Or they make many copies of it... A la NWN. Which clearly had factories that churned out magical swords and sweatshops full of Elven maidens with permanent hunches from producing all those Cloak of Elvenkind +1s that one found during their adventure.
This brings me back around to an idea someone had earlier in the thread: a factory churning out magic weapons that turns out to be run by a bad guy, with children's souls being used to power the weapons.
Is it possible now to turn the plot of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom into a Points of Light-style adventure?
Open at the end of the party's last adventure, where their patron or whatever is throwing a big party for them having killed the tarrasque or whatever. Eladrin noblewoman hires them to protect her on her way to Wherever, tiefling street rat offers to guide them through the wilderness around town. They hook onto a halfling convoy that ditches them in the wilderness (mean little jerks), and it's a skill challenge to survive falling down the mountain.
They find the village--where did the stones go?--and it's off to the creepy palace on the hill. (Tiefling ruin?) People seem pretty normal, and there's a merchant selling magic items dirt cheap. Then, the secret passage opens up, and the truth is revealed: the bad guy is using the kids as slave labor to mine for some incredible, lost superweapon that the Dragonborn squirreled away because it wasn't honorable to, you know, nuke the world. Some kid finally passes out from being worked half to death? Get the high priest down there, extract his soul, and use it to make a new magic weapon that can be sold to keep the mining operation/palace running.
Mine cart chase, hearts pulled out, cheering kids, the Raider's March, etc. You can even cut out the Willie/Short Round characters if you want to.
tl;dr: Temple of Doom is a dungeon crawl in movie form. Kinda.
That has the exact same problem that Temple of Doom has though. The adventure that's hinted as just having happened and we're now just getting the ending off is much more interesting then the one that's put forward for everyone's entertainment for the next hour +.
I mean, getting some stones back to a village or taking down the goddamn Terrasque, giant monster wins every time.
In my campaign that I'm building, I intend to have a court case presented to the players.
they will essentially have a bad guy swept away by the town guard right before they kill him and then they'll have to ensure that justice is served by either working for the prosecution, or actually running the prosecution (once they find out that the town council has no intention of actually punishing the bad guy)
I want it to be equal parts sneaking around and gathering witnesses/casebuilding, and in-courtroom questioning and case presentation.
I'm trying to figure out how to work this into skill checks and not simply have it be a bunch of talking with me inventing their success or failure from thin air..
i know Cha is going to have a large influence on the results, but I'd also like to use the other stats as well.
Should i break it up into 2 skill challenges (outside courtroom / inside courtroom) or should i just set it up like an encounter and have each witness presented like a monster they have to deal with?
Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.
Archr5 on
0
Options
DVGNo. 1 Honor StudentNether Institute, Evil AcademyRegistered Userregular
edited July 2008
What's a good way to handle dialogue between NPCs? I'm going to be running a campaign based on an airship, and I thought it'd be cool to have the PCs occasionally overhear conversations among the crew with their passive perception (or active perception, if they wanted to, I guess). But it seems like it might be strange or confusing if I say more than one part by myself.
I was thinking I might write the lines and then give them to the players to act out as an aside. Any other ideas?
Use different voices for the characters or spell out clearly who is talking via narration:
Things like, "The captain, furious at the insinuation made from the navigator yells out, "Word to your mother!""
Yea, I like to use narration for things like that.
But when my players press an NPC a lot, I also roll back their conversation to the beginning, like a console game's dialog options. I don't know how serious your game is though.
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
In my campaign that I'm building, I intend to have a court case presented to the players.
they will essentially have a bad guy swept away by the town guard right before they kill him and then they'll have to ensure that justice is served by either working for the prosecution, or actually running the prosecution (once they find out that the town council has no intention of actually punishing the bad guy)
I want it to be equal parts sneaking around and gathering witnesses/casebuilding, and in-courtroom questioning and case presentation.
I'm trying to figure out how to work this into skill checks and not simply have it be a bunch of talking with me inventing their success or failure from thin air..
i know Cha is going to have a large influence on the results, but I'd also like to use the other stats as well.
Should i break it up into 2 skill challenges (outside courtroom / inside courtroom) or should i just set it up like an encounter and have each witness presented like a monster they have to deal with?
Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.
Yeah, they could be two different challenges. Maybe the 1st challenge (investigation) makes the second one easier or harder depending upon whether they succeed or fail. You could have more than just charisma-based skills in the investigation too. Wisdom-related skills to find clues and connect them together (Nature, Dungeoneering, Perception, Insight), Dexterity based skills to sneak around eavesdropping and stealing information (acrobatics, stealth, theivery), Intelligence-based skills to relate findings to fact (History, maybe Arcana). Maybe you need an Endurance check to win a drinking contest in order to get a piece of evidence from a local tough.
The second skill challenge (trial) determines whether the bad guy gets away with it or not... which will also factor in to where the adventure goes from there. Seems straightforwardly charisma-based, but the History skill could be used as a way to construct a good legal argument, perhaps a roguish character might employ some Thievery to confiscate a bit of the defense's evidence, maybe a bit of Insight to read what the judge or jury react to as the case moves along.
Heck, if they fail it maybe the villain has turned the tables and put them behind bars for being a pack of lawless vigilantes who are a menace to innocent people like himself.
ideally I'm thinking along your lines. the investigation phase has the potential to uncover that the town is being fed mildly psychoactive drugs (or "magic potion" whatever) that the Bad guy is using to influence them into making sure they think he is an innocent victim.
If they completely bomb out on the first phase then, as you said, the trial goes VERY badly and the town (which has now become the "mob") locks the whole party up, and they'll have to go through an escape encounter where, with the help of an NPC they aided earlier in the game, they escape the jail and proceed to fix the towns tainted food/water supply and bring the bad guy to justice...
i plan on giving them two very obvious "help me" NPC's and one "i'm not realy a bad guy" NPC to possibly help so either they'll have 1 2 or 3 NPC's helping them escape.
if they help no one then the escape becomes very difficult but still achievable with the proper tactics.
Heck, if they fail it maybe the villain has turned the tables and put them behind bars for being a pack of lawless vigilantes who are a menace to innocent people like himself.
Plus, you could set up an investigation as to why the town council is so reluctant to punish the villain that would work with a little modification whether the trial was a success or required a jail break. Corruption? Complicity? Compulsion? Cowardice? Canada?
There are several bad guys in a 3.5 adventure I'm converting to 4E who are humanoids with class levels: a half-elf monk/rogue, a human fighter, a human wizard, a bugbear ranger, and an aasimar cleric/fighter.
I've already made the half-elf monk/rogue with the monster creation rules. I took the ranger power Two-fanged Strike and renamed it as Twin Strike to simulate the monk's Flurry of Blows. Here's the statblock:
Should I make the remaining opponents with the monster creation rules, or am I supposed to use the NPC creation rules?
There are several bad guys in a 3.5 adventure I'm converting to 4E who are humanoids with class levels: a half-elf monk/rogue, a human fighter, a human wizard, a bugbear ranger, and an aasimar cleric/fighter.
I've already made the half-elf monk/rogue with the monster creation rules. I took the ranger power Two-fanged Strike and renamed it as Twin Strike to simulate the monk's Flurry of Blows. Here's the statblock:
Should I make the remaining opponents with the monster creation rules, or am I supposed to use the NPC creation rules?
Twin-Strike is the name of another Ranger power, it may cause confusion if you use that name.
Trying to convert straight from 3.5E to 4E is likely to be a huge headache, I'd recommend just using the monster creation rules to make something that captures the same feel.
There are several bad guys in a 3.5 adventure I'm converting to 4E who are humanoids with class levels: a half-elf monk/rogue, a human fighter, a human wizard, a bugbear ranger, and an aasimar cleric/fighter.
I've already made the half-elf monk/rogue with the monster creation rules. I took the ranger power Two-fanged Strike and renamed it as Twin Strike to simulate the monk's Flurry of Blows. Here's the statblock:
Should I make the remaining opponents with the monster creation rules, or am I supposed to use the NPC creation rules?
Twin-Strike is the name of another Ranger power, it may cause confusion if you use that name.
Trying to convert straight from 3.5E to 4E is likely to be a huge headache, I'd recommend just using the monster creation rules to make something that captures the same feel.
