I like this book, so I gave you money for it. Continue to produce books like this and I will continue to give you money. That's all, basically; I've thoroughly enjoyed reading this book, lots of good fluff, crunch and pretty pictures (especially the poster map).
Cheers!
I still don't have the book yet and am looking for multiple opinions on the best/worst parts, first impressions, as well as initial expectations vs. what you actually got out of the book.
Could you guys be a little more specific about what you liked (and disliked, if anything)?
I still don't have the book yet and am looking for multiple opinions on the best/worst parts, first impressions, as well as initial expectations vs. what you actually got out of the book.
The good -
The formatting and general layout of the book
Almost all of the fluff, including factions, foes, and over-arching themes and narratives is interesting and well written
The gazateer/map of Neverwinter and details of its locations (as well as surrounding locations)
The character themes
The heavy inclusion of shadowfell elements, including the city of Evernight (even if I sort of have trouble understanding why the shadowfell is apparently a precise mirror reflection in FR)
The debatable -
Subraces are kinda cool, but I can't dispel the notion that it would have been better to just implement them as backgrounds for the sake of consistency. I also would have liked to have had more than 6 covering only 3 races. This is an example of 4e's rather egregious issue with organization and having lots of material that is very lopsided and/or overly scattered between different sources.
Bladesingers - I haven't formed a strong opinion one way or the other. They look interesting enough, and I don't at all mind that it's an essentials style wizard subclass. I despise the essentials style formatting of features and powers though, and can't for the life of me understand why it keeps getting used.
The bad -
It's a relatively minor complaint, but I don't understand why the new domains used the names of the deities instead of the names of the domain itself. It (yet again) departs from an already established paradigm and just seems messy and unintuitive. The only thing it accomplishes is making those domains more awkward to port.
Like all 4e books, it's a bit content-light for its price, but isn't as egregious an offender as some other products have been.
Overall, it's pretty high quality and injects a bit of renewed vigor and interest into the 4e FR.
Me likey the book as well.
got my copy to day...
was intereting what I read through....
Erik and Co. good job
The heavy inclusion of shadowfell elements, including the city of Evernight (even if I sort of have trouble understanding why the shadowfell is apparently a precise mirror reflection in FR)
I can understand the confusion, but the Shadowfell only *seems* like a close reflection, and only in that localized area. It's sort of like an ink blot test: you see what's familiar to you, and so if you come to the Shadowfell from the Realms, you'll see similarities to the Realms. If you come from Eberron, it seems like Eberron. Etc.
Cheers
The good -
The debatable -
The bad -
Like all 4e books, it's a bit content-light for its price, but isn't as egregious an offender as some other products have been.
Thanks man.
I like the product so far but one thing is bugging me is the differences between the maps, some pictures and descriptions.
For example, the art of p.6-7 doesn’t match the big map of the city. The picture is beautiful, but what is the point if I can’t show it to my players without some explanation. Another example is the description of the wall. It said that some parts are made of old houses or wood but clearly the wall on the map leaves no rooms for it.
Good product in general but I hate it when art department is not following the rest of the team!
I am a little concerned by some of the mechanics though. The Pack Outcast for example is going to be really popular, and yet the mechanics seem off. As others have noted, the attack progression of bite attacks are screwed. Yet, the level 5 theme feature grants Combat Advantage to the PC against any enemy they are adjacent to. That seems very powerful! And probably not intentional. Other themes have strange overlaps. I hope this is errata'd.
I'm on the fence about the Bladesinger, but it's a neat concept. The racial variants don't interest me much.
I'm on the fence about the Bladesinger, but it's a neat concept. The racial variants don't interest me much.
Those are both old school things, appealing to long-time FR gamers. I was very pleased to see that the long tradition of subraces has returned! If you're fairly new to the setting, you might not be as keen.
Then again, maybe you're a hardcore FR gamer, and the mechanics just aren't that appealing to you?
Cheers
I can understand the confusion, but the Shadowfell only *seems* like a close reflection
Part oif this may be because the map of Evernight is adark colored copy of the map of Neverwinter, but there should be more differences (i.e. the Chasm is a lot smaller).
Could you guys be a little more specific about what you liked (and disliked, if anything)?
I still don't have the book yet and am looking for multiple opinions on the best/worst parts, first impressions, as well as initial expectations vs. what you actually got out of the book.
The good -
The formatting and general layout of the book
Almost all of the fluff, including factions, foes, and over-arching themes and narratives is interesting and well written
The gazateer/map of Neverwinter and details of its locations (as well as surrounding locations)
The character themes
The heavy inclusion of shadowfell elements, including the city of Evernight (even if I sort of have trouble understanding why the shadowfell is apparently a precise mirror reflection in FR)
The debatable -
Subraces are cool, but I would have liked to have had more than 6 covering only 3 races. This is an example of 4e's rather egregious issue with organization and having lots of material that is very lopsided and/or overly scattered between different sources.
Bladesingers - I haven't formed a strong opinion one way or the other. They look interesting enough, and I don't at all mind that it's an essentials style wizard subclass. I despise the essentials style formatting of features and powers though, and can't for the life of me understand why it keeps getting used.
The bad -
It's a relatively minor complaint, but I don't understand why the new domains used the names of the deities instead of the names of the domain itself. It (yet again) departs from an already established paradigm and just seems messy and unintuitive. The only thing it accomplishes is making those domains more awkward to port.
Like all 4e books, it's a bit content-light for its price, but isn't as egregious an offender as some other products have been.
Overall, it's pretty high quality and injects a bit of renewed vigor and interest into the 4e FR.
