POTA=Princes of the apocalypse
How did you find the investigation phase where you wander on the dessarin road or to shallow graves or Beliard? I found it ate up about two hours of the session, had no combat/no XP (can I give XP arbitrarily, given I can't give extra treasure at all in AL). The only combat was a random encounter on the road.
I know you could have a cult reprisal, but A: they'd only done tomb of moving stones so far, so why a reprisal? And B: What's the point of having an investigation phase if you're doing it until the players look a little bored then some badguys come attack with a map in their boot to make it plainly obvious (which also spoils the whole idea of coming to a feathergale spire peacefully, to boot. Because why would you after they shot crossbows at you?)? Why do an investigation phase? Or was it better to just skip that content in the book?
The problem you're running into is that the editing from the book down to the encounters module turns something that makes a certain amount of sense into something that makes no sense whatsoever.
If you can, I suggest reading the section in the book for more clarity.
What book?
Princes of the Apocalypse. That book. The hardcover one. the encounters pdf you get to run is basically a cut down part of that book.
Im actually going to run encounters from the hardcover not the pdf.
I'm using that book.
Similarly, I'm at Tomb of Moving Stones, and I'm wondering how on earth you're supposed to award a maximum of 600 xp as the intent is clearly to get the PCs to level 3. Unless I award xp at the maximum regardless of what they face, or award for various other bits that don't have an xp suggestion/guide, I'm getting a total of about 220xp per character (5 character party).
Edit: However, I do agree, having them attacked by Air Cultists, on the way to infiltrate the Air Cult outpost does seem to be a way to lead many groups to do the assault rather than infiltration aspect.
Someone at the game store who generally knows the rules better than I do said, atleast with the book form, no XP caps (certainly in the book no XP cap is listed). And so curiously the whole necromancers cave shot the players from first level instantly to third. Then a bit of XP in tomb of moving stones and then almost no XP this session.
Insert a Random Encounter. Its not terribly hard and if you are concerned about having cultists show up too early, then use one of the random encounters that isnt anything to do with the cultists.
If that worked, then it means the players don't care about the investigation - any random combat will do.
A pillar is missing from the text.
Besides, isn't choosing to add a combat kinda like adding treasure (in as much as you're adding XP)? Or we can add XP whenever we like, but not gold? Seems odd.
XP isn't treasure.
Most of the sections in the adventure do not have enough XP in just the main storyline of the adventure to actually level the party like they are supposed to. Adding encounters is absolutely necessary.
As long as you only add encounters off of the random encounters charts, it's perfectly legal for AL play.
Ainulindalion wrote:
Noon: They basically dont want you to add treasure beyond whats in the scenario. Adding EXP as explained is neccesary.. so to add EXP you need to add encounters. Like I said if you are concerned about spoilering key plot points , dont use the monsters on the list that will spoil them. Again if you are concerned players will have a 'whinge' about not receiving treasures then use monsters that typically dont have/carry/understand loot.
None of my Random Encounters are 'Random'. That is.. I dont roll them during play. As I prepare to run a session, I will will roll then to see what might come up. Ill have about 4 randoms written down and prepared for (which is normally more than enough). Usually they will reach into the plot and have some relevance that I will give to them. (In this case you might have some Orcs who are licking their wounds and are down on numbers from an encounter with some Cultists). Occasionally I will run an 'odd' encounter. So named because it has nothing really to do with the story of the module. Its just there.
Of course most of the time , the players will assuming there is some great meaning to that encounter which ties it to the plot.
Either way, you will have to have random encounters to keep characters at the levels they will need to be!
I wish they'd made the random encounter thing more clear.
I'm going to need to load up a lot of random encounters to level my players' characters, it seems. Anyone have any suggestions as to which encounters are the higher XP ones?
(I'd hate to throw like a band of 10 goblins at them.)
A band of 10 goblins would be cool! Goblin Ambush!
The bandit ambush almost killed killed the party (two out of four character knocked to zero HP, one character killed). Of course they insisted on fighting it (one even said 'those bandits are confident, aren't they!' beforehand. Actually it seems the PC's were confident, weren't they?)
Tyranthraxus wrote:
haha yup, but Ive been at the retooling of this stuff for a long time Noon, Im used to the Scenario writers and module designers giving me some tools and I use them to make a giant scultped sandpit 
. I honestly dont want them to cross every t and dot every i. I dont really ever want them to go into so much detail like what you are sorta suggesting because it reinforces the 'railroad' type of game that a lot of people talk about.
I can do that myself, although I understand that not every dm wants to or can.
(Also not WOTC Designers. All of these Modules have been produced out of house by 'subcontractors' which is the way things run nowadays. You employ someone who employs people to do a job, then when you are done you are done)
We may not see another WOTC badged Hardcover Module again. Ive no issue with that, as long as WOTC keep sounding out the right people to do these hardcovers.
Also thanks for the ego boost... Ive written some adventures in the past and its always nice when someone says that their ideas should be included in official product!
Noon wrote: