Any other errors?
Correction: the Distance is 20ft. and and the Jump DC is 20. Not quite as easy of Jump now!
pg 41 in the Chain platforms section, last paragraph. It says the distance is 10feet and would take a DC 10 Jump, the map and all other evidence show it being a 20 foot gap between the platforms.
I noticed that before, but didn't catch it when I was putting together errors.
BTW, whenever possible if you point out an errata suggest a "correct" option, to assist those running it.
Should probably have 17 hp rather then 20. 10 for first + 5.5 for second + 2 for con rounded down is 17. Though mind you I'm probably splitting hairs. But if they wanted to give them toughness they should have writen it down instead of flexing the numbers.
And as fodder and not meaning full foes I'd usually work them out to be 5.5 x 2 level +2 con = 13hp.
Irks me in their sloppy fodder math.
I am running this encounter in a couple of days, and I will amend this so that the canoloths appear as soon as the chain over the first platform is pulled.
In the chain bridge room, the tactics section is somewhat wrong. There is no way for a canoloth to attack a PC in the first round they appear (unless a PC has flown over to the central platform or the like). The canoloths appear as the first character steps onto the first moving platform. Even if that PC goes to the far edge of that platform as near to the central platform as she can get, she is still too far away for a toungue attack to reach her.
I am running this encounter in a couple of days, and I will amend this so that the canoloths appear as soon as the chain over the first platform is pulled.
I suspect that the scale issue is the reason for this. Something got confused somewhere and clearly the designers had something else in mind.
I was hoping Nicolas Logue or Shoe would stick their head in and make official unofficial suggestions for fixes.
I suspect that the scale issue is the reason for this. Something got confused somewhere and clearly the designers had something else in mind.
I was hoping Nicolas Logue or Shoe would stick their head in and make official unofficial suggestions for fixes.
The distance between the center platform and the moving platform should be only 10 feet (basically, there's 20 extra feet of "length" on the map: 10 feet on either side of the central platform).
The idea was to allow a couple different ways to get around. Use the platforms, fly, jump, climb. The canoloths should appear at a dramatically appropriate time - such as when a PC first moves within 20' of the central platform.
page 123 - The Dread Wraith is shown to be medium sized on the map (should be large).
p78. Syn's raipier is listed as a +1 Keen rapier, but the statblock states that it is a +2 Wounding Rapier, even though the numbers in the statblock indicates that it is a +1 Keen Wounding rapier. Which one is correct?
page 122 - It is stated that the Dread Wraith always employs Combat Expertise, but he doesn't have this feat. I suggest you change one of his feats or just make him fight defensively.
My guess is that its Combat Reflexes was supposed to be Combat Expertise. I'm going to recommend that change in my list.
I've updated the errata. The only thing that I didn't include was Dragom's suggestion, because it's not incorrect. Having that many hit points is quite possible for them, although changing it might make sense.
Still looking for more errata. My first session was delayed because of some schedule conflicts. (Who forgets they are graduating on the day they are supposed to game? ;) ) So, I won't be picking up later subtle errors yet.
The Trebaz Sinara map error is really irksome. Nic, Stephen, any suggestions here?
C1 should be on the coast, probably just south of the monolith. The C1 mark should actually be C2. C3 should be at the other end of the arrow. C4 should be to the east, about the distance of the arrow (i.e. C4 is as far from C3 as C3 is from C2).
p. 81 - There are two F marks (Blood of Vol Fanatics) on the map, although the encounter features only one such character.
p. 80 - I can't find any information about the stances of the Exarch (see the crusader class in Tome of Battle for information about stances).
Hah! Added this earlier today (as I just got a copy of the Bo9S).
Looked at the character, he has maneuvers from two of the disciplines. The White Raven's stances don't fit the combat, and there are only 3 he qualifies from that one (IIRC, it was Diamond Mind). I recommend giving him those three.
On page 26, the second paragraph references 2 1st-level poison dusks to be spotted with a DC 24. They are 2 2nd-level poison dusks, and I believe with their +15 to Hide, that would make the DC 25.
Related to this:
When sniping the 2nd level lizardfolk will have a hide modifier -5 (not -6).
Page 84 - Map of Trebaz Sinara is missing C2-C4, and C1 seems misplaced.
Still no word on this?
Page 14 - The text says that the journey takes just over a week (3 days overland and 5 days at sea) however in the boxed text Sur'kil tells the PCs that it will be a 5 day trek overland. And according to the map it appears to be over 200 miles which would probably take even longer overland than 5 days.
Page 42 - The text under Spinning Bladed Column says to count diagonals as 1 square each as if they were a large creature, however the dotted lines on the map don't seem to indicate this.
Page 14 - Sur'kil offers the PCs 250 gp per week(for 4 weeks) and half up front then hands them a bag of 200 gp each. This doesn't seem to add up.
The players noted this issue in my game. It's covered, though, in the next sentence ("he indicates that their additional down payment will be given to them once they board the rail.")
The players noted this issue in my game. It's covered, though, in the next sentence ("he indicates that their additional down payment will be given to them once they board the rail.")
Actually, it says "If they negotiate more, then the additional down payment will be given to them when they board the rail." Assuming that if they negotiate up to the 350 gp per week, they still only get 500.
Actually, it says "If they negotiate more, then the additional down payment will be given to them when they board the rail." Assuming that if they negotiate up to the 350 gp per week, they still only get 500.
That's possibly the intent. However, it's also possible that the intent was always to give them a limited down payment at first and at the rail everything else, including any extra.
I'd put this down as an oddity not necessarily an error (which will eventually have its own section).
not sure if this is an errata, but how does the Trap in Room A12 on Page 21 / 39 function?
If you ask me, a wall which was a secret door before is a little bit impossible to move in this way. Ok, maybe with magic.. but this isn´t mentioned (and could be detected).
For my part, I will use the trap otherwise. As soon as it is sprung, a huge stonesphere fall down and roll down the hallway (which has a slight aptitude). Like Indy! But how do the characters get out of the dungeon?
Hnot sure if this is an errata, but how does the Trap in Room A12 on Page 21 / 39 function? :
IMO, a wall drops down in front of the door and moves forward. It's possible that the wall splits with half moving down the hallway, but I prefer the first option.
IMO, a wall drops down in front of the door and moves forward. It's possible that the wall splits with half moving down the hallway, but I prefer the first option.
It is a mechanical Trap. Call me unimaginative, but I can´t imagine that! My players are a curious pack - they often want me to describe how a trap works, just that they can better imagine or disable!
It is a mechanical Trap. Call me unimaginative, but I can´t imagine that! My players are a curious pack - they often want me to describe how a trap works, just that they can better imagine or disable!
A wall drops down in front of the secret door after it if forcibly shut (can you imagine that). A mechanism of some sort (screws, pneumatics, etc.) push taht wall down the corridor. I don't see the issue.
Feel free to suggest anything I'm missing.
Help
P.S. the spell deep slumber or sleep makes this part of the module far to easy, I hate it.
any help with the last dread hold encounter. there are two arcane balistas, but they are missing a few powers, I know that they appered in minatures and I am lucky to have them but I have lost the cards. I know that in both games they can do a fire ball or lightning blast maybe even both 1/day but I cannot remember.
Help
P.S. the spell deep slumber or sleep makes this part of the module far to easy, I hate it.
The cards are available as free downloads. I recommend running them as written though. In my game it was a very tough encounter (then again, missing the ranger archer they almost had a TPK against the Grey Render Zombies).
Finally, the tactics for the Boneclaws state they won't initially attack, but try to lash at the Cargo Bay doors and have the PCs drop through. The doors aren't marked on the map, but the only thing I see that qualifies is a single 5' square on the enemies ship (and maybe one on the PCs). The odds of a PC being on that single square is pretty rare, especially since a PC has to get by a Boneclaw to be on that square.
All and all the encounter listed in the "delve" format is pretty useless. Look it over, decide how you want to handle the tactics, and pretty much just use the statblocks.
Clearly miscommunication between the authors and cartographers. The editors also must have horribly mangled this somehow, since it plain doesn't make sense.
I ran the Dura's Revenge encounter (pgs 102-103) tonight and it's horribly done. The encounter first describes that Dura and the Boneclaws start the encounter ready to board the PC's ship along with Cloudreavers. Later it states the Boneclaws stay "hidden" until Dura is attacked (how you hide 2 large creatures on that battlefield, I don't know). Then the map only has the two Boneclaws shown, and they are front and center where the PCs can't miss them. Dura is no where to be seen (nor are the Cloudreavers, but it's clear they are meant to be "flavor" and not represented).
Finally, the tactics for the Boneclaws state they won't initially attack, but try to lash at the Cargo Bay doors and have the PCs drop through. The doors aren't marked on the map, but the only thing I see that qualifies is a single 5' square on the enemies ship (and maybe one on the PCs). The odds of a PC being on that single square is pretty rare, especially since a PC has to get by a Boneclaw to be on that square.
In our campaign we met Dura, Boneclaws and Cloudreavers and Boneclaws were invisible on their ship until we attacked Dura ... Don't know if it's per book or just our DM handled the encounter that way ...
Clearly miscommunication between the authors and cartographers. The editors also must have horribly mangled this somehow, since it plain doesn't make sense.
Yeah, my original encounter had no Cloudreavers, and Dura and her two boneclaws (which were supposed to be the reanimated corpses of the ogre mage twins from Vorgaard's Estate) were actually waiting in ambush on the PCs own boat (after slaughtering her crew). That's where the boneclaws laying in hiding and opening the cargo bay doors underfoot of the PCs comes in. Was wicked fun in the playtest I ran, but it got radically changed in development and some pieces didn't get changed along with. Curses. Sorry about that DBlizzard!
