LURU1-4: Another fine adventure [spoilers]

30 posts / 0 new
Last post
As a general trend, I think, the LFR writers are getting better and better with each round of releases. Certainly LURU1-4 was the most enjoyable of the LURU regional mods I've played so far.

Show


I appreciate the choice the PCs had with how to address the High Hunt and the rescue. It's always nice to see your choices in how to approach a task matter, affect the adventure, and remove some of the feeling of railroading. More and more mods seem to have an element of this, and it's nearly always a good thing.

The only 'drawback' (tongue slightly in cheek, here) is that we ended up with over half an hour (real time) in-character roleplaying (RP? In an LFR mod? Shock horror) as the party members with differing agendas tried to come to an agreement, which caused the mod to run long. The cleric and invoker wanted to participate in the hunt on the wolves' terms to ensure the safety of the children, and the warforged fighter refused to take his armor off and kept trying to attack! In the end we negotiated a compromise, which was a nice option to have.

The atmosphere was excellent, the sections hurrying through the forest/taking the wilderness/making weapons etc. seemed appropriate, and the combat encounters were decent enough, although with our equipment we didn't find the challenge level that high. We did have two clerics, but not once in three encounter (with 6 players) were all four healing words used. The only time any PC was in remote danger of going down was when she was grabbed by the owlbear, but we managed to break the grab before its turn came round again.

I daresay it's a lot tougher without gear.

All in all, thumbs up.
As the author of the adventure I would like to thank you for the feedback and I am very glad you enjoyed it.

As simply a reader of these forums, its nice to see comments on an adventure that don't start out as a gripe.

Show

I am so sorry you had to deal with role-playing in an LFR mod [NOT!!!]

I am not overly surprised you found the mod somewhat easy considering the path you took. The adventure was primarily designed around the hunt being run without equipment. But some players, as you personally experienced, just can't stand being stripped of their equipment, so the 'with equipment' option was included. With 3 possible paths for the adventure, having all paths perfectly balanced was a near impossible feat. Call it the price of having choices that matter.

But again, thank you for the comments and I am glad you enjoyed the adventure.
Writing Director - Returned Abeir
I also got to play this the other day and I also enjoyed the fact we had options. Our party were conflicted.

Spoilers
As a priest of Tempus my Warforged was more than willing to agree to the terms once he had established through high insight rolls that the lycanthropes would stick to their terms. My Warforged finds Oliff to be an annoying little brat so he wasn't particularly concerned over the fact the lycanthropes used him as bait. The fact the lycanthropes didn't give a damn about the kids and were willing to let them go free offset the dishonorable way in which they lured our party.

Another player was of course less concerned and the other two players wanted to hide our gear before agreeing to the terms (which I was very adamant against doing. There'd be no honour that way ;)).

It was an interesting position to find my priest of Tempus in and so I quite enjoyed the module. I did suggest we fortify the cave with the Owlbear so we had the fight after the Owlbear outside the cave. I don't know if that was intended, but regardless our DM certainly reacted well when the situation arose
I ran this module the other day, and found it to be quite refreshing as far as LFR mods thus far have gone for the following reasons:

Show


1. It was 45 pages long, some hate that sort of thing, I think it demonstrates a willingness to make the module as long as is REQUIRED - rather then an arbitrary number of pages.

2. There were clear options, and a 'sandbox' feel if DMed right, a nice contrast when juxtaposed with all the frustratingly railroad modules out there.

3. The monsters weren't designed to annoy, they were designed to damage - this makes them much more enjoyable then say, insubstantial weakening monsters that do minimal damage (Read - take fights forever)

4. Given the oppurtunity, the whole honor thing is a refreshing take on monsters who randomly want to attack you.

-> My only complaint is that the premise of the module, i.e: WHY the PCs take part in the hunt could have been a bit better, but I understand that these things are often handed down from on high, so well done there in retaining options in a clear railroad situation.

