|
| Wrath River King - questions for designers and patrons |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| Wolfgang |
 Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 10:57 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Kobold Overlord
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Posts: 4990
Location: The Mines
|
Hey, I'm happy to have the error pointed out, so that I can watch for it myself the next time out.
I would have been happier to have it before the errata version went out, but .... It's good feedback, no matter when it happens.
_________________
Wolfgang Baur
Publisher, Kobold Press |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Watcher |
| Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
Posts: 1625
Location: Your TARDIS
|
| Wolfgang wrote: |
Hey, I'm happy to have the error pointed out, so that I can watch for it myself the next time out.
I would have been happier to have it before the errata version went out, but .... It's good feedback, no matter when it happens. |
Well.. I usually make a lot of noise at the start of a Project and then fall silent.
Maybe I'll reverse that for Halls of the Mountain King. Dig into the end product.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| varianor |
| Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 602
|
Hey gang, sorry about all this. I have some other issues in my life right now that got me a bit discouraged that I missed something. I didn’t mean to stir up a big discussion.
Truth is, I have little experience with 4E. I don’t have my “mastery” of it. I was very inefficient when it came to working through this adventure. I had to take extra time to go over the stat blocks, encounters and mechanics when it shouldn’t have taken that long. I have been thinking for a while that while I loved the project, I didn't love the rules behind it. (I like 'em, okay. It's not an edition warz thing. I'm just not great with them.)
Someone more enthusiastic and with a greater grasp of the 4E rules would (I think) be a better choice to edit Fourth Edition products for Open Design. I probably should have edited out the second half of my sentence. The feedback is certainly good, and will help make future products a lot better. (Bulleting important mechanics and rules points is always good advice.)
I now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jonroberts |
| Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Posts: 174
|
| Equally, as the cartographer for that map, I should have caught it too. If you are still in need of this map - or if anyone else would like a corrected version - I am more than happy to add in some undergrowth and post an updated version. This goes for corrections (within reason) to the other maps too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Watcher |
| Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
Posts: 1625
Location: Your TARDIS
|
| jonroberts wrote: |
| Equally, as the cartographer for that map, I should have caught it too. If you are still in need of this map - or if anyone else would like a corrected version - I am more than happy to add in some undergrowth and post an updated version. This goes for corrections (within reason) to the other maps too. |
That's awesome of you to offer Jon. Don't worry about me though, I'll be running this encounter in less than 24 hours (except we're recovering from a bad icestorm and most of the group is currently without power).
If you want to amend it for the rest of the community- that's great. But I'll leave that between you and Wolfgang, because it should probably be posted to the OD site.
In fact.. the only reason I'm posting here about it is that on OD nobody save maybe Wolfgang would ever see it, because the thread would be so old.
Again, not to make Varianor's feelings any worse.. the text could use some polishing.
I'll post something more comprehensive and organized in a bit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| avidreader514 |
| Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 141
Location: montreal
|
| Watcher wrote: |
| Again, not to make Varianor's feelings any worse.. the text could use some polishing. |
THAT strikes me as needless shin-kicking.
Comments about style and polish aren't on the same level as important questions about rules, mechanics and cartography.
After all, it's not like your players are going to read the book. You can revise the text however you like for your show. Your players might notice rules inconsistencies or flat-out errors, which is why that kind of feedback is important at any stage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ishtarre |
| Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Joined: 14 Oct 2008
Posts: 4
|
I also found I had to think through carefully how the bugbears did their stealth thing and how to present it to my players, although I think it says more about the convuluted nature of the 4E stealth rules than the text! Still I guess it may be worth watching for that next time round as where you get concealment vs full concealment seems to be very important for this purpose in 4E. In play I indicated the vague direction of fire when asked by players whose characters had a decent passive perception and when they got closer, I pointed out the actual square the fire came from and then said the shadowy figure ducked back behind the tree or under the ferns, etc, but did not indicate where they ended up unless they were spotted with passive perception (or active attempts on player turns). Keep in mind when the bugbears move in stealth mode, that they suffer a minus to their stealth depending on how far they move and if it is difficult terrain then each square moved counts as two. When I ran the encounter, the players had dreadful perception rolls and took some time to find all the bugbears, while chasing the minions and stumbling into traps (which I did as immediate interupts). All in all a fun encounter.
Map-wise, it would be wonderful to have downloads of the various maps sans GM info (starting positions, traps, etc) at a decent resolution that could be printed out and would let my players help draw out the map on my tact-tiles for speed of set-up.
I think it probably a good thing to have this sort of thread posted up to give feedback, especially given the new edition. With the best will in the world most patrons (myself included) will miss things when reading through the new product that they will then catch later when reading through carefully prior to actually running it (or during running!). Whilst rules,mechanics and cartogrpahy feedback may be most useful, I would think any constructive feedback about the adventure is worthwhile as surely we all want Open Design to give the best adventures in future that it possibly can.
Better get back to reading the eel-hounds again since I expect to be running that tonight! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Watcher |
| Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 11:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
Posts: 1625
Location: Your TARDIS
|
| avidreader514 wrote: |
| Watcher wrote: |
| Again, not to make Varianor's feelings any worse.. the text could use some polishing. |
THAT strikes me as needless shin-kicking.
Comments about style and polish aren't on the same level as important questions about rules, mechanics and cartography.
After all, it's not like your players are going to read the book. You can revise the text however you like for your show. Your players might notice rules inconsistencies or flat-out errors, which is why that kind of feedback is important at any stage. |
You completely took that out of context. Utterly and completely.
By polishing, I meant de-bugging the mechanics. Not fixing grammer. I hadn't even posted anything and you jumped to a conclusion, whereas you might have at least waited to see what I actually posted.
You jumped to the worst possible conclusion about me without any benefit of the doubt.
Now.. Now.. I'm pissed off.
I wil post what I wrote a few second after I post this. You can read it for yourself and decide whether I'm polishing prose or trying to fix the mechanics. And whatever conclusion you reach, I hope you're content with it.
Because I owe YOU no apology or explanation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Watcher |
| Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
Posts: 1625
Location: Your TARDIS
|
Okay...
This post is not for those with delicate feelings. Having said that, I am going to avoid any personal editorial language.
This is all about learning, finding out where it can be improved, and so forth.
***********************
Page 6: Under SETUP, and then under Perception Check 16. It should read: "Return fire suffers a -5 penalty until the party makes a Perception check to see the bugbears." Why? They're defined as having superior cover.
*********************
Page 7: Forest Imp tactics:
"These little flyers mark their targets as they dart across the battlefield,
some biting, others tricking their foes into stumbling into rocks, streams,
or even each other."
I would excise "or even each other" from the sentence. Why? Because trying to make two PCs run into each other, to any meaningful effect, is not supported by the Core Rules. On the page 286, top of the page, under clear path: You can't Push, Pull, or Slide something into a square where there is no room. You cross that reference with Page 283, allies can't occupy the same square without one of them being prone (or helpless if it is actually an enemy). Its a different story if there is an actual extensive Size difference, but I'm speaking in the context of 'banging' PCs together.
In 3.5, if that happened, somebody got knocked prone. In 4E, the push, pull, slide just doesn't happen that way. You can't force them into illegal squares. Remember: The General Rules apply, with powers being "Exception" based. In order for the Forest Imps to actually use this tactic, they'd need an actual Power that allowed them to bang PCs into each and have an effect. Routine Push, Pull, and Slide doesn't not work that way. We've got illegal tactics.
Am I nitpicking? Maybe. But as a first time GM, I combed through the rules books trying to figure out how to do this to the players, only to find out that I can't. So I say it's debateable that this is a nitpick.
************************
Page 7: Bugbear tactics.
"Bugbear hunters shoot each round (giving up Stealth), then move one square to hide again as a Stealth action in superior cover."
There is nothing wrong with this. However, despite my conversation with Wolfgang earlier in this thread and whatever conclusion we might have reached at that time, this still needs to be adjudicated carefully.. it might bear some more elaboration. I know I've since changed my mind on it.