Was wicked fun in the playtest I ran, but it got radically changed in development and some pieces didn't get changed along with.
I hate to point fingers, but I definitely get the impression that the large number of issues with the errata was the fault of the developers and editors.
Honestly, I think this adventure would have been 100% better if it had been playtested from a final copy. Too many encounters just don't follow from the text (another example is the description of the webbed areas which also contradicts itself). The developers seemed to change things for whatever reasons came to mind, but still left in references to the original plan.
I do think the Cloudreavers as written in the encounter are cool. They don't really work in a miniature oriented game, though. They work well with a description oriented combat style as something to give players a sense of the battle and to give the players something to do when they are in an "ineffective" position.
I do think the Cloudreavers as written in the encounter are cool. They don't really work in a miniature oriented game, though. They work well with a description oriented combat style as something to give players a sense of the battle and to give the players something to do when they are in an "ineffective" position.
I think part of the problem is that 3.5 is a kind of ugly transition period between the mostly descriptive combats of 2nd ed and older and the miniature based combat of (presumably) 4th ed and beyond.
As it stands now: the more interesting and unusual combat is, the more you have to have aspects of combat be narrative rather then rules/miniatures based since the practical aspects of the latter make certain things difficult. A good example of that is the Skyway resturant encounter from the Eberron pulp-action encounter contest. That is a very interesting combat that requires a LOT of narration or else nothing makes sense ("Why am I falling sideways?"). It is also true with any sort of three dimensional combat (underwater, in the air, etc) since you can only prop up a model so high before it gets unstable and falls
Kinda back to the point: It is easy to make an encounter that SOUNDS awesome and makes sense when you imagine it but makes none when actually played out (and vice versa). So I do have some sympathy for the editors but a lot of these kind of issues could be worked out with simply playtesting the final version =\
Kinda back to the point: It is easy to make an encounter that SOUNDS awesome and makes sense when you imagine it but makes none when actually played out (and vice versa). So I do have some sympathy for the editors but a lot of these kind of issues could be worked out with simply playtesting the final version =\
Which is maybe why the current adventure format is a bad thing for WotC. It starts from a good intention (i.e. reducing the prep time for DMs), but if the modules do not go through a lot of editing and playtesting you end up with faulty encounters and laconic stat-blocks.
I am under the impression that the current staffing of WotC (after their downsizing of some years ago), does not give them the manpower to make this Encounter-based format work well.
It might be better for them to go back to a format like that of Dungeon adventures or previous modules: it is supposed to be a bit more work for DMs, but not really if you factor in the "fixing time" one has to invest in making the current format work because of mistakes.
And the other good thing would be that it would give back some more freedom to DMs in shaping encounters that work for THEIR group and THEIR game.
Bocklin
Does the Blue Spawn appear on a ten foot square 30' above the main platform?
Grellyn
And what is the significance of the locked gate in the Forgehold(B7)? Is that meant to be the stairs down to the mines (B9 Location?), because the map looks like the B9 location is on the same level as the rest of the prison (assuming there are connecting passages beneath the round map inserts...). The gate is also in the west wall, not the south, despite the text.
While I like the idea of all the tactical information being in one place for the DM, I don't like how the location description can end up being split up between the story pages and the tactical encounter sections. Especially when the story, tactical and maps don't align...
Do we have stats for Sur'kil? Or at least an age category, so we can stat him ourself? If the PCs free him, i'd like him to be able to assist against the Godslayer, maybe.
I made him an Adult Silver Dragon, but I think maybe a Young Adult is possibly more appropriate given the CR of the encounter he might help with (so the PCs don't play second fiddle if they release him).
BTW - I was quite disappointed with the Fog Rising encounter. Sure, missing the 3 stances wasn't a big deal, but once I got into the analysis, I felt the 3 NPCs lacked some punch. Firstly, the Exarch's feats? What's with two-weapon fighting on a crusader? He's using standard actions to initiate his maneuvers, meaning only 1 attack. Since he never has to waste an action to refresh his moves, he can almost always use a strike every round. He's never going to bother full attacking. And he doesn't have access to any 2-weapon maneuvers (they're all Iron Heart or Tiger Claw), so the second weapon is also pointless. He's far better off with a two-handed weapon, preferably one with reach.
Also - his maneuver choices.. they're ok, but why White Raven Strike if no one he's working with has any facility to take advantage of a Flat Footed opponent? He could have taken Divine Surge instead for +8d8 damage.
Anyone notice that the Seekers sex isn't mentioned in the stat block? Not a big deal, but you have to read the description p63 to know she's female. Her character build is pretty standard for a monk, so no real problems there. OTOH, the berserker fanatic is pointless. It's like the designer specifically wanted him to be useless. He's got a list of feats that contribute nothing to the encounter at all. Dodge is widely regarded as a pointless waste of a feat, except as a prerequisite. But he doesn't need it for any other feats he has. Then Endurance.. seriously? I mean, maybe if he had Diehard (also fairly pointless), but he doesn't. Ok, so Unquenchable Flame of Life. Umm.. what? He's a fanatic of VOL. He'd probably voluntarily fail his saves vs Undead powers because he *likes* them. So finally, Weapon Focus (dagger). Does he use a dagger? Nope. He uses a +1 keen longsword. Does he even *have* a dagger? No, he doesn't.