I played in this two weeks ago and had a blast. The setup was great and stuck with me longer than most mods. Good stuff, good fun!
Show
I am not overly surprised you found the mod somewhat easy considering the path you took. The adventure was primarily designed around the hunt being run without equipment. But some players, as you personally experienced, just can't stand being stripped of their equipment, so the 'with equipment' option was included. With 3 possible paths for the adventure, having all paths perfectly balanced was a near impossible feat. Call it the price of having choices that matter.

Show
The problem isn't so much having choices that matter, it's that playing along is the wrong choice.

If the PCs refuse to give up their items, they face easier combats. More importantly, there is zero payoff for playing along with what the author wants.

Basically, in an IC-sense, it makes perfect sense for the PCs to argue to keep their equipment. In a metagame sense, if the players ignore what makes IC-sense to go along with what they believe the author wants, it turns out they handicapped themselves for nothing--they essentially just voluntarily chose to face tougher combats for no reason at all.

In a metagame sense, adventures like this are saying to players, "Trust me. I know I'm asking you to do something detrimental to your PC (fight naked, give up a magic item, sacrifice yourself), but the author will either make it so that you're not really disadvantaged, or make it up to you in the long run." ...neither of which turns out to be true here.

That doesn't strike me as the lesson you were trying to teach, since the end result is that players are going to be even less likely to play along next time such a situation comes along.

I would have expected one of the magic item bundles to only be available to those who accepted the challenge of leaving their equipment behind. It surprised me considerably that the Mark of the Beast story award was not limited to groups that had accepted that challenge.

Bizarrely, the adventure does have one magic item only available to certain PCs, but it's those who have a story award for succeeding on a skill challenge back in LURU1-2.

Having the choices perfectly balanced is a bit of a straw man. A L7-10 PC is likely (if not expected) to have at the very least a vanilla +2 weapon/armor/amulet; most will have the Expertise feat for their chosen weapon/implement (and/or be using a +3 proficiency bonus weapon). A PC without his usual equipment is thus likely to be at -3 attack, -2 damage, -2 defenses and without all of the options magical equipment gives.

As such, even the most superficial of examinations should indicate that modifying the creatures' attacks/defenses by -1 (as a number of creatures are so modified) does not make up for the loss of equipment.

As written, this adventure simply begins with a very simple skill challenge (Diplomacy DC 20, 1 success before 1 failure) that if you fail, increases the effective difficulty of the entire adventure by 1-2 levels without any reward.

Personally, when running the adventure, I will probably not give the PCs the option (since I think Track 1 is more fun) but will softball the adventure (give the illusion of danger but surreptitiously pull all punches so that there's no actual chance of death or failure) as I would find it unfair to kill a PC for not being up to a challenge I artificially increased.

For those just running the adventure as written, with it up to the PCs whether they succeed or fail, live or die (which should be the expected mode for campaign play), playing along with what the author wants is equivalent to deliberately failing a skill challenge for no real reason, and the PCs are punished accordingly.
Show
The problem isn't so much having choices that matter, it's that playing along is the wrong choice.

If the PCs refuse to give up their items, they face easier combats. More importantly, there is zero payoff for playing along with what the author wants.

I ran this for my home group. Our payoff was more fun, more challenge, and a "unique" LFR adventure mechanic. For us, that was a huge positive payoff!

Basically, in an IC-sense, it makes perfect sense for the PCs to argue to keep their equipment. In a metagame sense, if the players ignore what makes IC-sense to go along with what they believe the author wants, it turns out they handicapped themselves for nothing--they essentially just voluntarily chose to face tougher combats for no reason at all.

Having read and judged the mod, I disagree with your assessment. It is very clear that characters arguing to keep their equipment shouldn't work. I think the author did an excellent job highlighting that the intent/balance of the mod is to run without equipment, and EMPHASIZING that there are some players who would not find this type of adventure fun. Modifications provided for their benefit. (Bonus points to the author for recognizing this and providing an appropriate alternative.)