Just wanted to say thanks too for the description. How come your not a fan of the essential variants? I'm kinda looking forward to seeing what the Bladesinger is all about (was a favortie of mine back in 2E). My players love the essential vaitiants also... 3 out of 5 characters are essentials (knight, Hunter and WarPriest). I think the are also a little more 3E like as well, which is why I think the majority of my players favor them. The second is the Domains... we have a Dwarven WarPriest in our campaign and it's a great character build. I've always whish they had added more Domains right away. Again, I think it's because they are familiar to 3E clerics.
Besides I like the book a whole lot, both fluff and mechanics so I can't and wont complain about such a minor issue.
from the beginning the bladesinger was a wizzard type..... there is notalga(cant spell it) there
Agreed.
Even though the new Bladesinger is a controller class, this guy can get up close and personal. We play a lot of delve's (switching between playing and DM'ing; to give me a break) which have allowed me to play everyone's character. I imagine the bladesinger (from reading about it) to be a lot like the Ranger Hunter class which is also a controller and it's a lot of fun playing him.
Themes, I feel too much detail went into the background history for them. They suggest too much background for the character. I want the player to make the character and their own background history, not say 'I'm playing the Harper theme, and it says I met so-and-so and did this and that'. Not only is it wasted space, but then those backgrounds are referenced in other sections of the book.
The new themes also hand out powers for free as the character levels, some of which are overpowered (get combat advantage against anything you are adjacent to @ 5th level). This puts them a level above themes from Dark Sun and Dragon, adding power creep that will have to be compensated for by giving non-FR-Theme players another magic item or something.
I could have done without the Evernight stuff, that seems tacked on and awkward to work into the setting. Not much you can do with a town run by hungry ghouls.
Overall the NWCS may even be better than the Dark Sun and Eberron books. It gives a focused, coherent setting that lends itself to roleplay and politics. The other settings so far have been world-sized grab bags and kitchen-sink settings. NWCS is way, way better than the FRCS (which is by far the worst setting book released under 4e).
These comments should be taken as applying to any DM using this product, not Ritorix in particular.
Themes, I feel too much detail went into the background history for them. They suggest too much background for the character. I want the player to make the character and their own background history, not say 'I'm playing the Harper theme, and it says I met so-and-so and did this and that'. Not only is it wasted space, but then those backgrounds are referenced in other sections of the book.
To explain the concept here, as I understand it: The concept here is to present as much material as possible to appeal to as many people as possible. For you, in your home games, it sounds like you're totally good with writing your own backstories and working with your players to integrate them into the story. Not all groups are like that; many DMs just don't have time, many players just aren't as interested in creating pages of backstory, etc. Our design is supposed to appeal to them as well as people (such as yourself) who are fine with just ignoring it and making your own backstory.
The goal in this product was to present a coherent and very specific story, tying every aspect of the setting with very strong hooks to appeal to character backgrounds. But these backgrounds and hooks (like everything else in the book) should be considered SUGGESTIONS/GUIDELINES, rather than actual rules. You should feel free to change anything and everything to make your game work.
In my own design, I often find it better to err on the side of *more* information, and letting PCs/DMs ignore it, rather than hoping they will make up something that will make it all fit. At least this way you have the option of using the presented backgrounds.
The new themes also hand out powers for free as the character levels, some of which are overpowered (get combat advantage against anything you are adjacent to @ 5th level). This puts them a level above themes from Dark Sun and Dragon, adding power creep that will have to be compensated for by giving non-FR-Theme players another magic item or something.
I'm generally ok with some powers being more powerful than others, but that's because I know my game and my players, and I'm more than happy to nerf things at my table for the sake of my game (as necessary). You should do the same, if you consider something overpowered.
Overall the NWCS may even be better than the Dark Sun and Eberron books. It gives a focused, coherent setting that lends itself to roleplay and politics. The other settings so far have been world-sized grab bags and kitchen-sink settings. NWCS is way, way better than the FRCS (which is by far the worst setting book released under 4e).
Thanks for the kind words, despite your reservations. Based on your comments, I am confident you are creative enough to turn this into exactly what you want.
Cheers
from the beginning the bladesinger was a wizard type..... there is notalga(cant spell it) there
Yeah, that's pretty much how I see it.
Also, it should be noted that there's no reason you can't play a swordmage and CALL YOURSELF a bladesinger. I consider the Bladesinger, Swordmage, Sword-focused Bard, One-Sword Wizard, etc., to be part of the "Bladesong Spectrum": classes that could be interpreted as Bladesingers, with the right flavor added by the player/DM. There are many different styles of bladesong, emphasizing physical combat, spellcasting, etc., in different levels and techniques. This just fills a gap in the Bladesong spectrum, which was missing the heavy spellcasting element.
Flavor is a powerful thing. Make it your friend!
Cheers
...Also, it should be noted that there's no reason you can't play a swordmage and CALL YOURSELF a bladesinger...
If you're in the backwater north, talking to a bunch of uneducated doofy human farmers... sure.
But in front of a group of conservative-traditionalist noble gold elves? Trou-ble! ;)
Hey Erik.... a suggestion for the eratta for the neverwinter book should there ever be one.
but can it be made for the bladesinger to have acxcess to the swordmage paragon paths??
While I like the Bladesinger I still don't quite get why it was built on the wizard framework. Considering how the class turned out I would hae understood it better as a Swordmage variant. But I guess the world needs more wizard types
Besides I like the book a whole lot, both fluff and mechanics so I can't and wont complain about such a minor issue.
If you'll re-read my post, you'll see that I was talking about the essentials-style formatting of powers and features within the books (i.e. the format that has been used since the first essentials product) and not essentials classes themselves, which I don't have a problem with.
I also think it's totally fine that the Bladesinger is a wizard and not a swordmage. Truthfully, from my personal point of view I see a bigger difference between bladesingers and swordmages thematically than I do between wizards and bladesingers. It may just be because of the role difference.