Utterly pointless waste of feats. They don't even make a lot of sense in the context of a worshipper of Vol. If someone were so focussed on Vols favourite weapon as to take WF(dagger), then they'd probably use a dagger. They might take TWF and use two of them. They wouldn't focus on dagger and then not even carry one.
Lets take a look at his AC for a second. It says "AC 13, touch 11, FF 13" So that's the Dex +1, Amulet of NA+1 and +1 from Padded Armor. Now check his combat gear - Potion of Mage Armor. Why in heaven's name isn't this in his stat block? Are we expected to think that the guy is bright enough to go acquire and carry a potion that gives him +4 Armor bonus to AC for 1 hour, but not bright enough to actually drink it before they spring their ambush? It's not even referred to in his tactics block.
Int 8 is stupid, but not that stupid.
I'm going to completely rebuild this guy so that he actually makes sense, both as a Fanatic of Vol, and an actual berserker who wants to kill people instead of being half the threat he could be.
I'm going to completely rebuild this guy so that he actually makes sense, both as a Fanatic of Vol, and an actual berserker who wants to kill people instead of being half the threat he could be.
True, but the point of this thread is to point out errata. Pointing out that the designers didn't optimize the character for the encounter isn't really on topic.
True, but the point of this thread is to point out errata. Pointing out that the designers didn't optimize the character for the encounter isn't really on topic.
I disagree. In the same way that you mentioned that Dura's Revenge is poorly implemented in a previous post, I merely felt it important to warn some DM's that some extra work might be necessary on the Fog Rising encounter to make it up to the challenge level that those NPCs CR blocks claim they are.
What's more, I think it's debatable that this is a mere question of optimization. If I read that a character has Weapon Focus (dagger) and then see stats for a longsword in the combat block, is that a sub-optimal choice on behalf of the NPC, or a mistake of the developer?
I disagree.
Well, as the one who started the thread, I think I can state the point behind this thread reasonably authoritatively (literally)
In the same way that you mentioned that Dura's Revenge is poorly implemented...
Because of clear errors. The text doesn't match the map. That's errata material.
What's more, I think it's debatable that this is a mere question of optimization. If I read that a character has Weapon Focus (dagger) and then see stats for a longsword in the combat block, is that a sub-optimal choice on behalf of the NPC, or a mistake of the developer?
Barring any obvious reason, assume that it's a choice in the design of the character. If the stat block seems to be missing a +1 to the longsword attack, then it becomes an errata issue.
Secondary to the errata issue is suggested "corrections." My musings were the difficulty of finding a correction since the whole situation is very unclear.
I'm just glad that this thread isn't dead yet. I've just started to run the EotLQ adventure, and was fortunate enough to stumble upon this thread. Good work so far with the findings, but I think there still are a few to be found.
I for one would like to see those NPC "flaws" pointed out, even if they are not erroneous, but only irrational as in the case of the fanatic.
Best regards, Galli.
I'm starting to DM the adventure tomorrow night and it seems to me that the only way to get in is to carve your way in.
I also want to offer my thanks to DBlizzard for having put together this errata. Unfortunately, there is a lot of error in this adventure and It's a little sad since our group decided that this would be our last 3.5 adventure before switching to the Fourth Edition. I hope, in spite of the errors, it will still be fun and will leave a great souvenir of our last venture into 3.5.
Well, as the one who started the thread, I think I can state the point behind this thread reasonably authoritatively (literally)
I don't disagree about the point of the thread - merely that my post was off-topic. :D
If it helps you to swallow my post, consider that an encounter with a listed CR assumes that the monster has the capabilities of that challenge rating. IF an NPC opponent is 6th level, then that CR 6 assumes that he has X number of feats which contribute to his challenge. IF an encounter is easier than it should be then the CR ought to be reduced. Since the Fanatic is under-powered for an average 6th level barbarian, his CR should be reduced by 1.
That would constitute an error, in my books.
For those who played the adventure, I was curious as how you or your players entered the dragons lair in the first part of the adventure. You know, the well who shuts up as soon as one the dragons return to it...
I'm starting to DM the adventure tomorrow night and it seems to me that the only way to get in is to carve your way in.
That's one way. One of my players is an Orien heir, so he Dim-Doored in with two of his crew, and they opened the door for the others. Another way is making sure the black dragons open the door for the PCs ... if they pop up to attack them in prior fights, they might open the door to attack them in a fight that's already "won". The dragons are smart, but not that smart, and so they could find themselves exposed. A party ready for them, could leap into that hole before they open it, and drop a mere 20 feet to the floor. A feather fall token (50gp) is a good thing to have, of course, but 20 feet is only 2d6.