Following the RAW, the players should see where the Bugbears shot from, see their path of movement, and the square where they ended up in. Neverthless, if the Bugbears are successful in their opposed Stealth rolls, they are still hidden, and receive -5 to hit them and can not be targeted by attacks that require them to be seen (like Hunter's Quarry for example).
Why? Because Rogues have specific Powers that allow them to not be noticed while moving, or attacking-moving-and-hiding. You're giving the Bugbears 'something for nothing' if allowed to do that. I could cite specific examples if necessary, but this post is eating into my day off as it is.
The fact that they get a generous bonus against being hit, and can't be targeted by powers that requires sight is enough.
Hell, if you moved 'em correctly they might still get Superior Cover even if they blow the Stealth Roll.
***************************
Page 7: Features of the Area: Illumination:
Illumination: The forest has normal daylight mixed with areas of
shadow that grant a +2 to Stealth rolls.
This is 3.5 language and not applicable in the way it was probably intended. I would change it to: Illumination: The forest has normal daylight mixed with areas of shadow. The shaded areas offer concealment.
Why? Because dim illumination offers concealment and a -2 towards being hit. More importantly, concealment is a bare bones requirement for even making a Stealth roll at all. Not a bonus, but a bare requirement.
In 4E, Stealth is interwoven and tied up with concealment and cover, not lighting (because concealment takes illumination into account!) I admit, having your attack roll and Stealth opportunities interconnnected is a little odd from a 3.5 perspective.
****************************
Page 7: Terrain
"The wooded territory offers cover to anyone in it."
This kinda starts the confusion. Cover isn't a zone or field (that would be concealment). Cover is some kind of specific object or obstacle that a PC or NPC is hiding behind, like a specific tree, but not "wooded territory". For example, if a PC runs into the woods and gets adjacent to a Bugbear, they shouldn't have cover against each other if there is nothing (if only partially) between them. The usage of cover is being generalized when it should be specific.
I would write perhaps; "The wooded territory offers some cover against enemies on the road. The deeper woods just by and past the stone ledge offers superior cover. The bugbears are -5 to hit due to superior cover and possibly being hidden based upon opposed Stealth/Perception (these bonuses do not stack). A bugbear that is hidden can not be targeted by a Power that requires a target to be seen, ie. Hunter's Quarry."
You see what I mean? You can get cover and superior cover, but you don't automatically have it just because of where you're standing. You have it in relationship to your enemy. The bugbears are -5 to hit for two different reasons with different ramifications. Both of which can be overcome.
"The forest provides -2 to creatures moving through the trees."
I would delete this. Once the PCs are in the woods, let them determine who has cover based upon the core rules, that is, who is partially behind a tree and can you draw a line to all the corners of the square. If you take my earlier suggestion, everything in shaded light will offer concealment anyway.
As far as difficult terrain.. too complex to describe. Either the map is fixed, or the reader needs to define undergrowth for themselves.
****************
Page 7: Traps:
I just rewrote it:
Weighted Net Traps Level 3 Obstacle
Trap XP 150
A net weighted with stones and hooks drags a character down and
pins them to the ground.
Trap: One net is released on the square from above when triggered.
Perception
DC 20 The character notices the nets.
DC 25 The character notices the location of tripwire.
Trigger
The trap activates when a character enters one of the trigger squares.
Attack
Immediate Reaction Melee
Target The creature that triggered the trap.
Attack +8 vs. Reflex
Hit 1d6 + 3 damage, knocked prone and immobilized (save ends)
Countermeasures
A character who makes a successful Athletics check (DC 10 or DC 15 without a running start) can jump over a net square.
An adjacent character can disable a tripwire with a DC 25 Thievery check.
Attacking a tripwire requires 5 points damage in a single blow to cut it; failure triggers the trap (AC 12, other defenses 10).
I might add a 'Miss' consequence too, like the PC goes back to their last square and ends their movement.
********************
This will be the last thing I say about the Bugbear Ambush, unless somebody wants to specifically wrangle about it.
At the end of the day, I'm satisified. I learned 200% more about 4E crunch than I ever would have under normal circumstances. Hell, that alone is worth something to me. Seriously.