...Also, it should be noted that there's no reason you can't play a swordmage and CALL YOURSELF a bladesinger...
If you're in the backwater north, talking to a bunch of uneducated doofy human farmers... sure.
But in front of a group of conservative-traditionalist noble gold elves? Trou-ble! ;)
Heh, I was talking mechanics, but you're right, of course. Throughout history, one's training and background has been the source of plenty of arguments between warriors, and snooty "classic" elven bladesingers will no doubt take that to a whole new level. If you're playing a bladesinger or anyone who calls himself/herself a bladesinger, expect to encounter a lot of rivalry and calls to prove yourself.
In one of my campaigns, I play a swordmage who was trained by a FR bladesinger, and while she doesn't call herself a bladesinger, she still has some of those chops and fights periodic swordmagic duels of honor or blood.
Cheers
If anyone wants to see the extremes people go to, when you suggest a game may be sort of like Game of Thrones, take a look. This should be interesting.
Well I am starting a Neverwinter campaign, play-by-post format.
If anyone wants to see the extremes people go to, when you suggest a game may be sort of like Game of Thrones, take a look. This should be interesting.
Your game looks awesome! If I had more time, I'd pester you to let me join.
Cheers
Well, I purchased a copy of Neverwinter and still haven't had a chance to sit down and read through the book. There was some sticker shock, but I got over it.
The characters are basically exiled nobles and their henchmen (including one guy playing a hunchback, lol). Looks like we will be heavily a Sons-oriented game fighting against Neverember. Given the choice they already went straight to the Blacklake district from fresh off the boat. I cant wait to introduce Mordai Vell, he should be fun.
I'm generally ok with some powers being more powerful than others, but that's because I know my game and my players, and I'm more than happy to nerf things at my table for the sake of my game (as necessary). You should do the same, if you consider something overpowered.
This is really not a very good answer to the fact that some of the Themes have powers that are clearly too strong, or pointless. The level 5 Pack Outcast power is way overpowered, for example. And I'm pretty sure that the problems with it were simply from poor editing--I'm pretty sure that said Pack Outcast ability is supposed to be a lot more similar to the Dire Wolf's special monster ability, and not an automatic combat advantage for the Pack Outcast.
Neverwinter is a nice book, and the concept behind the Themes is great--exactly what I want out of Themes.. I look forward to the day when hopefully a few of the themes have their mechanics corrected though.
Other than that, I think the book is great and I hope to see more like it in the future.
Generally speaking, there is no way a designer can design exactly what everyone wants in terms of power level. I could design everything to match perfectly the way I run my games, but a large percentage of players do a lot more combat than I do, for instance, or want to see focus in a different direction.
The best we as designers can do is put out stuff that will work for as many people as possible, and assume that people will tweak it as necessary for their own enjoyment. Just as it has been in every edition of D&D, you as the DM have to feel empowered to modify things to make your own game run smoothly.
This doesn't mean that we don't try and give you what you want. That's our responsibility as game designers, and I am not about to try and dodge that. But no product can perfectly fit everyone's needs, because every game is different. Inevitably there will be things you like and things you don't. The standard of judgment should be how much of it you can use, not whether you can use all of it.
I generally don't ascribe to nerfing as a design philosophy. I figure once it's in print, it's up to the DM and the players to be reasonable and responsible. That doesn't mean playtesting shouldn't be done, and I would very much like to see WotC reach out to a number of you Optimizer folks for what I call "break testing" (i.e., looking at the mechanics to see what can be broken and what can't). But it does mean that the responsibility can't just reside with the game designers--it relies on you, at your table, with your house rules.
@SC: I hear and acknowledge your concerns. I don't personally think the Pack Outcast level 5 is unreasonable. You can do much the same thing with feats. I probably wouldn't have designed it that way, but that theme isn't one of mine, so I can't really comment on that specifically. It may be errated, it may not. But like I said above, you as a DM need to take ownership of your game. If something is too powerful, disallow it, alter it, etc.
What do you feel is "pointless," out of curiosity?
@Macrocosm: I totally hear you about the big bads being heroic tier. Your concern is duly noted, and it was one of our main design concerns going into the book.
Think back to that moment in Baldur's Gate (not sure if you actually played it; if not, note that your party would be around 4th-7th level at this point) where you venture into the woods and meet Drizzt. Yes, that's right--it's your low-level party against a high-level ranger. But through the magic of the computer game, he's actually beatable, even though in a novel, Drizzt would mop the floor with your faces. Then again, in Baldur's Gate 2, you fight not only Drizzt, but Drizzt and his friends, who should kick your butt even harder but don't necessarily. They're still beatable.
Basically (and I was the one who wrote the sidebar about this, see page 14), we wanted the big bads to be beatable threats for heroic characters. I really feel like the mechanics should serve the story, not the other way around.
Aboleths seem too weak? Well, the aboleths in Neverwinter are younger or just less powerful than the ones in the Sovereignty proper. Maybe their work with the spellplague has made them lazy or weakened them directly.
Valindra should be tougher? Well, the mechanics presented might be a *weakened* Valindra that the PCs have got to after a long slog that involved finding a special ritual to sap her powers. Or that might simulate a skirmish with Valindra--when you reduce that statblock to 0 hp, she recognizes the heroes are a real threat and teleports away, to fight them at some later date. Personally, I consider Valindra (in my game) to be a 15th level standard monster, so a 9th level elite seems like a reasonable appoximation.
Same with Clariburnus. If I were to run an actual encounter with how powerful I think the Princes of Shade should be, it's be high paragon, and Clariburnus would be a 17th level standard monster, with some of the others being more powerful.
Also, keep in mind that levels in 4e are not necessarily the same as levels in 3.5. I consider 4e's 1-30 to encompass the same amount of power as 3.5's 1-20. When you hit 15th level in 4e, you're basically 10th level in 3.5. So Valindra and Clariburnus would logically be more like 13-15th level in 3.5 terms, which is more reasonable than 10 or under.
But the main thing to remember is that these statblocks are supposed to be RELATIVE. They show the big bads as more powerful than the PCs but still able to be fought (however briefly).
Cheers
the one thing I noticed... the race section did not have the Star Elf(eldarin) in it....
Well, it would be a rare star elf who'd actually be in Neverwinter.
Cheers
but what would you give them ?
true....
but what would you give them ?
Maybe that deserves a DDI article?
(Hint hint: Advocate for what you want!)
Cheers
@Macrocosm: I totally hear you about the big bads being heroic tier. Your concern is duly noted, and it was one of our main design concerns going into the book.
Think back to that moment in Baldur's Gate (not sure if you actually played it; if not, note that your party would be around 4th-7th level at this point) where you venture into the woods and meet Drizzt. Yes, that's right--it's your low-level party against a high-level ranger. But through the magic of the computer game, he's actually beatable, even though in a novel, Drizzt would mop the floor with your faces. Then again, in Baldur's Gate 2, you fight not only Drizzt, but Drizzt and his friends, who should kick your butt even harder but don't necessarily. They're still beatable.
Basically (and I was the one who wrote the sidebar about this, see page 14), we wanted the big bads to be beatable threats for heroic characters. I really feel like the mechanics should serve the story, not the other way around.
Aboleths seem too weak? Well, the aboleths in Neverwinter are younger or just less powerful than the ones in the Sovereignty proper. Maybe their work with the spellplague has made them lazy or weakened them directly.
Valindra should be tougher? Well, the mechanics presented might be a *weakened* Valindra that the PCs have got to after a long slog that involved finding a special ritual to sap her powers. Or that might simulate a skirmish with Valindra--when you reduce that statblock to 0 hp, she recognizes the heroes are a real threat and teleports away, to fight them at some later date. Personally, I consider Valindra (in my game) to be a 15th level standard monster, so a 9th level elite seems like a reasonable appoximation.
Same with Clariburnus. If I were to run an actual encounter with how powerful I think the Princes of Shade should be, it's be high paragon, and Clariburnus would be a 17th level standard monster, with some of the others being more powerful.
Also, keep in mind that levels in 4e are not necessarily the same as levels in 3.5. I consider 4e's 1-30 to encompass the same amount of power as 3.5's 1-20. When you hit 15th level in 4e, you're basically 10th level in 3.5. So Valindra and Clariburnus would logically be more like 13-15th level in 3.5 terms, which is more reasonable than 10 or under.
But the main thing to remember is that these statblocks are supposed to be RELATIVE. They show the big bads as more powerful than the PCs but still able to be fought (however briefly).
Cheers
I think this is indicative of a huge disparity in interpreting power level between you and I.
I never played 3.5 but I looked up the levels of some of the princes of shade and Telamont's levels were Wizard 20, Archmage 5, Shadow Adept 10. That's 35 levels in 3.5 rules which would put him at about level 50+ in 4e? Probably not but I would say it would put him at about Szazz Tamm level, i.e. level ~30 Solo. The youngest/weakest (Melegaunt) has 16 levels in diviner and 4 in shadow adept, giving him 20 levels 3.5 levels, which I think would put him about lower epic in 4e.
Regardless of the exact conversion of levels from 3.5 to 4e, the weakest should be at least lower epic tier with the strongest being at least upper epic tier and solo. I mean aren't we talking about creatures who were the most powerful mages in the world 1000s of years ago, were monarchs of the most powerful empire of the time, then went into the Shadowfell where they increased their power, and now they are back and ae still some of the most powerful mages in the world and are again the monarchs of one of the world's most powerful empires? How could you justify making them level 17 standard, much less level 10 elite?
In brief, the mechanics are meant to reflect RELATIVE power, not set power. Villains in your game don't wear nametags that say they are a particular level and a particular role. The mechanics are put in place to reflect what a battle with that character would be like, not to represent that character's core self. (That's your responsibility as the DM.)
In long, my belief is that the mechanics should serve the story, and not the other way around. People who come to play D&D are playing to have fun--to have the campaign focus (at least largely) on them as the PCs. And often fun involves accomplishment. If your foes are forever outside your reach, as a 40+level antagonist would be, then what's the point of even having them in the game? They aren't gods. They're just people who ostensibly became that powerful somehow--how come the PCs can't do the same? (And if they're so gods-darned powerful, why haven't they won yet?)
And I want to make it clear that I'm not throwing out continuity here. I have nothing but affection for older editions--I grew up playing the Realms from as early as it appeared. I know that Drizzt's powers work the way they do because that's the way they worked in first edition. I was HUGE into 3.5, and I remember distinctly as a DM looking at the 12 Princes of Shade, seeing their amazingly high levels, and thinking to myself, well, there's a whole bunch of people I can never actually use--at least not in combat. In 4e, the situation becomes even more clear: building the 12 Princes "by their old levels" means you make them 25-45th level (at least), and they become completely unusable in your game. Why?
In a novel, anyone can be fought, and anyone can (theoretically) be killed. Not the case in 4e. A 40th level threat is more powerful than the gods and completely outside the reach of adventurers. Not only can they not crit consistently enough to deplete its hit points in time, but just a few attacks from the creature will TPK a party. Its defenses are way outside the reach of PCs, and its attack modifiers make the best PC defenses trivial. That's just the way 4e is built, and when we design a story in 4e, we have to compensate for the system being what it is.
I think there's a lot more story when there's tension, and the PCs should feel capable of achieving great, heroic things.
You can and should build and alter monsters' levels to fit your game. I know I gave some estimations of where I see people falling on the spectrum, but it should be broader than that. Elite doesn't mean *extra powerful*, it means *lasts longer in the combat/i.e. really tough.* So monsters that are significant NPCs don't have to be elites to get the point across. Solo as a mechanic doesn't necessarily translate to amazing power, just lots and lots of toughness. Obviously it can be, but that gives you a scaling mechanism for monster power. What is a 5th level solo is probably only a 10th level elite, which is in turn a 15th level standard. See what I mean?
Anyway, I envision:
- Valindra as an appropriate paragon threat. The heroes should be able to fight her at low levels, but they have no real hope of defeating her until mid-to-high paragon. In a Neverwinter campaign, I'd have them fight her in a weakened state near the end of the campaign, and possibly destroy her body (though not her phylactery, which is in Thay). At that point, when the campaign moves outside Neverwinter, she'd become a recurring villain in paragon tier. When they have their showdown with her, I use a heightened statblock (level 17ish standard).
- Clariburnus is an appropriate low-epic threat. The heroes should be able to disrupt his plans at low levels, toward the end of the Neverwinter campaign, and he fights a skirmish with them to test their abilities and techniques. When you've reduced that statblock to 0 hp, Clariburnus starts to feel like the heroes might pose a legitimate threat and flees. The Shades become recurring villains in paragon tier, and when the heroes next fight Clariburnus, I use a heightened statblock (level 21ish standard), and he's got a few shade friends or several of the princes. The other princes increase in power from there, and if my PCs are interested, they might be able to fight Rivalen (I'd build a level 34ish solo controller) or Telamont (around a level 35ish solo artillery).
Cheers
The main thing I dislike about it is the way some of the main threats were handled. A level 5 and a level 7 Aboleth? One of the 12 Princes of Shade is only Level 10 elite? A level 8 Mind Flayer and Level 9 Elder Brain? I get that the Mind Flayer/Elder Brain and the level 5 Aboleth are supposed to be plaguechanged but it just seems lazy to advertise the book as heroic tier and then just take upper paragon/lower epic tier threats and de-level them to upper heroic tier. Aboleths, Elder Brains, and a Prince of Shade should be fearsome and intimidating threats. Its hard to think of them as such when your character managed to kill them before he even got his paragon path.
Other than that, I think the book is great and I hope to see more like it in the future.
Agreed! All of these creatures are fearsome and nothing to shake a stick at. If you have never played an RPG in your life and you come in seeing this then it would be no problem. If you are a long time gamer and you see stuff like this then you tend to shake your head and go "wut?" Not only are the Princes of Shade over a millennium old, they are also Netherese. Making Clariburnus a low level enemy is rather funny and a bit annoying. In all honesty when you look at these levels you begin to wonder why haven't the enemies of Shade, who are a lot higher in level, haven't killed Clariburnus up until now. It's a bit too story planned out if you ask me. It feels like these guys were downsized in order to keep this at heroic level.
Oh and your Baldur's Gate Drizzt example was horrible. This is not a video game and shouldn't be treated that way. Creatures should be given their appropriate power level and PC's fight them when the PC's reach that level. That would be like taking a great wyrm red dragon, giving it some sort of major major weakness that a 5th level party could take advantage of that could kill the dragon in order to simulate some random spot of luck that you would read about in a novel.
Cheers
I think its called a distinct difference in the approach to gaming, and never the twain shall meet, at least beyond agreeing to disagree.
As to the videogame approach, its nothing that didn't exist in PnP prior to it being associated, and I think goes back to the much older notion of meeting the main antagonist at least once before the final confrontation. It may not suit everyone's style, but its more than a valid approach to telling a story.
And as I said, be creative in your story telling--think of the statblock as a representation of a skirmish with Valindra, or a fight with her when she's weakened, etc. I really want to get away from the concept that characters have a *set* statblock that defines all their abilities. What they can do can and should evolve over the course of a campaign, and in a mechanical system as tightly structured as 4e D&D, you need to be adaptable to use a character more than once, at a particular level. (If anything, including "lesser" statblocks only encourages the antagonist to be used with more frequency over the course of a campaign. What I'd love to do is create multiple statblocks for a single antagonist over a spread of levels.)
Back on my analogy, I don't think it being a video game CRPG vs. a pen-and-paper RPG disqualifies it. Drizzt didn't appear in Baldur's Gate because it was a CRPG--he appeared in Baldur's Gate because he was a popular, iconic character in the Realms, and BG was pretty much the quintessential Realms CRPG. Heck, we put Drizzt and Jarlaxle in the NWCS, even--though that was at least partly to keep up with canon (i.e. see their activities in the novel Gauntlgrym). There was some discussion about whether we were going to use them and in what form--I'm pleased with how it turned out.
But the most interesting point here is that in Neverwinter, we DID design a CS that is partly for a CRPG: we completed our design during Cryptic's design/development of the NEVERWINTER game, and I've been given to understand they took it heavily into account when scripting the story, NPCs, and events. Don't quote me on that--I don't know how it's going to turn out--but it's an interesting coincidence.
Cheers
The over-arching story of the Princes of Shade is that they are immensely old and powerful. Gamers familiar with the Realms know this, they may even know the deeper stories of Netheril and the shades.
But here Clariburnus shows up and he's level 10? He's more than 1000 years old, and lvl 10 is all he could accomplish in that time? Is he the "simple" brother of the lot?
Aboleth, akin to Lovecraftian monsters of the deep, twisted and evil aberrations that are hundreds (or sometimes thousands) of years old, they're level 7-plus? Frankly, lvl 7 monsters aren't terribly scary, and now the "Lovecraft" feel is gimped for when you run into other, higher level aboleth.
When well-informed players come up against these kinds of meta-story inconsistencies, it totally breaks down any feeling of "real story" and it becomes something of a joke.
Instead of Clariburnus, it should have been one of the Princes' lvl 10 lieutenants. Instead of actual aboleth, those should have been lvl 7 aberrations working for the Soveriegnty; experimental "things" in service to the aboleth that whet the players' appetites for more.
Sorry, it's just rather disappointing.
I understand the mechanical reasons for making the aboleth and Clariburnus low level. But beyond the nice intent of wanting enemies to be "appropriate challenges" it really breaks verisimilitude. And that's a huge problem for anyone familiar with the Realms.
The over-arching story of the Princes of Shade is that they are immensely old and powerful. Gamers familiar with the Realms know this, they may even know the deeper stories of Netheril and the shades.
But here Clariburnus shows up and he's level 10? He's more than 1000 years old, and lvl 10 is all he could accomplish in that time? Is he the "simple" brother of the lot?
Aboleth, akin to Lovecraftian monsters of the deep, twisted and evil aberrations that are hundreds (or sometimes thousands) of years old, they're level 7-plus? Frankly, lvl 7 monsters aren't terribly scary, and now the "Lovecraft" feel is gimped for when you run into other, higher level aboleth.
When well-informed players come up against these kinds of meta-story inconsistencies, it totally breaks down any feeling of "real story" and it becomes something of a joke.
Instead of Clariburnus, it should have been one of the Princes' lvl 10 lieutenants. Instead of actual aboleth, those should have been lvl 7 aberrations working for the Soveriegnty; experimental "things" in service to the aboleth that whet the players' appetites for more.
Sorry, it's just rather disappointing.
I'm planning on explaining to the party when they get to that point that Clariburnus is sick and dying, and thus his power has diminished greatly. He has things he wants to accomplish before he dies and that's why he's in the area.
I'm planning on explaining to the party when they get to that point that Clariburnus is sick and dying, and thus his power has diminished greatly. He has things he wants to accomplish before he dies and that's why he's in the area.
Sure, for your own game you can come up with an "explanation" for why he's weak. But ultimately, he is not written or presented in the guide as sick or weakened. The problem is that we'd need to come up with an excuse of any kind.
Same with the aboleth. Sure, I can say, "actually, these are baby aboleth, or they're feeling ookey because they got too near a spellplague rupture." But using them as weak enemies just serves to diminish them as a Lovecraftian concept. These things are supposed to be scary, horrifying, pure unadulterated evil. Not just a little bit dangerous.
I understand the mechanical reasons for making the aboleth and Clariburnus low level. But beyond the nice intent of wanting enemies to be "appropriate challenges" it really breaks verisimilitude.
I'm not so sure that it breaks verisimilitude. Rather, it just means players who see levels in terms of absolute scales of power are jumping to conclusions because they don’t understand how the 4E mechanics are meant to serve the D&D game.
I.e., just because the NWCG lists Clariburnus as a level 10 (controller? IDHTBIFOM at the moment) doesn’t mean the NWCS is saying that’s all that Clariburnus is!
This is an important rules/usage distinction between the 4E and prior rules editions; as well the core of the point Erik was trying to make above.
As it relates to players: I'm one of those DMs who likes to prey on players' assumptions. The instant a player reads something they're not supposed to (Clariburnus' stat block for example), or makes mention out loud "this book is wrong!" I'm all over it.
I see the task of creating a world where the players are absolutely convinced the DM—and not some stat blocks in a book—is in control as job one for the Dungeon Master. Part of this, for me, is getting the players to view the NPCs primarily not by what the rulebooks say, but through their interactions with the NPCs during play.
EDIT: I can appreciate the perspective you're speaking from, Jorunhast. Twenty-plus years of D&D stat blocks that have tried to represent in linear fashion the power of Realms NPCs is hard to just shrug off.
I'm planning on explaining to the party when they get to that point that Clariburnus is sick and dying, and thus his power has diminished greatly. He has things he wants to accomplish before he dies and that's why he's in the area.
I'm wondering why would you need to?
If you want the party to actually defeat Clariburnus, then that's cool and your explanation is perfect. In fact, that might goad your players into pursuing Clariburnus to slay him and claim the honor of slaying a Prince of Shade.
If you want them to face Clariburnus but not kill him (just drive him off), there's no need for an explanation. Say they're 8th level when they face him, for example. They get the rush of the battle, but neither side is triumphant.
Finally, stat blocks in 4E aren't set in stone. Stat blocks don't make an NPC. What the DM presents at the gaming table does.
Same with the aboleth. Sure, I can say, "actually, these are baby aboleth, or they're feeling ookey because they got too near a spellplague rupture." But using them as weak enemies just serves to diminish them as a Lovecraftian concept. These things are supposed to be scary, horrifying, pure unadulterated evil. Not just a little bit dangerous.
I'm wondering where you fit the DM in this scenario?
You seem to be saying stat-blocks are the be-all and end-all for creating, "scary, horrifying, pure unadulterated evil" but we also know an average DM can, with a little creative explanation and scene-setting, pull this feeling off, regardless of stat blocks.
I appreciate that you see Aboleths as ancient and terrifying, and unworthy of being presented as active, direct participants in Neverwinter's Herioc Tier setting.
Just seems like this view comes off as inflexible when you put the DM in the picture.
You're right, in principal I don't need to but it ties into a story element I'm presenting to the players. So in this instance there's a reason.
Ah I see.
It seemed like you were "apologizing" to your players for the stat blocks. Thus, apologies from me if I came off sounding harsh or overly critical.