That doesn't strike me as the lesson you were trying to teach, since the end result is that players are going to be even less likely to play along next time such a situation comes along.

I didn't get the feeling that there was a lesson to be taught here at all . . .


As written, this adventure simply begins with a very simple skill challenge (Diplomacy DC 20, 1 success before 1 failure) that if you fail, increases the effective difficulty of the entire adventure by 1-2 levels without any reward.

This is not how I read the mod as written. I read it as, "If a player is not going to have fun playing without their equipment, then here is a very simple skill challenge for that play-style. However, I did NOT think this was the intent of the mod."


Overall, my group found this mod to be an innovative, unique, and very fun LFR adventure. Kudos to the author for doing something different, while providing an alternative for all play-styles.

Racing to the cabin to grab implements and weapons during the final fight made that one of the most memorable encounters of LFR for our group.

Dan Anderson @EpicUthrac
Total Confusion www.totalcon.com
LFR Calimshan Writing Director
LFR Epic Writing Director

LFR Myth Drannor Writing Director

Show
Having read and judged the mod, I disagree with your assessment. It is very clear that characters arguing to keep their equipment shouldn't work.

Show
Er, page 9 of the adventure:

"Track 3: It is also possible for the PCs to attempt to negotiate with One Fang to take the children’s place but allow the PCs to keep their equipment. To do this requires a successful DC 20 Diplomacy or Intimidate check to convince them it is more challenging to face a fully equipped prey and thus a greater honor to Malar."

(The part you're referring to is two paragraphs down, about ignoring a failure at this check if the players are whining too much.)

I agree with you that playing without your equipment makes this adventure more fun. However, keeping your equipment is trivial enough (a group that can't pull off a single DC 20 Diplomacy/Intimidate roll has no business playing a L7-10 adventure), that the group basically has to deliberately choose that way, despite that being difficult to justify in-character.

If the author's desire was that this option not be taken, my preference would have been to either see the option not be given, or have the PCs be aware that there's some tradeoff (they lose out on rewards or the combats are tougher) that they might not want to make.
I didn't get the feeling that there was a lesson to be taught here at all...

Every adventure teaches a lesson.

If you want to know what kind of player and what type of PC the campaign encourages, you don't look at what the campaign guidelines say, you look at what the campaign actually rewards.

Many adventures simply teach the lesson that combat capability is rewarded, but consider, for example, Barrow of the Ogre King, which has one combat whose entire point is "Hey, sometimes you're better off if you talk first instead of immediately attacking."

The key is to teach the right lessons, because players learn quickly--don't, for example, have an adventure where the PCs miss out on gold if they don't haggle over what the adventure hook is offering, unless you want them to do that on every single adventure from then on; if trusting an NPC gets the characters stabbed in the back, don't be surprised if the players are less trusting next time.

One of the most common lessons that many RPGA adventures teach is to go along with the flow of the adventure, even if it doesn't make much sense or requires your character to do things not particularly in-character. As such, you want to be careful about adventures in which PCs can have an easier challenge with the same rewards by choosing their natural inclination over what the author is signposting he would prefer, as that's not a lesson you want to teach.
Show


The key is to teach the right lessons, because players learn quickly--don't, for example, have an adventure where the PCs miss out on gold if they don't haggle over what the adventure hook is offering, unless you want them to do that on every single adventure from then on; if trusting an NPC gets the characters stabbed in the back, don't be surprised if the players are less trusting next time.

That lesson's already been blasted into everyone's head ... too late. Someone was remarking basically on the "cry wolf" situation we've already had. Our PCs are going to get into serious trouble some day by treating every NPC warily, even distrustingly.

One of the most common lessons that many RPGA adventures teach is to go along with the flow of the adventure, even if it doesn't make much sense or requires your character to do things not particularly in-character. As such, you want to be careful about adventures in which PCs can have an easier challenge with the same rewards by choosing their natural inclination over what the author is signposting he would prefer, as that's not a lesson you want to teach.