Thanks for the head's up on the power name: I changed the original so that it now reads "Twin Viper Fist".
As for the human fighter and wizard, I was going to use the Level 3 Human Guard and the Level 4 Human Mage to represent them. That is, until I discovered that the two of them together wouldn't even be a Level One encounter! I guess I'll just advance them until it becomes a Level 3 encounter.
There are several bad guys in a 3.5 adventure I'm converting to 4E who are humanoids with class levels: a half-elf monk/rogue, a human fighter, a human wizard, a bugbear ranger, and an aasimar cleric/fighter.
Just my two cents, but I think you're making it more complicated than it needs to be.
The above are basically a skirmishers, a brute, a controller, artillery and a leader. Unless the bugbear is using melee weapons, which would make him a skirmisher or brute instead of artillery. If it were me, I'd just do it that way so as not to fret over how balanced my conversions may or may not be.
There are several bad guys in a 3.5 adventure I'm converting to 4E who are humanoids with class levels: a half-elf monk/rogue, a human fighter, a human wizard, a bugbear ranger, and an aasimar cleric/fighter.
Just my two cents, but I think you're making it more complicated than it needs to be.
The above are basically a skirmishers, a brute, a controller, artillery and a leader. Unless the bugbear is using melee weapons, which would make him a skirmisher or brute instead of artillery. If it were me, I'd just do it that way so as not to fret over how balanced my conversions may or may not be.
Is the half-elf skirmisher I made and posted at the bottom of the last page not along the lines of what you are saying I should do?
For the human fighter, I took the Human Guard MM entry and added the Bodyguard Template. I'm planning to pair him with the human wizard for a Level 3 encounter. How's it look?
Does the Bodyguard not get any encounter abilities? Most elites have a recharge+encounter, or 2 recharge. (Not have my books on me atm)
If they do, I didn't notice it.
Here's the statblock for the spellcaster that will accompany him in battle. I made her by adding the Wizard Class Template to the Human Mage from the MM.
Searching through the Wizard class powers to choose what to give her gave me a great RP idea: The bodyguard has fallen for the schoolmage, and fights to defend her. When the fight goes badly, she uses dimension door to teleport to an adjacent room and escape without a single thought for her protecter, leaving him behind and pissed off.
Searching through the Wizard class powers to choose what to give her gave me a great RP idea: The bodyguard has fallen for the schoolmage, and fights to defend her. When the fight goes badly, she uses dimension door to teleport to an adjacent room and escape without a single thought for her protecter, leaving him behind and pissed off.
Please RP the fighter as grief stricken and heartbroken. make him cry. kthx.
Searching through the Wizard class powers to choose what to give her gave me a great RP idea: The bodyguard has fallen for the schoolmage, and fights to defend her. When the fight goes badly, she uses dimension door to teleport to an adjacent room and escape without a single thought for her protecter, leaving him behind and pissed off.
Please RP the fighter as grief stricken and heartbroken. make him cry. kthx.
Well, the adventure module notes that he isn't particularly attached to his latest job and was thinking of giving up on wooing her, but I'll see what I can do.
This is one of those things I really hate 3E for introducing.
Granted, there are two settings where it makes sense.
Edit: seriously, going from the awesomely fluff-texted unique items in BG2 to the mass-produced junk in NWN was the most infuriating thing ever.
The notion that this has been changing over time (and in above comments about how D&D gets less "tactical" or "realistic / simulationist" with each version) are complete bullshit. Regardless of whether you think D&D is not tactical enough or magic is not unique enough the claim that this has changed for the worse over time is false.
In 1st ed, 2nd ed (and even more so in basic) most magic items were a basic weapon / armor with +X tacked on. They hardly seemed "magical" at all.
And of course rules-based combat in earlier editions (as in what the system has rules for as opposed to the pure RP stuff that you can make up on the fly in any RPG) was simple to the point of absurdity. It was basically Final Fantasy 1: Attack, Use Item, Flee (choose one).
RiemannLives on
Attacked by tweeeeeeees!