In general I just let things be the way they are. I will use the aboleths at some point but I don't get hung up on the numbers game the way other people do. It feels like a big 'who really cares' kind of thing. But that's me. I'm easy like Sunday morning.
My kind of DM.
I understand the mechanical reasons for making the aboleth and Clariburnus low level. But beyond the nice intent of wanting enemies to be "appropriate challenges" it really breaks verisimilitude. And that's a huge problem for anyone familiar with the Realms.
The over-arching story of the Princes of Shade is that they are immensely old and powerful. Gamers familiar with the Realms know this, they may even know the deeper stories of Netheril and the shades.
But here Clariburnus shows up and he's level 10? He's more than 1000 years old, and lvl 10 is all he could accomplish in that time? Is he the "simple" brother of the lot?
Aboleth, akin to Lovecraftian monsters of the deep, twisted and evil aberrations that are hundreds (or sometimes thousands) of years old, they're level 7-plus? Frankly, lvl 7 monsters aren't terribly scary, and now the "Lovecraft" feel is gimped for when you run into other, higher level aboleth.
When well-informed players come up against these kinds of meta-story inconsistencies, it totally breaks down any feeling of "real story" and it becomes something of a joke.
Instead of Clariburnus, it should have been one of the Princes' lvl 10 lieutenants. Instead of actual aboleth, those should have been lvl 7 aberrations working for the Soveriegnty; experimental "things" in service to the aboleth that whet the players' appetites for more.
Sorry, it's just rather disappointing.
Agreed! Characters such as the Princes of Shade and creatures such as Aboleths are very very well known and when you try and diminish them you get negative feelings from those who know the history and reputation of creatures like this.
@Jorunhast: If you can't get outside the "stats are set in stone" perspective or take any of the alternative I proposed, then I recommend you go ahead and use that statblock as Clariburnus's lieutenant, not Clariburnus.
Echoing Mr. M, I will say that no mere statblock will ever make a monster powerful, scary, or effective in the game. That falls to the DM: how the story is presented, the tone, and what is stacked against what.
Your argument seems to miss the basic mechanical construct in 4e. In 3.5 or earlier editions, a high level baddie was still usable in the game. Sure, the PCs might not be able to defeat him, but they could still have a brief skirmish and escape with their skin. Not so in 4e, where a monster 5-6 levels higher will pretty much decimate your PCs. Their attacks and defenses are just so high that the PCs have no real chance against them.
Clariburnus and Valindra's statblocks are not meant to capture "who they are." This is a GAME book here, not a "who's who" of the Forgotten Realms, and what are their stats. The concept here is to use these characters in your game, and this particular statblock is just one possible mechanics set you can use to represent that character. I don't think it diminishes the character in the world, because the character is presented as a major threat, and plays like a major threat in the game.
If anything, it's a return to the old school Ed Greenwood advice of "Elminster is always the PCs' level + 10, Khelben is + 5."
The long and short of it is this: the NWCS is a toolbox. And given the choice between having a tool (Clariburnus) that not everyone wants to use, but some people do, and others can adapt for their usage, and NOT HAVING THE TOOL AT ALL, I'll go with having the tool.
I totally hear you on the aboleths, but again, it's a tool to be used in the game, not a factual representation of how scary they're supposed to be. That's up to the DM, as I said earlier.
Erik, first off, I love the book. Great job to you and all the folks who made it. It's so good in fact that one of our regular guys who supposedly hates all things 4th edition is really enjoying it.
Well, I'm glad, and tell your friend I'm glad he likes it as well. Also, if he prefers 3.5 or earlier, I see no reason you can't adapt any or all of the material here for those systems. I personally think it's a great vehicle for 4e, but as long as he's having a good time, that's a win for everyone.
But my question for you is this, what happens after one of our players becomes king and tames most of the city and its political elements? Where would you expand the story once the character go above level 10? Yes, I'm brain picking here. I would love to hear your take on it.
Well, I like to plan my campaigns based on the characters present, but here are a few general concepts I'll throw out without knowing who your PCs are.
Once your Heir becomes king and tames the city, then your work in Neverwinter is probably largely done. Also by that point, you've made lasting enemies of the Thayans, the Shades, and the Abolethic Sovereignty. Paragon tier should expand beyond Neverwinter, as the PCs travel the Realms to counter these threats.
Take your game into Thay, or at least into countries where Thay is active: Aglarond, for instance, where the PCs have to help fend off an invasion. Use Valindra again, only create a statblock of suitable level for the PCs (based on but not necessarily the same as the one in the NWCS). Actually breaching Thay and confronting Szass Tam is a job for epic heroes.
The shades are active all over Faerun, and the PCs might go on a quest to root out their influence. This could basically last all the way through paragon tier and into epic, where they might take the fight to Shade itself. Dealing with the Harpers is a major aspect of this story.
Ditto the aboleths. Play up the spellscarred angle, take your game into the Plaguechanged Lands.
Consider expanding Gauntlgrym. Deeper levels appear, or a connection to the Underdark leads to more adventures there.
Take your game to Waterdeep, where the Ashmadai have established a firm foothold. Also, you're on Neverember's turf, and how the PCs dealt with him in the heroic tier will affect how he (or his successors) treat them in paragon. Try a "war between Waterdeep and Neverwinter" story for some early paragon adventures. It's particularly valid if your PCs killed or otherwise drove out Lord Neverember.
Cheers
I understand the mechanical reasons for making the aboleth and Clariburnus low level. But beyond the nice intent of wanting enemies to be "appropriate challenges" it really breaks verisimilitude. And that's a huge problem for anyone familiar with the Realms.
Agreed! Characters such as the Princes of Shade and creatures such as Aboleths are very very well known and when you try and diminish them you get negative feelings from those who know the history and reputation of creatures like this.