I think that if I understand the spoilers correctly, the encounter could have been stepped up for an equipped party versus unequipped and not lost a great deal of flavor. While it might have been more work to write/design two sets of stat blocks (oh noes, shades of LG loom, forfend forfend!), it could have been done and with a good IC reason too. I doubt very much that it would have killed the story or the writers.

On the other hand, what would the lesson be to those that do go with the author's intent and give up their weapons? And would it be a better or worse lesson to teach?
Our PCs are going to get into serious trouble some day by treating every NPC warily, even distrustingly.

And then right after that they will get into more trouble for being too trusting.

One thing I would love to see is more guidance in the modules in regard to Insight DCs/results. A little one inch box that listed DCs and results for each NPC would add little if anything to the length of the adventure. Even when I have thoroughly read the modules I find myself screwing up on insight checks as I lose track of which NPC knows what and when or their probable DCs and bluff and such.
This little signature is my official and insignificant protest to the (not so new now) community redesign. The layout is lousy. The colour scheme burns the eyes. The wiki is a crippled monstrosity. So many posters have abandoned this site that some major forums are going days without posts. The 4e General Discussion board regularly has posts on the front page from two or even three days ago. This is pathetic. Since I have to assume Wizards has a vested interest in an active community I wish someone in charge would fix this mess.
Show

The intent of the adventure is, as stated, to play it without equipment. The option was put in for players who do not like that style of play and the relatively easy DC on the Diplomacy check was to accommodate that. Essentially, though, the DM should evaluate their players and determine which path they would prefer/have the most fun with and try to steer the players in that direction.

If the PCs take on the hunt with their equipment, they face the monsters at the full XP value they should face for their tier. If they take on the hunt without equipment, they face XP value creatures one tier lower.

But there is another difference that seems to have been overlooked. If the PCs agree to take on the hunt without equipment, the hostages will be released whether the PCs succeed or not. If they take on the hunt with equipment, the PCs must actually rescue the hostages from the cabin. I would have thought the increased safety of the children would have been sufficient reason to make the without equipment choice more attractive.
Writing Director - Returned Abeir
Show

The intent of the adventure is, as stated, to play it without equipment.

Show
There are two main problems with this idea. The first is the time and effort needed to figure out your adjusted stats in the middle of the mod. The second is the disproportionate effect this on different characters. A Fighter or Paladin without their weapons or armor is affected a lot more than a wizard or warlock wothout their implement. AC 14 or 15 = monsters hit on a 2. It's almost as bad for a rogue, as every one of their powers require a specific weapon from a short list (Their AC is still okay, or at least better than the fighter's).

Of course, there are ways to make up for the lack of equipment within the module, but the players should not be expecting that. The ability to find "improvised weapons" that don't actually use the improvised weapon rules is especially annoying to me. As a player I'd expect that most of what we find is equal to the rules listed for improvised weapons in the PHB.


Show
But there is another difference that seems to have been overlooked. If the PCs agree to take on the hunt without equipment, the hostages will be released whether the PCs succeed or not.

Show
The problem with this is the source of the promise. Would the PCs/players really take a bunch of Malar worshipping were-creatures at their word?
The key is to teach the right lessons, because players learn quickly--don't, for example, have an adventure where the PCs miss out on gold if they don't haggle over what the adventure hook is offering, unless you want them to do that on every single adventure from then on;

Too late. There's already been at least one module where this is the case.
There are two main problems with this idea. The first is the time and effort needed to figure out your adjusted stats in the middle of the mod. The second is the disproportionate effect this on different characters. A Fighter or Paladin without their weapons or armor is affected a lot more than a wizard or warlock wothout their implement. AC 14 or 15 = monsters hit on a 2. It's almost as bad for a rogue, as every one of their powers require a specific weapon from a short list (Their AC is still okay, or at least better than the fighter's).