0
Options
Mike Danger"Diane..."a place both wonderful and strangeRegistered Userregular
edited July 2008
So, let's say I was going to run a game of Keep on the Shadowfell, but one of my 5 players couldn't make it. Is there any encounter in particular I'd need to drop/remove monsters from?
So, let's say I was going to run a game of Keep on the Shadowfell, but one of my 5 players couldn't make it. Is there any encounter in particular I'd need to drop/remove monsters from?
The DMG has a table detailing the XP values for 4, 5, and 6 player games. You could probably decrease the XP amount of the encounters down to their 4 PC game counterparts.
Do versatile weapons being wielded with two-hands counted as two-handed weapons for the likes of fighter-talent 2 handed and reaping strike?
I would typically rule that the two-handed weapon talent doesn't apply to Versatile weapons used in two hands, but that's primarily because, damn it, if you're going to be a two-handed fighter, thematically speaking you shouldn't be using a longsword. But that's personal preference more than a strict reading of the rules. A strict reading of the rules says "Probably", I believe.
EDIT: It's also worth mentioning that if a player can give me a reason other than "'cuz Greatswords suck", or somesuch, I'd probably let him do it anyway.
Do versatile weapons being wielded with two-hands counted as two-handed weapons for the likes of fighter-talent 2 handed and reaping strike?
I would typically rule that the two-handed weapon talent doesn't apply to Versatile weapons used in two hands, but that's primarily because, damn it, if you're going to be a two-handed fighter, thematically speaking you shouldn't be using a longsword. But that's personal preference more than a strict reading of the rules. A strict reading of the rules says "Probably", I believe.
EDIT: It's also worth mentioning that if a player can give me a reason other than "'cuz Greatswords suck", or somesuch, I'd probably let him do it anyway.
Do versatile weapons being wielded with two-hands counted as two-handed weapons for the likes of fighter-talent 2 handed and reaping strike?
I would typically rule that the two-handed weapon talent doesn't apply to Versatile weapons used in two hands, but that's primarily because, damn it, if you're going to be a two-handed fighter, thematically speaking you shouldn't be using a longsword. But that's personal preference more than a strict reading of the rules. A strict reading of the rules says "Probably", I believe.
EDIT: It's also worth mentioning that if a player can give me a reason other than "'cuz Greatswords suck", or somesuch, I'd probably let him do it anyway.
I think you would always consider a versatile weapon wielded 2h as a 2h weapon. Think of the times in movies or books where the hero looses/drops his shield, and wacks the enemy with all his might(reaping strike) using two hands. Maybe the argument can be made for weapon talent, but your missing out if you deny someone power advantages if they make use of the "versatile" in their versatile weapon.
I think you would always consider a versatile weapon wielded 2h as a 2h weapon. Think of the times in movies or books where the hero looses/drops his shield, and wacks the enemy with all his might(reaping strike) using two hands. Maybe the argument can be made for weapon talent, but your missing out if you deny someone power advantages if they make use of the "versatile" in their versatile weapon.
I'd grant a fighter using a versatile weapon the +1 to attack for his fighter specialization only while using the weapon in the style he is specialized, but I'd certainly allow him to use the weapon as applicable otherwise.
I think you would always consider a versatile weapon wielded 2h as a 2h weapon. Think of the times in movies or books where the hero looses/drops his shield, and wacks the enemy with all his might(reaping strike) using two hands. Maybe the argument can be made for weapon talent, but your missing out if you deny someone power advantages if they make use of the "versatile" in their versatile weapon.
I'd grant a fighter using a versatile weapon the +1 to attack for his fighter specialization only while using the weapon in the style he is specialized, but I'd certainly allow him to use the weapon as applicable otherwise.
You don't think the training for such a weapon would include sword, sword+shield, sword+offhand, and two-handed versions of the same weapon? I mean, I realize using a sword 2-handed is much different than 1-handed, but any sort of formal training, I'd think, would have to teach you both. I mean, they're basically just new stances.
[EDIT] Maybe not Sword+offhand, depending on where you're from.
So, let's say I was going to run a game of Keep on the Shadowfell, but one of my 5 players couldn't make it. Is there any encounter in particular I'd need to drop/remove monsters from?
