Hi, I'm a very inexperienced DM and I am writing to get advice about how to avoid a sort of major problem with my PC's party.
Okay so some background, we have only just finished Rivers run Red and started varnhold vanishing. The party started with brand new characters (one death, one guy changed his mind and got a new character, and one guy got a new character because I got rid of his idea about using leadership) we also got a brand new member.
So the new characters are a ranged character (zen archer I believe) who has been min-maxed (with the right feats to the point where he was doing 50 damage in one turn. A necromancer cleric with a zombie young roc (my mistake at throwing a roc at them as a starting fight), a plague sorcerer, and a warrior. However the warrior has just decided to switch over (via in game retconning) to oricle and specialise in necromancy. He also wants to get the forest drake from River Run Red as a zombie (via retcon, where he was always an Oricle and thus capable of raise dead). I am really concerned that the party is just way too strong. In particular the necromancy worries me, because they have already talked about killing a dragon and zombifying it. Heck they already can fly using the roc, with a dragon they just appear too powerful.I got rid of leadership because I didn't want to make combat too easy, but with zombies they already have all new ways to beef up their side.
So any advice on what to do (or is this not really a problem and I am underestimating the campaign)? I am not familiar with Necromancy rules, so any help there would be great (this group has a s#%%load of money, they have built their kingdom so well they have no need to worry about money, so the raw material is no problem). I don't want to just be a dick and ban necromancy all togeather, since it has been a part of the campaign since the stolen lands (the character who died was a necromancer wizard). haha I know this is sort of a problem of my own making.
It's not too much of a problem. Creatures with the Zombie template are much less of a threat than their original forms (check out the Zombie entry in the Bestiary). It's not going to add anything to the party's abilities. Also read animate dead and note the limits on the amount of HD they can control.
Let them have their fun...but Kingdom Loyalty and Unrest might reflect the actions of the group and add a few encounters with a 'good' adventuring group who've come to clear out the undead menace.
Cheers
Mark
I think the arch villain of Varnhold Vanishing will laugh, and laugh, and laugh at the zombie threat. Plus, they can't take a roc into a dungeon, which is an important consideration for the next two modules.
Besides, as a DM, I love it when there's parts of the party that I can target without feeling guilty. It allows you to show how dangerous an opponent is without worrying about PC death. That's the narrative point of red shirts and zombies are red shirts.
Greetings, fellow travellers.
I don't see a problem with a PC doing 50 points of damage in a single round at lvl7.
Concering targeting their pets: go for it - show them how fickle their mooks are.
Concerning necromancy: Pharasma is one of the big faiths in Brevoy and the River Kingdoms - I don't have to tell you what she thinks about undead, do I? Casting the spell costs 25gp/HD - if you follow roguerouge's advice, they are going to burn a lot of cash in replacements.
Also, if they are the leaders of the fledgling kingdom and are playing around with necromancy - unrest rises, loyalty drops, their people will abandon them.
Another thing: bolster the encounters, throw another (less powerful) companion into the fray of the monsters.
Ruyan.
Yar!
I say, not only should you embrace your players ideas and let them have their fun, but also to run with it. Take this new direction and integrate it into the adventure.
The BBEG in V.V. is Vordakai. He's also a Necromancer. Not just a necromancer, but a Cyclops Necromancer. Not just a Cyclops Necromancer, but a LICH CYCLOPS NECROMANCER. Give him a few upgrades, let him "school" your PCs in the art of necromancy. Perhaps they will even try to ally with Big V. He could become a sort of Necromantic mentor to them.
Instead of an evil villain, Big V becomes an NPC friendly to the PCs. He will likely demand to be put into position as King/Baron of your Kingdom, with the PC's as his lieutenants (filling in the other roles). This will lead to turning the entire Kingdom into Vordakai's unholy realm, with all the populace becoming sacrifices to his necromantic experimentations...
Which will lead to a revolt... which can be played out. If/once the revolt is "dealt with", your PC's kingdom is now a haven for the depraved and the undead. Those few who are still living are, in fact, cattle to be experimented on.
With some adjustments, this can actually still work (for the most part) for the rest of the AP. Pitax is still an enemy - instead of due to being jealous of your land, it's now because of the real threat of an Undead Kingdom just next door. The Tiger Lord clans will still attack and try to ruin things for you as they feel it is their birrthright to rule these lands with an iron fist, so they are still an enemy. The evil fey in the last AP is still an enemy and appropriate BBEG, even if she gains a bit more of a lighter/goodly tone to her actions (due to being opposed to the undead in your region). The festival and the interactions with Brevoy coming up later on can be replaced with the revolution and scouring the land of the living... for example.
Of course, doing something like this WILL take a fair bit of effort and work... and it may be a bit much for the inexperienced... but if that is the direction the PC's are going, taking the time to cater to their desires can be greatly rewarding.
Good luck!
~P
That Drake retcon seems a little extreme to me. Replacing a character is one thing, but to say they were doing things all along? Don't be afraid to say no if you think things are unreasonable, it took me some time to learn that myself, during which I had a few of the more... aggressive players pushing for more and more things.
For dealing with the archer, just add greater numbers of low CR enemies backed up by some ranged heavy hitters (A group of rangers and their pet wolves would do nicely!). He may be doing 50 pts of damage per turn, but that should only be about 4 arrows, so most of the damage is wasted. Ranged attacks from stealthed enemies, while the packs push forward and tie them up with close combat and AoO would be brutal.
Sending good adventurers after their party specifically seems like a nice touch, but prepare for retaliation! They may be willing to surrender the Necromantic goodies for less encounters, but by the sound of things they may just turn around and dive straight into evil marauderers. Which, with Pirate's excelent suggestion there, could be an epic twist to a decent Adventure Path!
Well, best of luck, and stay in touch with the boards, okay? (anyone else want to see how this turns out as much as me?)
~QN
Out of my own curiosity,
Why in all that is holy would Brevoy continue funding charters to a group who wantonly practices dark arts?
I'm not saying this AP doesn't have a place for evil characters. I'm just saying that blatantly evil acts are VERY dangerous when you have a good/neutral patron.
From my understanding of this Path, Brevoy only funded the initial setup, and then the new province becomes (hopefully) self sufficient. I think that was part of their idea, to create a seperate ally who can safely build strength without bringing down the wrath of their neighbours. Unless the original party was evil (which is likely, considering the necromancer), Brevoy could only show dissaproval through military/economic sanctions, which seems unlikely given their current politcal turmoil.
~QN
Out of my own curiosity,
Why in all that is holy would Brevoy continue funding charters to a group who wantonly practices dark arts?
I'm not saying this AP doesn't have a place for evil characters. I'm just saying that blatantly evil acts are VERY dangerous when you have a good/neutral patron.
Actually, its right at this point that Brevoy starts to pull out its funding according to the AP.
Greetings, fellow travellers.
I don't see a problem with a PC doing 50 points of damage in a single round at lvl7.
Concering targeting their pets: go for it - show them how fickle their mooks are.
Concerning necromancy: Pharasma is one of the big faiths in Brevoy and the River Kingdoms - I don't have to tell you what she thinks about undead, do I? Casting the spell costs 25gp/HD - if you follow roguerouge's advice, they are going to burn a lot of cash in replacements.
Also, if they are the leaders of the fledgling kingdom and are playing around with necromancy - unrest rises, loyalty drops, their people will abandon them.
Another thing: bolster the encounters, throw another (less powerful) companion into the fray of the monsters.
Ruyan.
Thank you all :) I have decided to take the AP in a slightly different way now, definitely intergrating Pharasma and Brevoy more heavily.
The warrior has decided to stay as a warrior for now (he seems to be a bit character-change-happy). But I really like your ideas. I am thinking about sending them another official letter from Noleski Surtova himself, countersigned by the church of Pharasma noting that their conduct with necromancy has been noted, and that whilst they truly hope the Stolen Lands can be claimed, necromancy is not the way and to cease and desist immediately or they must take action. I will also begin to stir conflict in the growing town about the ethics of necromancy (the king is a paladin, one of the former player's characters, who has been abandoned for the zen monk) so I will call him out to explain the use of evil in a Paladin controlled Kingdom (if they continue I will throw some paladins and other good characters their way).
Alexander, yes the party withdraws large sums from the kingdom's coffers, but they were clever enough to build up buildings to increase the economic, stability, and loyalty checks so that by default they pass the control DC. (I claimed metagaming, they claimed smart building). I am still new to running the general campaign, so I have been a bit overwhelmed by kingdom building, one of the players is well versed in it.
Thanks a heap QN :) Those tips will definitely come in handy! Also yeah only just learning to say no but I will keep that in mind. It is an interesting balance being the DM :)
Sounds like a really good plan to me, especially using the former paladin-PC and the letter from Brevoy.
I hope you can steer the fine line and create fun and memorable moments at your gaming table!
Ruyan.
I would also include rumors of a public execution for the councilor who gave the PCs the charter.
Lol
I have a necromancer AND a blight druid in my campaign. stress the negative aspects of necromancy and/or foul and evil magic on the population. if the kingdom alignment is 'good', then they'll face unrest and mounting loyalty issues. Even if the kingdom alignment is evil, neighboring kingdoms will no doubt use propaganda of 'foul necromancy' against the kingdom, so trade can and probably will suffer (economic losses).
In my game, the necromancer DID reanimate a green dragon as a zombie (long story). she's used it in the defense of the kingdom, and word has begun to spread among the superstitious about her 'deathwing'...but by this point, the kingdom population has had several years of peace, low taxes and a 'hands off' attitude from the rulers. next kingdom turn, the kingdom alignment is going to involuntarily shift to 'chaotic evil' due to the actions of the party. Brevoy, of course, is making noises about their newest neighbor, increasing patrols and encouraging good aligned inquisitors and paladins to infiltrate the kingdom and do what they do best. once the war of the river kingdoms starts in module 5, they could find themselves fighting a two front war.
