|
3 years ago ::
Feb 13, 2010 - 11:39AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Aug 21, 2007
|
This thread is intended for consolidated feedback, criticisms, and tips (for DMs) for WATE2-1 as well as questions about WATE2-1. The thread will contain spoilers but usage of spoiler blocks for significant spoilers is appreciated.
Keith Hoffman
LFR Writing Director for Waterdeep
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 03, 2010 - 11:47AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
I'm going to be running WATE2-1 this weekend and have a question about the intended mechanics for one of the combat encounters. Here there be spoilers! Spoiler:
Show
It's the Behir Bolter Whelp. The Whelp has Lightning Reflexes just like the Behir does. My understanding of this is that the BBW (oy) acts at static initiative points during the round (25,15,5), and that the purpose of its initiative bonus is only for tie-breaking purposes. Additionally, it gets only 1 standard action per stat initiative point. This all fits with my undestanding on how the normal Behir works. One of the attacks the BBW has requires a minor action. If the BBW gets only standard actions, then it would simply downgrade one of its standard actions to a minor. My question is, why have a power that requires a minor action at all with this structure? Am I missing something, or is this simply an oversight?
Lightning Reflexes
The behir bolter whelp acts three times in a round, on initiative counts 20, 15, and 5. It cannot delay or ready actions. On each turn, it has a standard action instead of the normal allotment of actions. It can use one immediate action between each pair of turns.
Knockdown Rush (minor, recharge    )
The behir bolter whelp charges and makes the following attack; +16 vs AC; 1d12+6 damage, and the target is knocked prone.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 03, 2010 - 9:49PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
And one other question regarding the same encounter: Spoiler:
Show
The behirs are written as incommunicative, giving them the appearance of insensate beasts. Behirs usually speak Draconic and Common, so I'm curious if the encounter was intentionally written to have them be incommunicative, or was guidance regarding diplomacy/interaction accidentally left out?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 04, 2010 - 8:40AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2007
|
I'm going to be running WATE2-1 this weekend and have a question about the intended mechanics for one of the combat encounters.
Here there be spoilers!
Spoiler:
Show
This all fits with my undestanding on how the normal Behir works. One of the attacks the BBW has requires a minor action. If the BBW gets only standard actions, then it would simply downgrade one of its standard actions to a minor. My question is, why have a power that requires a minor action at all with this structure? Am I missing something, or is this simply an oversight?
Answer:
Spoiler:
Show
I am not sure why the designers did that. If an attack or condition limits the type of action the critter can do having one of its attacks as a minor might be helpful. [/block]
Claire
LFR Co-Writing Director for Waterdeep
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 04, 2010 - 8:56AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2007
|
And one other question regarding the same encounter:
Spoiler:
Show
The behirs are written as incommunicative, giving them the appearance of insensate beasts. Behirs usually speak Draconic and Common, so I'm curious if the encounter was intentionally written to have them be incommunicative, or was guidance regarding diplomacy/interaction accidentally left out?
Answer:
Spoiler:
Show
In this case they are hungry enough to take on the PCs. By nature they are voracious so while you could possiblly get them to leave this farm alone, they won't leave the area. The mandate from the Duke requires you to solve the problem which in this case means killing the critters. Claire
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 04, 2010 - 9:02AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
I'm going to be running WATE2-1 this weekend and have a question about the intended mechanics for one of the combat encounters.
Here there be spoilers!
Spoiler:
Show
This all fits with my undestanding on how the normal Behir works. One of the attacks the BBW has requires a minor action. If the BBW gets only standard actions, then it would simply downgrade one of its standard actions to a minor. My question is, why have a power that requires a minor action at all with this structure? Am I missing something, or is this simply an oversight?
Answer:
Spoiler:
Show
I am not sure why the designers did that. If an attack or condition limits the type of action the critter can do having one of its attacks as a minor might be helpful. [/block]
Claire
LFR Co-Writing Director for Waterdeep
That's a good point, although I can't think of an effect that fits the bill off the top of my head. I'll keep that in mind as I run the mod.
Thanks for the ideas!
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 18, 2010 - 12:53PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
One thing I failed to notice while prepping to run this mod, but which was obvious once I tried actually running the second combat encounter was an error in a stat block for the ... Spoiler:
Show
... Juvenile Behir Thunderlance. The following power is listed as a "Area Blast 1 within 10". As far as I know there's no such thing. The immediation assumption I made was that this was simply a typo, and it was supposed to be "Area Burst 1 with 10". However, the hit effects "Damage to the target, with all creatures adjacent to the target" make it sound as it was intended to be a simple ranged attack with splash damage. It *could* be a ranged burst where each target in the burst then damages each creature next to it, causing overlapping splash damage, but this seems unlikely.