The DMG has a table detailing the XP values for 4, 5, and 6 player games. You could probably decrease the XP amount of the encounters down to their 4 PC game counterparts.
Or, in other words, remove level x 100XP worth of monsters per encounter. Or you can NPC the missing character, and then you wouldn't have to change anything; that way there is no grumbling when you give the missing character the same XP as everyone else.
delroland on
EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
0
Options
Kane Red RobeMaster of MagicArcanusRegistered Userregular
I think you would always consider a versatile weapon wielded 2h as a 2h weapon. Think of the times in movies or books where the hero looses/drops his shield, and wacks the enemy with all his might(reaping strike) using two hands. Maybe the argument can be made for weapon talent, but your missing out if you deny someone power advantages if they make use of the "versatile" in their versatile weapon.
I'd grant a fighter using a versatile weapon the +1 to attack for his fighter specialization only while using the weapon in the style he is specialized, but I'd certainly allow him to use the weapon as applicable otherwise.
You don't think the training for such a weapon would include sword, sword+shield, sword+offhand, and two-handed versions of the same weapon? I mean, I realize using a sword 2-handed is much different than 1-handed, but any sort of formal training, I'd think, would have to teach you both. I mean, they're basically just new stances.
[EDIT] Maybe not Sword+offhand, depending on where you're from.
Sure, Weapon focus would apply all the time, but Fighter Weapon Talent provides a bonus to either all one handed weapons, or all two-handed weapons. So you'd get the applicable bonus when using the weapon in such a way that it counts as being in your specialized weapon group.
I think you would always consider a versatile weapon wielded 2h as a 2h weapon. Think of the times in movies or books where the hero looses/drops his shield, and wacks the enemy with all his might(reaping strike) using two hands. Maybe the argument can be made for weapon talent, but your missing out if you deny someone power advantages if they make use of the "versatile" in their versatile weapon.
I'd grant a fighter using a versatile weapon the +1 to attack for his fighter specialization only while using the weapon in the style he is specialized, but I'd certainly allow him to use the weapon as applicable otherwise.
You don't think the training for such a weapon would include sword, sword+shield, sword+offhand, and two-handed versions of the same weapon? I mean, I realize using a sword 2-handed is much different than 1-handed, but any sort of formal training, I'd think, would have to teach you both. I mean, they're basically just new stances.
[EDIT] Maybe not Sword+offhand, depending on where you're from.
Sure, Weapon focus would apply all the time, but Fighter Weapon Talent provides a bonus to either all one handed weapons, or all two-handed weapons. So you'd get the applicable bonus when using the weapon in such a way that it counts as being in your specialized weapon group.
Oh, my mistake, I thought you were talking about the feat (and I never noticed fighters get a +1 to all one handed or two handed weapons).
Actually, I think my math is a little wrong. What you want to do is look up the XP value of one monster of the PC's level (non-minion, non-elite+) and subtract that amount of creatures from the fight. It's not level x 100XP.
delroland on
EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
Maybe it's the simulationist side of me but one thing that always bothers me is the lack of any real functional consequences to taking damage in combat, so I've added to my campaign this affliction:
Wounded
The injury you've just sustained is beyond the help of magic.
An attack that deals enough damage to bloody a target has a 1 percent (d100) chance of wounding them. Wounds represent grevious harm dealt to the target's body.
Treatment: During extended rest, as per curing disease.
Endurance: Improve: DC 20+CL/2 / Maintain 15+CL/2 / Worsen 10+CL/2
Scarred (Cured): All that remains of your wound is a scar or lump.
Minor: During any strenuous activity (Combat, etc), the target takes a -1 penalty to any rolls made.
Moderate: During any strenuous activity (Combat, etc), the target must choose between taking a penalty of -1/-5/-8 to any rolls made, or lose 1/3/5 hitpoints.
Serious: During any strenuous activity (Combat, etc), the target must choose between taking a penalty of -3/-8/-11 to any rolls made, or lose 1/5/8 hitpoints.
Critical: During any strenuous activity (Combat, etc), the target must choose between taking a penalty of -5/-11/-25 to any rolls made, or lose 5/11/25 hitpoints.
Traumatic(Final State): Target is at 0 HP.
If hitpoints lost through the wounded status would result in dropping a target below 0 hitpoints, they drop to zero instead. If a target is already wounded, then an attack that would trigger this effect shifts the wounded state one step towards its final state.
CL = character level.
Thoughts?
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
0
Options
Kane Red RobeMaster of MagicArcanusRegistered Userregular
Maybe it's the simulationist side of me but one thing that always bothers me is the lack of any real functional consequences to taking damage in combat, so I've added to my campaign this affliction:
Wounded
The injury you've just sustained is beyond the help of magic.
An attack that deals enough damage to bloody a target has a 1 percent (d100) chance of wounding them. Wounds represent grevious harm dealt to the target's body.
Treatment: During extended rest, as per curing disease.
Endurance: Improve: DC 20+CL/2 / Maintain 15+CL/2 / Worsen 10+CL/2
Scarred (Cured): All that remains of your wound is a scar or lump.
Minor: During any strenuous activity (Combat, etc), the target takes a -1 penalty to any rolls made.
Moderate: During any strenuous activity (Combat, etc), the target must choose between taking a penalty of -1/-5/-8 to any rolls made, or lose 1/3/5 hitpoints.
Serious: During any strenuous activity (Combat, etc), the target must choose between taking a penalty of -3/-8/-11 to any rolls made, or lose 1/5/8 hitpoints.
Critical: During any strenuous activity (Combat, etc), the target must choose between taking a penalty of -5/-11/-25 to any rolls made, or lose 5/11/25 hitpoints.
Traumatic(Final State): Target is at 0 HP.
If hitpoints lost through the wounded status would result in dropping a target below 0 hitpoints, they drop to zero instead. If a target is already wounded, then an attack that would trigger this effect shifts the wounded state one step towards its final state.
That idea punishes Defenders for doing their job which is a fairly shitty thing to do. They already don't have as many flashy toys as the other classes.
If you do it, I would keep it a relatively minor chance and probably tie it to criticals or such. I'd also avoid penalties in combat as it just encourages you to keep sucking if you manage to suck once. Possibly penalize the number of healing surges they have. Minor but still an issue.
Kane Red RobeMaster of MagicArcanusRegistered Userregular
edited July 2008
Pretty much anything that encourages players to avoid taking damge (read: engaging in combat), by imposing penaltes to them for doing so is a bad idea. At worst I would say that you could penalize them a healing surge if they take a seriously grievous hit (like >50% of their hp in one hit), but honestly, anything that does that much damage to them is bad enough on it's own.
Yea, that's why I made the possibility of it actually happening (1 in 100) so small. I thought about hitting the surges, but you only really get one per battle plus the enablers. Doing that just feels kind of Disney to me. On a critical would definitely make it a little safer though.
To be clear though, it's more of a fear factor thing than a I WANT YOU TO DIE factor.
edit@Kayne: Avoiding taking damage (IE: Playing smart/tactical) is something that I want to occur, to some extent.
Plus...
Some NPCs get pretty mangled, and given the amount of healing and all available having them be that way just seems, stupid, given they're all in the same group.
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
Posts
That has the exact same problem that Temple of Doom has though. The adventure that's hinted as just having happened and we're now just getting the ending off is much more interesting then the one that's put forward for everyone's entertainment for the next hour +.
I mean, getting some stones back to a village or taking down the goddamn Terrasque, giant monster wins every time.
In my campaign that I'm building, I intend to have a court case presented to the players.
they will essentially have a bad guy swept away by the town guard right before they kill him and then they'll have to ensure that justice is served by either working for the prosecution, or actually running the prosecution (once they find out that the town council has no intention of actually punishing the bad guy)
I want it to be equal parts sneaking around and gathering witnesses/casebuilding, and in-courtroom questioning and case presentation.
I'm trying to figure out how to work this into skill checks and not simply have it be a bunch of talking with me inventing their success or failure from thin air..
i know Cha is going to have a large influence on the results, but I'd also like to use the other stats as well.
Should i break it up into 2 skill challenges (outside courtroom / inside courtroom) or should i just set it up like an encounter and have each witness presented like a monster they have to deal with?
Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.
I was thinking I might write the lines and then give them to the players to act out as an aside. Any other ideas?
Things like, "The captain, furious at the insinuation made from the navigator yells out, "Word to your mother!""
But when my players press an NPC a lot, I also roll back their conversation to the beginning, like a console game's dialog options. I don't know how serious your game is though.
Yeah, they could be two different challenges. Maybe the 1st challenge (investigation) makes the second one easier or harder depending upon whether they succeed or fail. You could have more than just charisma-based skills in the investigation too. Wisdom-related skills to find clues and connect them together (Nature, Dungeoneering, Perception, Insight), Dexterity based skills to sneak around eavesdropping and stealing information (acrobatics, stealth, theivery), Intelligence-based skills to relate findings to fact (History, maybe Arcana). Maybe you need an Endurance check to win a drinking contest in order to get a piece of evidence from a local tough.
The second skill challenge (trial) determines whether the bad guy gets away with it or not... which will also factor in to where the adventure goes from there. Seems straightforwardly charisma-based, but the History skill could be used as a way to construct a good legal argument, perhaps a roguish character might employ some Thievery to confiscate a bit of the defense's evidence, maybe a bit of Insight to read what the judge or jury react to as the case moves along.
Heck, if they fail it maybe the villain has turned the tables and put them behind bars for being a pack of lawless vigilantes who are a menace to innocent people like himself.
If they completely bomb out on the first phase then, as you said, the trial goes VERY badly and the town (which has now become the "mob") locks the whole party up, and they'll have to go through an escape encounter where, with the help of an NPC they aided earlier in the game, they escape the jail and proceed to fix the towns tainted food/water supply and bring the bad guy to justice...
i plan on giving them two very obvious "help me" NPC's and one "i'm not realy a bad guy" NPC to possibly help so either they'll have 1 2 or 3 NPC's helping them escape.
if they help no one then the escape becomes very difficult but still achievable with the proper tactics.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I've already made the half-elf monk/rogue with the monster creation rules. I took the ranger power Two-fanged Strike and renamed it as Twin Strike to simulate the monk's Flurry of Blows. Here's the statblock:
Should I make the remaining opponents with the monster creation rules, or am I supposed to use the NPC creation rules?
Twin-Strike is the name of another Ranger power, it may cause confusion if you use that name.
Trying to convert straight from 3.5E to 4E is likely to be a huge headache, I'd recommend just using the monster creation rules to make something that captures the same feel.
Thanks for the head's up on the power name: I changed the original so that it now reads "Twin Viper Fist".
As for the human fighter and wizard, I was going to use the Level 3 Human Guard and the Level 4 Human Mage to represent them. That is, until I discovered that the two of them together wouldn't even be a Level One encounter! I guess I'll just advance them until it becomes a Level 3 encounter.
Just my two cents, but I think you're making it more complicated than it needs to be.
The above are basically a skirmishers, a brute, a controller, artillery and a leader. Unless the bugbear is using melee weapons, which would make him a skirmisher or brute instead of artillery. If it were me, I'd just do it that way so as not to fret over how balanced my conversions may or may not be.
Is the half-elf skirmisher I made and posted at the bottom of the last page not along the lines of what you are saying I should do?
But yeah, I'd just keep using the standard monster rules.
If they do, I didn't notice it.
Here's the statblock for the spellcaster that will accompany him in battle. I made her by adding the Wizard Class Template to the Human Mage from the MM.
Searching through the Wizard class powers to choose what to give her gave me a great RP idea: The bodyguard has fallen for the schoolmage, and fights to defend her. When the fight goes badly, she uses dimension door to teleport to an adjacent room and escape without a single thought for her protecter, leaving him behind and pissed off.
Please RP the fighter as grief stricken and heartbroken. make him cry. kthx.
Well, the adventure module notes that he isn't particularly attached to his latest job and was thinking of giving up on wooing her, but I'll see what I can do.
The notion that this has been changing over time (and in above comments about how D&D gets less "tactical" or "realistic / simulationist" with each version) are complete bullshit. Regardless of whether you think D&D is not tactical enough or magic is not unique enough the claim that this has changed for the worse over time is false.
