any other work he's done to be any better? If you read a book and really dislike it, you won't read more by the same author will you? And when someone contradicts himself two paragraphs later you'd conclude they'd have to be pretty stupid to not notice that, wouldn't you?
Honestly, it's NEVER ok to call someone a moron. Critique their work with reasoned arguments, which to your credit, you have done. But calling them a moron is immature.
|
|
You assume it failed because you have the wrong name, and scry another target (like the mercenary leader, whose name you do know for sure). Which, given he's the interface between BBEG and the mercenary company (and if the module is any judge, often in his presence), will give you a look at the BBEG and thus the ability to point and say 'I'm scrying that guy' if you need to. I mean, there are other ways of uniquely identifying someone, but names happen to be the most convenient.Slightly back on topic, I have another question.
When you cast Scry and it fails, how do you know whether it failed because the person succeeded on their save or you were lied to?
For what is is worth:
Succeeding on a Saving Throw
A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack. Likewise, if a creature’s saving throw succeeds against a targeted spell you sense that the spell has failed. You do not sense when creatures succeed on saves against effect and area spells.
In this case, regardless of who was actually being scryed (either the BBEG or a wrongly-named person), the caster would know that the spell failed because it was resisted by the target (it's not possible for the spell to fail because of being lied to during pre-scrying activities). If the spell succeeds, then, as Squirrelloid said, the caster would see either his target or the wrongly named person. Under most circumstances, it will be trivial to determine if you have the right person.
I would like to see what a Fighter 15 could do too. (or a cleric 15 for that matter)
Coincidentally, I ran this adventure a few months ago (using 3.5) for a 15th level party of fighter, ranger & cleric. It was a cake walk. The only time I managed to do any significant damage to any of them was when they tried to rest in the manor house, fearing that the BBEG was more BB than he actually was. He sent all his remaining minions to ambush them, and I hit the dwarf fighter with a lightning bolt. That was the closest they came to breaking a sweat. So I don't know that this proves that wizards are overpowered as much as it does that this adventure was underpowered.
In defense of Darrin Drader, I believe this adventure was written before most of the splat books. It might have been slightly more of a challenge without the new spells, feats, etc. The cleric had a spell from Book of Exalted Deeds (I believe) that would have taken out the BBEG and everyone else in the room in one round. When I informed him of the fact, he agreed not to cast it so the battle would be marginally interesting.
|
I get that impression as well - most of the creatures in the adventure seem to hover around CR 8, which is on the very low end of challenging to a 15th level character.
But squirrelloids tactics would have merit in other situations without DM intervention.
One of my major villains is simply a mid-level diviner. The PCs can never touch him, because he always knows what they are going to do. Scrying is way to easy.