R Lightning Breath (standard; recharge 3 4 5 6) ✦ Lightning
Area blast 1 within 10; +13 vs. Reflex; 3d6 + 3 lightning damage, and all creatures adjacent to the target take 5 lightning damage.
Miss: half damage.
Some clarification/correction would be appreciated.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 19, 2010 - 4:23AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Aug 21, 2007
|
I suggest you contact Customer Service as the error(s) are not ours, but we agree there is an error. Spoiler:
Show
It was copied from the final version of Dungeon 159. Unfortunately I did not notice the inconsistencies and did not send an inquiry to R&D.
The author (of the Dungeon article) may have erred by showing this as a ranged attack instead of an area attack, and they definitely erred I think by saying "Area blast" instead of "Area burst". But you are quite right that they could be thinking of a ranged attack with splash damage to adjacent creatures.
EDIT: I talked to the author of WATE2-1; he was thinking of it as a simple ranged attack with splash damage to adjacent targets. Claire said when she ran it a playtest, it did not come up as no two PCs were that close to each other. After paging through the PHB, my unofficial opinion is the best interpretation is a simple ranged attack, with the splash damage to adjacent creatures. I don't know if we can prod customer service or R&D to looking at it, and changing the MC. They won't issue an errata for Dungeon so far as I know.
Keith
Keith Hoffman
LFR Writing Director for Waterdeep
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 20, 2010 - 8:00PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
I suggest you contact Customer Service as the error(s) are not ours, but we agree there is an error.
Spoiler:
Show
It was copied from the final version of Dungeon 159. Unfortunately I did not notice the inconsistencies and did not send an inquiry to R&D.
The author (of the Dungeon article) may have erred by showing this as a ranged attack instead of an area attack, and they definitely erred I think by saying "Area blast" instead of "Area burst". But you are quite right that they could be thinking of a ranged attack with splash damage to adjacent creatures.
EDIT: I talked to the author of WATE2-1; he was thinking of it as a simple ranged attack with splash damage to adjacent targets. Claire said when she ran it a playtest, it did not come up as no two PCs were that close to each other. After paging through the PHB, my unofficial opinion is the best interpretation is a simple ranged attack, with the splash damage to adjacent creatures. I don't know if we can prod customer service or R&D to looking at it, and changing the MC. They won't issue an errata for Dungeon so far as I know.
Keith
The CS reponse(s) I received were of the unhelpful, canned "we'll bring this up with the game developers" sort. I think your chat with the author of WATE2-1 is the most important to me (I don't care so much about the original SoW use), as I was concerned more with what the intention for WATE2-1 was. Thanks very much for looking into this, and I'll pass this along to the other DMs in my group.
-Scott
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 31, 2010 - 5:31AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
May 11, 2005
|
I recently played WATE2-1. I have not yet read the adventure.
My feeling with the adventure was that, while it as enjoyable, it felt a bit scattered. It was like many small adventures were stacked together. A few tasks felt like they were a bit mundane for seasoned adventurers (more appropriate for low heroic tier). In all, there was just too much going on, none of which was really connected, except by who gave out the tasks.
We spent a lot of time in the City of the Dead and working on the temple assignment. We had to skip the end combat and one City of the Dead task because we simply didn't have any time for it.
There was simply too much going on. I think you had enough base material for two or three adventures. It seems a mistake to combine everything together - both since it causes a problem with time, and because the tasks are unrelated, so PCs start to feel like messenger boys rather than adventurers. That works at level 1, but at level 7+, you normally prefer one bigger task over doing minor stuff all over town.
Now the tasks that we did do were fun.
The one fight we had went quite well, though we entirely forgot about the diseases due to time pressure. I also felt it maight have neen interesting if we had been able to avoid it (with a stealth or bluff skill challenge maybe) - I don't know if the adventure allowed for that.
We solved most of the other tasks quite quickly, and the roleplaying opportunities were great.
I am unsure how a song like 'The Burning of Narfell' will lift my PCs' rep, but it was fun telling the bard about it - it didn't feel like we 'earned' the song though.
As noted, in the end things had to be cut short. Last combat was skipped, Leaplow solved one tomb task on his own, and my PC enticed him to be her 'plus one' at the ball.
My advice in short:
For DMs/[players: do not play this at a convention. Play it when you have the opportunity to take your time, because you risk missing parts. The RP is an important part but can be time consuming.
For the author/editor: try to make take tasks like these stick together, so they feel less like chores (esp. at H3).
Gomez
|
|
|