In 1st ed, 2nd ed (and even more so in basic) most magic items were a basic weapon / armor with +X tacked on. They hardly seemed "magical" at all.
And of course rules-based combat in earlier editions (as in what the system has rules for as opposed to the pure RP stuff that you can make up on the fly in any RPG) was simple to the point of absurdity. It was basically Final Fantasy 1: Attack, Use Item, Flee (choose one).
The DMG has a table detailing the XP values for 4, 5, and 6 player games. You could probably decrease the XP amount of the encounters down to their 4 PC game counterparts.
I would typically rule that the two-handed weapon talent doesn't apply to Versatile weapons used in two hands, but that's primarily because, damn it, if you're going to be a two-handed fighter, thematically speaking you shouldn't be using a longsword. But that's personal preference more than a strict reading of the rules. A strict reading of the rules says "Probably", I believe.
EDIT: It's also worth mentioning that if a player can give me a reason other than "'cuz Greatswords suck", or somesuch, I'd probably let him do it anyway.
A really good reason is "I'm a halfling"
See, that I'll grant you.
I think you would always consider a versatile weapon wielded 2h as a 2h weapon. Think of the times in movies or books where the hero looses/drops his shield, and wacks the enemy with all his might(reaping strike) using two hands. Maybe the argument can be made for weapon talent, but your missing out if you deny someone power advantages if they make use of the "versatile" in their versatile weapon.
Yes, iirc.
I'd grant a fighter using a versatile weapon the +1 to attack for his fighter specialization only while using the weapon in the style he is specialized, but I'd certainly allow him to use the weapon as applicable otherwise.
You don't think the training for such a weapon would include sword, sword+shield, sword+offhand, and two-handed versions of the same weapon? I mean, I realize using a sword 2-handed is much different than 1-handed, but any sort of formal training, I'd think, would have to teach you both. I mean, they're basically just new stances.
[EDIT] Maybe not Sword+offhand, depending on where you're from.
Or, in other words, remove level x 100XP worth of monsters per encounter. Or you can NPC the missing character, and then you wouldn't have to change anything; that way there is no grumbling when you give the missing character the same XP as everyone else.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
Sure, Weapon focus would apply all the time, but Fighter Weapon Talent provides a bonus to either all one handed weapons, or all two-handed weapons. So you'd get the applicable bonus when using the weapon in such a way that it counts as being in your specialized weapon group.
Oh, my mistake, I thought you were talking about the feat (and I never noticed fighters get a +1 to all one handed or two handed weapons).
Then yes, agreed!
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
The injury you've just sustained is beyond the help of magic.
An attack that deals enough damage to bloody a target has a 1 percent (d100) chance of wounding them. Wounds represent grevious harm dealt to the target's body.
Treatment: During extended rest, as per curing disease.
Endurance: Improve: DC 20+CL/2 / Maintain 15+CL/2 / Worsen 10+CL/2
Scarred (Cured): All that remains of your wound is a scar or lump.
Minor: During any strenuous activity (Combat, etc), the target takes a -1 penalty to any rolls made.
Moderate: During any strenuous activity (Combat, etc), the target must choose between taking a penalty of -1/-5/-8 to any rolls made, or lose 1/3/5 hitpoints.
Serious: During any strenuous activity (Combat, etc), the target must choose between taking a penalty of -3/-8/-11 to any rolls made, or lose 1/5/8 hitpoints.
Critical: During any strenuous activity (Combat, etc), the target must choose between taking a penalty of -5/-11/-25 to any rolls made, or lose 5/11/25 hitpoints.
Traumatic(Final State): Target is at 0 HP.
If hitpoints lost through the wounded status would result in dropping a target below 0 hitpoints, they drop to zero instead. If a target is already wounded, then an attack that would trigger this effect shifts the wounded state one step towards its final state.
CL = character level.
Thoughts?
No, terrible idea.
and a 1d3 for the starting state?
To be clear though, it's more of a fear factor thing than a I WANT YOU TO DIE factor.
edit@Kayne: Avoiding taking damage (IE: Playing smart/tactical) is something that I want to occur, to some extent.
Plus...