Of course, there are ways to make up for the lack of equipment within the module, but the players should not be expecting that. The ability to find "improvised weapons" that don't actually use the improvised weapon rules is especially annoying to me. As a player I'd expect that most of what we find is equal to the rules listed for improvised weapons in the PHB.

Not having seen the making improvised weapons rules in the mod (since our characters did the "with equipment" option), I can't comment on whether or not losing your equipment is only worth one tier of challenge reduction. However, I certainly concur in my expectations. When I heard the "no equipment" requirement, I expected that our characters would be breaking off tree branches and maybe sharpening one end with a concealed knife or a sharp rock. At best, I figured I'd be able to call it an improvised spear and apply my weapon expertise and eladrin soldier bonuses but with improvised weapon proficiency and damage. I expected that wizards who used wands or staves would be in luck (snap off a small or a large branch and you're set with a non-magical implement that allows wand of accuracy or staff of defense), but orb wizards might be unable to use their mastery ability unless they could find a reasonably round rock. Tome wizards, of course, would be SOL). I also expected that heavy armor using characters would be completely boned.

The problem with this is the source of the promise. Would the PCs/players really take a bunch of Malar worshipping were-creatures at their word?

I certainly wasn't about to take them at their word. When I played the mod, it was pretty obvious that mod-logic expected you to take the malarites at their word. But people who will kidnap children and threaten to murder them in cold blood (even at the cost of ignoring experienced warriors who are actually attacking them at the time and then, even if they win, being left with no prey at all for the hunt) are not exactly the kind of people to inspire confidence in their honesty.
Show
I certainly wasn't about to take them at their word. When I played the mod, it was pretty obvious that mod-logic expected you to take the malarites at their word. But people who will kidnap children and threaten to murder them in cold blood (even at the cost of ignoring experienced warriors who are actually attacking them at the time and then, even if they win, being left with no prey at all for the hunt) are not exactly the kind of people to inspire confidence in their honesty.

Show

This is an example where the DM needs to understand the mod, and provide characters with appropriate clues to come to a reasonable conclusion.

At my table, a simple insight coupled with religion check (when the players asked me if they thought they could trust the word of these children-kidnapping-murderers) gained the response: "You can sense that this tribe values The Hunt above all else and would not dishonor themselves before Malor by breaking this agreement."

So sure, there's lots of reasons the players can come up with not to go along, but the DM can use a couple skill checks to help PCs determine that agreeing to the terms is a correct* course of action.

*In this case, "correct" means "I'm not setting you up to get screwed later."

Dan Anderson @EpicUthrac
Total Confusion www.totalcon.com
LFR Calimshan Writing Director
LFR Epic Writing Director

LFR Myth Drannor Writing Director

Show
The first is the time and effort needed to figure out your adjusted stats in the middle of the mod.

With 4e, our group found this pretty quick and effortless.

The second is the disproportionate effect this on different characters. A Fighter or Paladin without their weapons or armor is affected a lot more than a wizard or warlock wothout their implement. AC 14 or 15 = monsters hit on a 2. It's almost as bad for a rogue, as every one of their powers require a specific weapon from a short list (Their AC is still okay, or at least better than the fighter's).

A pile of equipment is found in Encounter 7, which either happens before the first combat (one track) or after only one combat. If the combat happens first, then monsters-hit-on-2 makes sense - since they are attacking prey! The characters are even given an "out" by "acting like prey" and fleeing over the cliff. ;)

Approaching this particular mod as "PCs should have access to all equipment, abilities, and have the upper hand all the time" is a disservice to the mod. There are lots of dungeon-crawl mods already out there that do this. What made this mod a unique experience for our group was that, as prey, the PCs really felt like they were the hunted - instead of the usual hunters!

As written, I felt that the mod had just the right balance of putting PCs at enough of a disadvantage as to feel like prey, then provide them with the tools to gain the upper hand by the end of the mod.





Overall, I felt the author did a great job communicating his vision of the story, and provided me - as a judge - a surplus of support to adapt the mod to be enjoyable by different play styles.