For those who played the adventure, I was curious as how you or your players entered the dragons lair in the first part of the adventure. You know, the well who shuts up as soon as one the dragons return to it...
I'm starting to DM the adventure tomorrow night and it seems to me that the only way to get in is to carve your way in.
For my group, in the last round of the fight around the front door with the dracotaur, the well opened and one of the dragons came out for a peek. It blasted a couple pcs with a stream of acid, but then got peppered by crossbows so it flew back down the hole. Sensing blood, our cleric dived into the well, followed shortly by the artificer(!?). They landed on the closed well and tried to puzzle out where the dragon went. Finally one of the other characters threw them a rope and the artificer tied it around his waist. Just in time, because the bottom of the well opened again and the cleric barely got his arms around the artificer's waist.
The two of them ended up hanging 5 feet below the bottom of the well, and 15 feet or so from the floor of the lair. Cue second stream of acid from the dragon's brother hidden in the darkness... That got them moving and they started screaming for the other two characters to pull them up. They got back up, but not before a second stream of acid (from the recharged second dragon) burned their pants completely off. They were very wary of the wells until they'd cleaned out the temple.
At that point I had one of the dragons open a well and 'leave', setting a trap for the characters who still thought there was only one dragon at that point. They snuck in thinking they would score some loot while the creature was away.
I think I will use it. Thanks !
We played yesterday but as it often happens, my players took me by surprise.
They decided that entering the temple through a window in the back of the building would be a good idea.
Since there is no indications as to where the windows are I decided to put three on the back of the temple, one on the left, one in the middle and one to the right. After peeking into each one they decided that the one in the center that opens in the corridor was the less risky of them.
The combat began with the Dracotaur and the two blackscales on the porch with blackscales adepts joining in each round. We ended last night with the players out of spells fleeing out the door. Two adepts, the high priest, a big wolverine and the two black dragons still waiting inside for them to come back. I will probably add the Poison Dusk to temple guarding duty since the players skip their huts.
I'm eager to see what will come next from these hard to predict players. hahaha. I sure will come back to tell you guys ! :-)
From there the things were going from bad to worse, and even the dragons decided to join in the fray.
Well, they (or actually only the partys druid and his animal companion) did finally slay the high priest and got away. He hasn't abandoned the mission, but he does need some new friends. ;)
Removed.
Why did you remove it?
Removed.
Bummer.
I'm curious as to why it was removed.
After my players finish Grasp of the Emerald Claw I plan on running them through this one, so I've found this info to be very helpful. (I've only been DMing a few months, so I could use all the help I can get).
I'm very curious about the three relics (amulet, scepter and circlet) that all originated at one time in A15, the Dragon's Eye, below the Temple of Kha'shazul. Each has a dragonshard with patterns inside that "are similar to" and "are reminiscent of" known marks. Having PCs that are very curious about magical items, I'm frustrated that there is no mention of what power these relics actually hold, if any. It is assumed in the text that the PCs will diligently return these items to Sur'kil in exchange for cash. Even if they do this, they may still be curious what the relics do and perhaps might believe they could play a role later (e.g. at the climax of the adventure when they rescue Sur'Kil at Vortuum). Also it bothers me that relics from the age of Demons would have images of dragonmarks considering (as I understand it from the Eberron campaign setting) dragonmarks do not appear on the lesser races until much later in the Eberron timeline. Were there dragonmarks before they actually appear on living creatures? Perhaps the same magic that marks the PCs when they enter the chamber also marked the relics at one time????
There is much for DM interpretation here (which if fine with me) but I just thought I'd ask if anyone else has come across this issue.
All three passed their saving throws against the fear. The cleric (who won the initiative) then stepped forward and bull-rushed the mummy 5 feet backwards. As the sarcophagus was right on the very edge of the rift, that meant the mummy took 6d6 falling damage followed by 20d6 fire damage. It died instantly.
The party couldn't work out why someone would put a guardian with fire vulnerability right on the very edge of a huge river of lava. And truth be told, neither could I.
My players just completed part one this evening, and the end fight with the half-dragon mummy didn't quite work out as I'd expected. Rather than going for the relics or opening the sarcophagus lid, the three strongest players instead tried to push the sarcophagus into the lava. I decided that would be a good time for the mummy to make an appearance, so it threw back the lid and rose up just as they were about to push.
All three passed their saving throws against the fear. The cleric (who won the initiative) then stepped forward and bull-rushed the mummy 5 feet backwards. As the sarcophagus was right on the very edge of the rift, that meant the mummy took 6d6 falling damage followed by 20d6 fire damage. It died instantly.
The party couldn't work out why someone would put a guardian with fire vulnerability right on the very edge of a huge river of lava. And truth be told, neither could I.
Looks like a typical metagaming to me. I am not sure that real, well something like real ;), adventures would just throw a sarcophagus into that lava river without checking what is inside. How were they so sure that real treasure they are looking for isn't inside? Why those characters, not players, supposed there is any danger there? Any clues for them carved on sarcophagus? Visions? Sense of danger? Ok, may be they have some experience with situations like that, don't know.
On the other side *I* personally think that fire vulnerability and huge lava river are intended from authors. It gives characters another chance to deal with mummy, different from just slaying it. Makes more ways how to finish that encounter. Besides that half-dragon mummy is residue from old ages, may be descendat of the dragon-sentinel from *near* volcano city. Nice backround story from designers.
Putting there fireproof monster just because of lava river would be a metagaming from the other side of barricade.
Looks like a typical metagaming to me. I am not sure that real, well something like real ;), adventures would just throw a sarcophagus into that lava river without checking what is inside. How were they so sure that real treasure they are looking for isn't inside?
Detect magic. There was nothing magical in the sarcophagus, but the two items in the alcoves behind the altar radiated magic.
Why those characters, not players, supposed there is any danger there?
Every room they'd come across had contained either a trap, a guardian, or both, and the party were getting sick of surprises. This appeared to be the last room, so they assumed it would have the most dangerous guardian, and a big stone sarcophagus isn't exactly subtle. Furthermore, the players had very carefully examined the chamber before crossing the bridge (mostly looking for traps), and one of them got an exceptional roll, so I told him there was a large patch of the floor which had faint signs of pitting and corrosion, as if from acid (from when the guardian had chased off the adventurers who stole the third relic). They'd had plenty of first-hand experience of the two young black dragons' breath weapons earlier on in the adventure, and didn't want to go through that again.
But the same could have applied to more a conventional approach. Even if the party didn't decide to cast 'detect undead', and just wanted to blindly open the sarcophagus (which is one of the two standard solutions listed in the module), they'd still be in a prime position to give the half-dragon a good hard shove into the lava. A strong character (the sort who would be trying to lift a heavy stone lid) with Improved Bull Rush, using an action point, would have roughly a 50/50 chance of an instant kill.
On the other side *I* personally think that fire vulnerability and huge lava river are intended from authors. It gives characters another chance to deal with mummy, different from just slaying it. Makes more ways how to finish that encounter.
Fair enough, but I felt it was something that other DMs might at least want to know about in advance. Simply moving the sarcophagus 5 feet away from the edge would greatly reduce the chance of an instant kill, while still allowing players to use other tactics during combat to try and knock the mummy into the lava (luring it across the crumbling bridge, for example, would seem a good strategy without being too cheap).
The designers' notes said it was intended to be a memorable encounter, and I suppose it was - in an Indiana Jones sort of way. The towering black half-dragon mummy threw back the lid of its stone sarcophagus, and rose to its feet with a roar. The cleric stepped forward and pushed it into the lava, rubbed his hands together, and said "Right, let's check out the treasure". But it still wasn't quite the end I had in mind for the final guardian of a relic so dangerous that the Chamber had tried to erase all references to it.
Detect magic. There was nothing magical in the sarcophagus, but the two items in the alcoves behind the altar radiated magic.
Did they? I see. In our campaign DM told us they are completely non-magical.
Every room they'd come across had contained either a trap, a guardian, or both, and the party were getting sick of surprises.
Personally I'm not quite happy with style "every room has an encounter" (and I'm afraid we will see more of that in 4E). It doeasn't seem enjoyable to me, because exactly it takes a moment of surprise from characters/players. they expect encounter everywhere ... sad for me.
This appeared to be the last room, so they assumed it would have the most dangerous guardian, and a big stone sarcophagus isn't exactly subtle.
Reminds me a quote from terry Pratchett book ... "Treasure is bellow the altar. ... How could you know? ... Well, it's always like that!"
But the same could have applied to more a conventional approach. Even if the party didn't decide to cast 'detect undead', and just wanted to blindly open the sarcophagus (which is one of the two standard solutions listed in the module), they'd still be in a prime position to give the half-dragon a good hard shove into the lava. A strong character (the sort who would be trying to lift a heavy stone lid) with Improved Bull Rush, using an action point, would have roughly a 50/50 chance of an instant kill.
The designers' notes said it was intended to be a memorable encounter, and I suppose it was - in an Indiana Jones sort of way. The towering black half-dragon mummy threw back the lid of its stone sarcophagus, and rose to its feet with a roar. The cleric stepped forward and pushed it into the lava, rubbed his hands together, and said "Right, let's check out the treasure". But it still wasn't quite the end I had in mind for the final guardian of a relic so dangerous that the Chamber had tried to erase all references to it.
But in the end ... bullrushing large half-dragon mummy in to the lava river is something memorable, isn't it?
Detect magic. There was nothing magical in the sarcophagus...
The supernatural abilities of that creature say otherwise.
Did they? I see. In our campaign DM told us they are completely non-magical.
As far as I can tell, the book doesn't specify. But as they're described as relics from an age that ended over a hundred thousand years ago, and contain dragonshards with shifting dragonmarks within them, I decided it would make sense for them to radiate magic.
The supernatural abilities of that creature say otherwise.
Detect Magic explicitly states that "outsiders and elementals are not magical in themselves" unless summoned. It makes no mention of undead - however Detect Undead is one level higher than Detect Magic, so it would seem strange to me for the lower level spell to reveal more information than the higher level spell.
But even if Detect Magic were to reveal undead, it wouldn't actually change the point I was making.
What about the other half of the creature?
Medium undead (argumented dragon). Creatures don't innately radiate magic in my campaign (nor, to the best of my knowledge, according to the RAW), only functioning spells, magic items and (according to page 44 of the D&D FAQ) supernatural effects - but (and this is the important part!) even if they did, the players would instead have pushed the lid off the sarcophagus, and the end result would have been exactly the same.
Also it bothers me that relics from the age of Demons would have images of dragonmarks considering (as I understand it from the Eberron campaign setting) dragonmarks do not appear on the lesser races until much later in the Eberron timeline. Were there dragonmarks before they actually appear on living creatures? Perhaps the same magic that marks the PCs when they enter the chamber also marked the relics at one time????
There is much for DM interpretation here (which if fine with me) but I just thought I'd ask if anyone else has come across this issue.
I believe one of the Eberron books notes that Dragonmarks have existed for thousands of years before the lesser races manifested them, largely as mysterious cave paintings (which is how they are depicted in the adventure).
I believe one of the Eberron books notes that Dragonmarks have existed for thousands of years before the lesser races manifested them, largely as mysterious cave paintings (which is how they are depicted in the adventure).
That certainly makes sense.....do you know what book mentions that important fact? One of the Eberron supplements or in an Eberron novel perhaps?
I too just ran the encounter with the half-dragon mummy and so far the PC's have not asked about the relics.....right now they are trying to figure out their newly appeared dragonmarks. Still, I'm curious why the powers of the relics (if any) were not described by the authors.
Still, I'm curious why the powers of the relics (if any) were not described by the authors.
As relics from the Age of Demons, I assumed their powers were outside the scope of an identify spell. IMC, unlocking their secrets would be the work of a lifetime, if not generations, and would be the sort of thing that even House Cannith would consider a long-term project (comparable with the lightning rail, the warforged, airships, etc).
That said, I do have some thoughts on the matter (but please note that this is pure speculation on my part)...
The sceptre and crown seem to be symbolic of a ruler, and are the sort of thing I'd expect a mummified king to have been buried with. There are two problems with that line of reasoning though - the first is that this isn't really a burial, and the second is that the mummy is a half-dragon (I can't see the dragons allowing a half-dragon to be king of anything).
The dragons went to a whole lot of trouble to hide the Dragon's Eye, which suggests to me that either they felt the relics were important enough to be hidden at the same time, or those relics were somehow intended to help hide the Dragon's Eye. The latter seems unlikely based on the fact that one of the relics has been missing for hundreds of years, and that nothing apparantly changes once the other two have been taken as well.
One possibility is that the dragonmarks in the relics' dragonshards came from early experiments with the Dragon's Eye (in much the same way as the dragonmarks the PCs receive). But if the dragons were bothered enough to hide the relics, why don't they care about the PCs bearing dragonmarks from the same source? Perhaps in their attempt to bury the truth about the Dragon's Eye, they also buried their knowledge of the danger, and simply don't realise what a risk the PCs represent. This could come back to haunt the party if Sur'Kil spends sufficient time researching the relics.
Another possibility is that the relics were focus items used in the creation of the Dragon's Eye, although if that were the case I'm not sure why the dragons didn't simply destroy them. Perhaps they feared that destroying the relics might unleash their contained power into the world, or maybe they just didn't want to risk messing with something they didn't fully understand.
A third possibility is that the dragonshards contain a record of the lore and history that was subsequently erased from the outside world - while the dragons wanted the knowledge to be hidden, they were afraid to completely destroy what had cost so many draconic lives to learn, in case their enemies should one day try to create another such device. In that case, perhaps the form of the relics really is just symbolic, indicating the great responsibility and wisdom required to use such dangerous knowledge wisely.
That certainly makes sense.....do you know what book mentions that important fact? One of the Eberron supplements or in an Eberron novel perhaps?
No, I'm not sure which book -- I don't have any of the novels, so it's likely in one of the supplements.
Still, I'm curious why the powers of the relics (if any) were not described by the authors.
It's never 100% spelled out in the book, but it looks like the relics were a sort of instruction manual on how to operate the Dragon's Eye. The explanation kinda spoils the entire adventure, so it's in Spoiler tags below:
Show
The adventure notes (p.111) that the Dragon's Eye was never an actual artifact, it was the process of transformation undergone by the PCs in the Temple of Kha'shazul (when they got their dragonmarks).
The three relics have the marks of Storm, Warding, and Shadow on them. The 3 moons that move into alignment at the climax (Zarantyr, Vult, and Sypheros) are the moons associated with each of those respective dragonmarks (see the Moons of Eberron web enhancement).
When the Dragon's Eye (the PCs) are brought to the power source (the orb atop the Orrey) during the alignment of all three of the moons, the weapon that the demons were building to fight the dragons is activated (the Godslayer). The relics don't necessarily have any power of their own, they just point to the conditions necessary to activate the weapon.
The three relics have the marks of Storm, Warding, and Shadow on them. The 3 moons that move into alignment at the climax (Zarantyr, Vult, and Sypheros) are the moons associated with each of those respective dragonmarks (see the Moons of Eberron web enhancement).
When the Dragon's Eye (the PCs) are brought to the power source (the orb atop the Orrey) during the alignment of all three of the moons, the weapon that the demons were building to fight the dragons is activated (the Godslayer). The relics don't necessarily have any power of their own, they just point to the conditions necessary to activate the weapon.
That certainly makes sense.....do you know what book mentions that important fact? One of the Eberron supplements or in an Eberron novel perhaps?
I think I remember it in a few things mentioning it, but ECS pg. 130 under The Draconic Prophesy
3 paragraph is the most detailed, talking about how reading the prophesy is about finding naturally forming dragonmarks. Dragons have been reading these for years, they just now also form on the skin of the dragonmarked.
Removed since others seem to want to use the thread for non-errata issues, after I asked for this thread to stay on topic. Be my guest
While I agree that this thread should have stayed on topic to discuss errata issues, I think it was pretty juvenile to remove the information in retaliation when it didn’t.
In addition, while the content of the majority of this thread may have been off YOUR intended topic, it was still very useful to me.
I am sad that you decided to remove the information that may have further helped me run this adventure. I hope it made you feel better to do so…
Is there a place that I can get the compiled errata for this?
Go back in time to early February before the OP decided to join the thread derailers by derailing the initial post.
- Page 19 - Treasure is mentioned as being in chests, but no treasure is listed in that section. Given the amount of treasure in the adventure, I recommend just leaving it empty, or a token amount.
- Page 27 - The "development" section states that reinforcements will arrive in 1 minute (6 rounds). 1 minute is actually 10 rounds. I recommend you have reinforcements arrive in whichever serves the game best (6 or 10 rounds).
- Page 41 - The chain platform section states the distance between the platforms is 10 ft. but the map shows the distance as 20 ft. Per designer Stephen Schubert the platforms should be 10 ft. away. Remove 10 ft. from both sides of the platform on the map.
- Page 45 - Emerald claw soldier are missing at feat. Per the ECS they have Toughness.
- Page 64 - Tactics section mentions that the Emerald Claw Soldioers have potions of protection from good, but they aren't in their stat blocks. I recommend replacing the potion of cure light wounds with them. Also, see the page 45 note.
- Page 65 - Map scale is listed at 5 ft. per square, but is clearly 10 ft. per square based on the complete map and the figure placement.
- Page 65 - States both that the Ogre Magi twins have their CR reduced because of expended abilities and later to reduce xp to 75% because of this. Per designer Stephen Schubert use one or the other (I recommend the reduced CR).
- Page 67 - Again, map scale is 10 ft. per square, not 5 ft. The key has probably reversed the symbols for Dura and the zombies. Also, only one zombie is placed on the map (probably on the opposite side of the doorway).
- Page 69 - Again, map scale is 10 ft. per square, not 5 ft.
- Page 78 - Syn's rapier is listed as both +1 keen rapier and + 2 wounding rapier. I'd recommend using whichever would be best for your party (Keen Rapier is probably best, as that's what the stat block uses).
- Page 80 - Blood of Vol Exarch is missing 3 stances. It also fails the mention the smite is only 1/day.
- Page 81 - Map shows two Blood of Vol Fanatics when there is only one. Recommendation: Use the southernmost location (to surround the PCs).
- Page 84 - Map of Trebaz Sinara is missing C2-C4, and C1 seems misplaced.
- Pages 94-06 (and Page 87) - Description of webbed caverns and maps don't match up.
- Page 96 - Spider is shown on map as taking up 10x10 area, but is actually Huge taking up a 15x15 area.
- Page 102-103 - An encounter mangled almost beyond salvaging. See this post for details.
- Page 122 - Dread Wraith tactics mentions using Combat Expertise, a feat the Dread Wraith lacks. Probably Combat Reflexes was supposed to be Combat Expertise, I'd recommend that change.
- Page 123 - Dread Wraith is shown to be medium size on map, but is actually large.
In all my searching I have never stumbled across this page...
Thank you very very much Amaril, for the info, and for turning me on to a new Eberron board.
In all my searching I have never stumbled across this page...
You're welcome.