Last edited by Watcher on Wed Jan 28, 2009 11:40 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Watcher |
| Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
Posts: 1625
Location: Your TARDIS
|
| avidreader514 wrote: |
THAT strikes me as needless shin-kicking.. |
Well you can be assured now that you can actually read it, that I won't spent the effort next time. If I'm to be cast in the role of Pontius Pilate, by YOU, I'll opt to likewise wash my hands of this.
I actually learned far more about the game and was more excited by the adventure by doing this.. but if meaness of spirit is all its going to be mischaracterized as, my time is better spent elsewhere then posting about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Zherog |
| Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Contributor
Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 586
Location: Bensalem, PA
|
I'd like to suggest that everybody take a deep breath, step back for a moment to calm down, and then resume things. I don't think there's really any need for this conversation to be getting so heated.
Mistakes happen; it's just a fact of how things go - whether we're talking about some of the technical aspects of an encounter being incorrect or somebody misinterpreting something we've said.
This is a great community, with a lot of wonderful people. Let's not poison the proverbial well water.
_________________
John Ling
Freelance Writer
Kobold Fan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Watcher |
| Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
Posts: 1625
Location: Your TARDIS
|
| Zherog wrote: |
I'd like to suggest that everybody take a deep breath, step back for a moment to calm down, and then resume things. I don't think there's really any need for this conversation to be getting so heated.
Mistakes happen; it's just a fact of how things go - whether we're talking about some of the technical aspects of an encounter being incorrect or somebody misinterpreting something we've said.
This is a great community, with a lot of wonderful people. Let's not poison the proverbial well water. |
You are absolutely right John, I over-reacted. My apologies to the community for that over-reaction.
I just spent a lot of time (real world hours) going over this encounter, and a lot more time trying to articulate in a more or less positive manner of how it could be corrected.. while explaining what I thought was correct 4E rule usage.
I was disappointed by Avidreader's assumption, but there is no need to heap melodrama on it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| avidreader514 |
| Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 141
Location: montreal
|
| Watcher wrote: |
| avidreader514 wrote: |
| Watcher wrote: |
| Again, not to make Varianor's feelings any worse.. the text could use some polishing. |
THAT strikes me as needless shin-kicking.
Comments about style and polish aren't on the same level as important questions about rules, mechanics and cartography.
After all, it's not like your players are going to read the book. You can revise the text however you like for your show. Your players might notice rules inconsistencies or flat-out errors, which is why that kind of feedback is important at any stage. |
You completely took that out of context. Utterly and completely.
By polishing, I meant de-bugging the mechanics. Not fixing grammer. I hadn't even posted anything and you jumped to a conclusion, whereas you might have at least waited to see what I actually posted.
You jumped to the worst possible conclusion about me without any benefit of the doubt.
Now.. Now.. I'm pissed off.
I wil post what I wrote a few second after I post this. You can read it for yourself and decide whether I'm polishing prose or trying to fix the mechanics. And whatever conclusion you reach, I hope you're content with it.
Because I owe YOU no apology or explanation. |
Oy.
It's perfectly clear from my comment that I understood "text could use some polishing" to mean fixing grammar and style as distinct from fixing the mechanics.
I apologize for calling you on a cheap shot that you didn't make. The error is mine alone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jonroberts |
| Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 1:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Posts: 174
|
... and back to the maps
There are unlabelled versions of the map around. I'll talk to Wolfgang about putting them somewhere people can get to them. The resolution is what was required for the image size in the text. This will give a variable resolution if you want to print 1 grid=1 inch. That's usually around 70dpi which is pretty low quality wise for a large print for use with miniatures. However if you want to print them out for player handouts, I'd guess 100dpi or 150dpi should get you something usable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Watcher |
| Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 1:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
Posts: 1625
Location: Your TARDIS
|
| avidreader514 wrote: |
Oy.
It's perfectly clear from my comment that I understood "text could use some polishing" to mean fixing grammar and style as distinct from fixing the mechanics.
I apologize for calling you on a cheap shot that you didn't make. The error is mine alone. |
Forgive and forget. Mr. Ling was correct, I let the fire rush to my head and started banging on the keyboard without a second's pause for reflection. I regret it. I accept your apology, and extend mine to you for indulging in histrionics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