Show
I really felt that the author could have chose to do a half-job and written the mod as he wanted it played, leaving it to DME to provide equipment and workarounds if the players were not enjoying adventuring in their skivvies. ;) I viewed all of the extra support and alternate encounter builds as DME to make the mod playable - not equal - to the experience the author envisioned.

Heck, the author could have easily written Track 1 only, and just added the sentence "If the PCs insist on keeping their equipment, they will find this adventure very easy."

Dan Anderson @EpicUthrac
Total Confusion www.totalcon.com
LFR Calimshan Writing Director
LFR Epic Writing Director

LFR Myth Drannor Writing Director

Show
More importantly, there is zero payoff for playing along with what the author wants.

As a Cleric of Tempus I say this is rubbish!
Show
I quite enjoyed the chance for ritualistic honourable combat. I also may have been the only reason our group went along with it. I had to stop a couple of players from charging a few times.


Show
If the PCs agree to take on the hunt without equipment, the hostages will be released whether the PCs succeed or not. If they take on the hunt with equipment, the PCs must actually rescue the hostages from the cabin. I would have thought the increased safety of the children would have been sufficient reason to make the without equipment choice more attractive.

It was certainly enough for me. That coupled with my insight in an attempt to beat any bluffs convinced me to agree (admittedly I rolled pretty damn high on my insight. Although regardless of whether I roll a 20 or a 1, I always believe my insight roll).

Show
At my table, a simple insight coupled with religion check (when the players asked me if they thought they could trust the word of these children-kidnapping-murderers) gained the response: "You can sense that this tribe values The Hunt above all else and would not dishonor themselves before Malor by breaking this agreement."

Wait, what? If I say "I'm rolling this insight to see if they're lying" I get told if they're lying or not. Isn't that stock 4th ed?
Dear everybody,

These spoiler tags have become ridiculous. The thread has a spoiler warning in the title and anyone who has read this far has nothing left to be spoiled. It is impossible of actually follow what is being said.

Sincerely,
Someone trying to read the thread
This little signature is my official and insignificant protest to the (not so new now) community redesign. The layout is lousy. The colour scheme burns the eyes. The wiki is a crippled monstrosity. So many posters have abandoned this site that some major forums are going days without posts. The 4e General Discussion board regularly has posts on the front page from two or even three days ago. This is pathetic. Since I have to assume Wizards has a vested interest in an active community I wish someone in charge would fix this mess.
Fair enough.
But there is another difference that seems to have been overlooked. If the PCs agree to take on the hunt without equipment, the hostages will be released whether the PCs succeed or not. If they take on the hunt with equipment, the PCs must actually rescue the hostages from the cabin. I would have thought the increased safety of the children would have been sufficient reason to make the without equipment choice more attractive.

Rather, the evil cultists say the hostages will be released whether the PCs succeed or not.

The Malarites in question tore helpless servants limb-from-limb for no apparent reason, and took the children to use in a blood rite (which are apparently not uncommon for this group), not just some symbolic ritual. They've admitted entering into negotiations in bad faith for the sole purpose of luring adventurers.

Malarites aren't exactly known as hardcore lawful trustworthy sorts, and this group isn't really showing themselves to be unique in that matter. In a world where "You think they're telling the truth" may just mean "You can't beat their Bluff check", handing over all of your magic items to evil cultists you will almost certainly be eventually fighting to the death is a big leap of faith.

It would be one thing if the Malarites were willing to let the children go right then and there, but they're not. Giving up equipment means that you're trusting that the Malarites aren't planning on just holding on to the kids to use in some other ritual, and that they won't use or dispose of your equipment.

I think I'd DME this into the Malarites agreeing to release the children immediately, in exchange for the PCs entering into a magically binding geas to participate (perhaps with them making a reciprocal oath that your equipment will be left in the cabin).