Run with it.
They are making these choices because they are amused by them. The purpose of the game is amusement.
Plus, you can really pull out all the stops and kill zombie pets to your heart's content!
You must always be careful not to start an arms-race, but the solution to character power is almost never asking the player to change. Beef up the encounters if you need to, but if they think zombifying enemies is fun, (and it is) then let them. Explore the consequences, rather than trying to prevent them. I'm sure that there are some do-gooder NPCs who don't want a kingdom of zombies setting up next-door.
If your party is leaning towards zombies and necromancy, read those rules. You don't need to read them with the intent of finding "gotcha" rules clauses or anything, but you should be conversant in the rules most relevant to your PCs.
Remember, a great GM doesn't say "no" he says "Yes, but..."
Alexander, yes the party withdraws large sums from the kingdom's coffers, but they were clever enough to build up buildings to increase the economic, stability, and loyalty checks so that by default they pass the control DC. (I claimed metagaming, they claimed smart building). ...
If you feel this must be controlled (and I think it probably should be) I believe the rule is that for Control rolls resulting from Unrest, a 1 automatically fails and results in the kingdom disbanding, regardless of what their bonus is. A 1 in 20 chance of kingdom suicide should be enough to cool the jets of even the most unrepentant embezzler.
Alexander, yes the party withdraws large sums from the kingdom's coffers, but they were clever enough to build up buildings to increase the economic, stability, and loyalty checks so that by default they pass the control DC. (I claimed metagaming, they claimed smart building). ...If you feel this must be controlled (and I think it probably should be) I believe the rule is that for Control rolls resulting from Unrest, a 1 automatically fails and results in the kingdom disbanding, regardless of what their bonus is. A 1 in 20 chance of kingdom suicide should be enough to cool the jets of even the most unrepentant embezzler.
There is a widely acknowledged "bug" in the Kingdom-building rules that makes getting infinate wealth too easy (it's not "smart kingdom management" nor is it "metagamign", it's a bug in the rules, treat it as such). I would suggest clamping down on that. Simply eliminate tbe ability to withdraw funds. Remember that "BP" represents morale, manpower, and a pool of talented workers. It does *not* represent gold pieces in a vault.
As for the necromancy: people upthread have given great advice, go with that.
But since you're a new GM, I will make this recommendation: no more retcons. They destroy immersion, and turn the game into a different beast entirely. Barring very rare circumstances (such as a player taking a feat without meeting the prereqs), you need to make decisions matter and have lasting consequences. Once something happens, it happens, and we're not going back.
But since you're a new GM, I will make this recommendation: no more retcons. They destroy immersion, and turn the game into a different beast entirely. Barring very rare circumstances (such as a player taking a feat without meeting the prereqs), you need to make decisions matter and have lasting consequences. Once something happens, it happens, and we're not going back.
+1. It's not worth it. Better to have a player roll a new PC.
I agree suspension of disbelief can totally ruin a game. Part of what makes this game so fun Is acting out the characters life. If there are no consequences for said life You lose a lot of intrigue.
On a similar note I've had gamemasters who had players choose what treasure they would like to receive when they overcome a challenge. The game masters opinion was that it just cut out the middle man and a lot of downtime.
That was the last time I played with that group.
Undead Rulership in The Stolen Lands:
Meet: Deathrumor
Deathrumor is the horrible thing that claimed our first kingmaker game. See... we could kill trolls. Trolls were no problem. The RUMOR of trolls? Oh damn. No, see, you can't fight the rumor. The rumor continues as long as undead persist within the kingdom's rulership.
Rumor of Necromantic Taint: This event triggers at the beginning of every event phase. For each iteration of undead HD equal to the average party character level, one unrest is automatically gained. Immediately afterward, one stability roll needs to be made for each of these HD iterations. Every failed roll results in another +1 unrest. Remember that each unrest penalizes every d20 roll for rulership by 1, and that 11 unrest you begin losing hexes of territory as the nervous guards and patrols have to spiral ever closer inward to help control your unruly populace! 6 unrest = -6 to every roll!
This is a spin on 'Rumor of Trolls'... guaranteed to impact any kingdom even in the advanced stages of kingdom building.
Reaper Miniatures
|
But since you're a new GM, I will make this recommendation: no more retcons. They destroy immersion, and turn the game into a different beast entirely. Barring very rare circumstances (such as a player taking a feat without meeting the prereqs), you need to make decisions matter and have lasting consequences. Once something happens, it happens, and we're not going back.+1. It's not worth it. Better to have a player roll a new PC.
+1. I would only consider retcons if they fixed a situation where a player clearly misunderstood, but the character would likely have gotten it, and even then, only relatively close to the event in question. Like, you could retcon a small portion of last weeks session, but not your entire adventuring career.