As written, this is a huge "trust the module author" point that practically requires the DM to step out of game and say, "Trust me, guys, you won't get screwed over by playing along".
If the PCs take on the hunt with their equipment, they face the monsters at the full XP value they should face for their tier. If they take on the hunt without equipment, they face XP value creatures one tier lower.

Kind of. While high-tier creatures are dropped 2 levels, low-tier creatures are dropped only 1.

It's tough to make any claim that this balances things, however. While creature's attacks and defenses might drop by 1 at low-tier, the PC's AC will drop by at least 4 (defenders might drop by 8 or 12) and their attack will drop by 3+.

The fact that groups aren't being TPKed in the naked route says more about the weakness of standard-level combats (or how much DMs softball combats) than it does about the combats being balanced.

Don't get me wrong. I like the uniqueness of this adventure and the creativity that went into it (and indeed, have enjoyed this author's other adventures as well).

My quibble is more about the hook to get the PCs to play the adventure properly (it needs to be signposted more prominently that one route is likely to be a lot less fun, which raises the question about why an un-fun route is even included) and the results of playing the adventure (the naked route is sufficiently more challenging that it deserves at least a story award of its own, far more than 90% of the other story awards out there).
It's tough to make any claim that this balances things, however.

Agreed. It's tough to make any claim about the balance of this adventure outside of how it has played out. As far as I am aware, this is the first 4E adventure ever to have the PCs play without their equipment. There is nothing in the 4E DMG giving advise on this and no 4E articles that cover this subject. So the only thing I had to go on was my pre-4E experience on this sort of thing and the 4E designers' statement that 4E was less about equipment, i.e. it was nothing but educated guesswork and playtest feedback. So I am not going to claim any sort of perfect balance here. I am just glad it seems to have turned out as well as it has.
Writing Director - Returned Abeir
Agreed. It's tough to make any claim about the balance of this adventure outside of how it has played out. As far as I am aware, this is the first 4E adventure ever to have the PCs play without their equipment. There is nothing in the 4E DMG giving advise on this and no 4E articles that cover this subject. So the only thing I had to go on was my pre-4E experience on this sort of thing and the 4E designers' statement that 4E was less about equipment, i.e. it was nothing but educated guesswork and playtest feedback. So I am not going to claim any sort of perfect balance here. I am just glad it seems to have turned out as well as it has.

Ummm. Wasn't their claim that it was less about the MAGICAL equipment?

And, even then, there is at least one class available for whom it may make no difference, except for maybe 2-3 points of AC, to give up all their equipment. A Monk with magical hands....
These spoiler tags have become ridiculous.

Unfortunately I've been told in the past that they're mandatory. Having spoilers in the thread title simply isn't enough. So until that policy is changed, we're stuck with them.
I didn't enjoy it the one time I played it.

We kept our items and found the first 2 fights trivial (although they were much harder then they looked and we spend unnecessary resources mitigating damage by killing the monsters faster.

We only had 4 players and the last fight TPKed us. Since the # of monsters is incredibly high (The equivalent of 8 monsters for 5 players or 7 monsters for 4 players) the scaling was poor making the encounter especially easy for large parties and especially hard for small parties.

There was also weird things going along with hustling combined with a pointless hermit to trick you into talking to him to lose time on the pursuers.

I felt the mod was trying to do some interesting stuff, and while the multiple paths were kinda neat you really just encountered the same unrelated wilderness encounters in a different arbitrary order based on fairly arbitrary decisions.

Then again I've come to the conclusion that 90% of LFR adventures is the Judge running the table with the module accounting for only the other 10%.
The scaling was a little off, true. That's pretty much inevitable if the number of monsters doesn't equal the number of players, unless you end up with some very complex shenanigans.

With regard to 'playing along', our DM had us make insight and religion checks and we were confident that the Malarites would keep their word.

The general 'ease' of combat should mean that the PCs can manage without gear, (although it becomes harder and harder as they go up levels e.g.a 30th level PC could be -12 to hit without his +6 magic sword). However, I have observed that many combats, even ones that the players considered hard, are not actually that bad in terms of how likely it was for the party to be killed.

Spoiler for Moon1-4
Show
I ran this the other night, and as suggested in the module, ran encounter 4 into encounter 3 without a short rest. That's a level 11 followed by a level 12 fight with no short rest. The 'wave' nature means that it's not quite level 15 challenge, but it's not far off. The PCs cruised the first part, partly because although there's a lot of monsters, several of them are pretty low level (level 6 wererats had +11 to hit vs AC; a level 10 defender can easily achieve AC30 and be virtually unhittable, and even then they only do 2d6+6 damage with CA - they really presented very little threat) then when the second came around started blowing dailies, since they were out of encounter powers. I floored a couple of PCs, but they were healed immediately, and no-one was even bloodied by the end.

The players agreed it made for a good challenge.


I just put this in by way of example that well-prepared PCs, especially at level 7+, are actually capable of dealing with more than you might think.
I throughly enjoyed this mod if the party takes any other path than the one the mod suggests it may indeed be easier. But it just proves either the party has no honor and is no different than the Lycanthropes they seek to kill or the party reinforces the Lycan belief that humans deserve to be hunted and killed. As a Paladin my charactor chooses death before dishonor any day.
Show
Going along with the mod not only presents a more interesting challenge but being considered honored amongst The Black Blood IS FREAKIN SWEET who the hell wouldn't want Lycanthropes coming to back up the party in a fight. Just listen to how awesome it is to proclaim your charactor has THE MARK OF THE BEAST seriously it just doesn't get any cooler than that
I throughly enjoyed this mod if the party takes any other path than the one the mod suggests it may indeed be easier. But it just proves either the party has no honor and is no different than the Lycanthropes they seek to kill or the party reinforces the Lycan belief that humans deserve to be hunted and killed. As a Paladin my charactor chooses death before dishonor any day.
Show
Going along with the mod not only presents a more interesting challenge but being considered honored amongst The Black Blood IS FREAKIN SWEET who the hell wouldn't want Lycanthropes coming to back up the party in a fight. Just listen to how awesome it is to proclaim your charactor has THE MARK OF THE BEAST seriously it just doesn't get any cooler than that

I agree that the way that we did it was probably the more difficult path, but the only one that my character could even consider. Honor is vital.

Show
I chose the opposite story award because I felt that honor was satisfied by playing by their rules, i have no desire to associate myself with them in any way.


Having meaningful options during the mod makes the whole experience better. This was one of the more enjoyable mods I have played.

P.S. Vamroc, i am glad that you enjoyed the mod after driving that far to play it.
I played this mod this weekend and loved it!  Great fun was had by all.

------------ http://twitter.com/#!/combatadvantage

Just to note, since this is a three-year-old thread which has been "resurrected"...

This forum is a "legacy forum", a leftover from the days before WotC restructured their message boards (about two years ago), and created a dedicated group (and message board) for LFR.   This legacy forum is still open for new posts (as you can see), but gets extremely little traffic. 

The official, dedicated message board for LFR can be found elsewhere here on the WotC boards:
community.wizards.com/lfr/go/forum/viewb...

Note that you may need to apply for membership in the LFR group in order to post on those boards.

The new boards are administered by the LFR staff, and many of the Global Admins and regional admins post there regularly (and, of course, it gets much more traffic, in general, than these boards do).

As the VCL for the RPGA, I come back to this board every few days, to see if there's a new post here, and direct interested parties to the new boards. Smile
"Of course [Richard] has a knife. He always has a knife. We all have knives. It's 1183, and we're barbarians!" - Eleanor of Aquitaine, "The Lion in Winter"
I googled and replied without noticing.  Opps!   My bad kenobi65!  thanks!

------------ http://twitter.com/#!/combatadvantage

You're very welcome! Smile
"Of course [Richard] has a knife. He always has a knife. We all have knives. It's 1183, and we're barbarians!" - Eleanor of Aquitaine, "The Lion in Winter"