Do your PCs read the sourcebooks? They should only know what Clariburnus or Valindra can do based on what you as the DM present. Also, I guarantee you that these statblocks are horrifying to 1st level or 2nd level characters, who are already extremely competent heroes. It's a question of degrees of relative power.
Also, why are you ignoring what I'm saying about making is a skirmish, or presenting these are representational battles? Personally, I don't think 10th level PCs should be able to defeat either Valindra or Clariburnus, so I don't look at these statblocks as the be-all and end-all of their power. I see them as a taste of battle with a major threat that will reappear farther down the road. The mistake here is thinking that these statblocks are meant to be or even CAN be the set-in-stone record of these creatures' abilities. (And there's even a sidebar explaining that IN THE BOOK.)
I feel like I keep saying it over and over: Your argument that this "diminishes" the characters or "lowers" their power represents a fundamental disconnect regarding the mechanics of 4e. 1st level characters in 4e are already real heroes--they only get more powerful from there. Huge level differentials render major NPCs *unusable*, and what's the point of having them if you can never use them? Their attacks, defenses, and skill modifiers are just too high. Mechanics in 4e are not expressed the same way as mechanics in 3.5 or earlier, simply because the game is built for that sort of balance.
I guess I approach this from a story perspective, where I'm much more interested in how the character works in a story than their supposed "stats." These statblocks are presented as tools for DMs to use in their story, not as in some way a real/true assessment of all their powers.
And that's pretty much all I've got to say on that point.
Cheers
@Jorunhast: If you can't get outside the "stats are set in stone" perspective or take any of the alternative I proposed, then I recommend you go ahead and use that statblock as Clariburnus's lieutenant, not Clariburnus.Echoing Mr. M, I will say that no mere statblock will ever make a monster powerful, scary, or effective in the game. That falls to the DM: how the story is presented, the tone, and what is stacked against what.
I've been a DM for decades, with multiple systems. I can re-stat or augment with the best of them. However, this is totally missing the point.
Regardless of system, rules, or whatever crunch you want, the Princes of Shade are (and have been presented in the overall story) as epic. Aboleths are scary not because of any specific stat block, but because everyone (unless you're completely new to the Realms) understands that they are not some simple encounter at a low level but something truly hideous.
Yes, DMs present the story. However, there is a 30-year-plus overarching history for the Realms that is also the story. By gimping encounters IN ANY RULE SYSTEM such that something known to be epic is actually no longer epic, it diminishes the encounter and breaks verisimilitude. It just does.
Meet my friend Acererak. He's a demilich. Oh, btw... in 4E he has a lvl 10 statblock. That is taking something epic and diminishing it. Understand?
There was a wonderful opportunity here with Neverwinter. We already had the "epic" enemies of the Princes of Shade, the Aboleth, the rulers of Thay, etc. Why gimp those out when the blank canvas of intermediate enemies was so open? There was a chance here to design and develop all-new heroic and intermediate encounters, the people or monstrous things working directly below the epic enemies.
I feel like I keep saying it over and over: Your argument that this "diminishes" the characters or "lowers" their power represents a fundamental disconnect regarding the mechanics of 4e. 1st level characters in 4e are already real heroes--they only get more powerful from there. Huge level differentials render major NPCs *unusable*, and what's the point of having them if you can never use them? Their attacks, defenses, and skill modifiers are just too high. Mechanics in 4e are not expressed the same way as mechanics in 3.5 or earlier, simply because the game is built for that sort of balance.
I guess I approach this from a story perspective, where I'm much more interested in how the character works in a story than their supposed "stats." These statblocks are presented as tools for DMs to use in their story, not as in some way a real/true assessment of all their powers.
I'm sorry, I keep hearing that you're approaching it from a story perspective, but it rings hollow. If the goal was to actually build more story, and not just make current epic enemies "useable" at low levels, then why did we get new statblocks for the same-old same-old instead of NEW story, new NPCs, new ideas to flesh out the heroic tier?
My feeling is that by going with new statblocks for (formerly) high-level encounters, everyone missed out (including players) on deep creativity. Why are the orcs essentially just standard orcs? Why drag dread rings and Thayans ALL the way across the entire map, when something new could have been developed, something intrinsic to the region?
@Jorunhast: If you can't get outside the "stats are set in stone" perspective or take any of the alternative I proposed, then I recommend you go ahead and use that statblock as Clariburnus's lieutenant, not Clariburnus.
Echoing Mr. M, I will say that no mere statblock will ever make a monster powerful, scary, or effective in the game. That falls to the DM: how the story is presented, the tone, and what is stacked against what.
I've been a DM for decades, with multiple systems. I can re-stat or augment with the best of them. However, this is totally missing the point.Regardless of system, rules, or whatever crunch you want, the Princes of Shade are (and have been presented in the overall story) as epic. Aboleths are scary not because of any specific stat block, but because everyone (unless you're completely new to the Realms) understands that they are not some simple encounter at a low level but something truly hideous.
How does that contradict anything I've said? I've said time and time again that these AREN'T the characters AS THEY ARE, but rather just mechanical tools to stage a fight with them.
To me, it suggests a staggeringly limited viewpoint to think that one statblock (which is a mechanical tool for playing the game, not statting out the character) is meant to tell you everything there is to know about that character. I could make half a dozen statblocks to represent Clariburnus, to reflect a battle with him at all different levels. (And I will note that I wanted him to be a level 12 solo skirmisher, but I support making him a level 10 elite for the purposes of the NWCS.)
This product is a GAME SOURCEBOOK, not an encyclopedia. There are so many more facets and scenarios to Clariburnus than we could possibly present here. This is just a level 1-10 campaign.
Also, you are NOT giving credit where credit's due regarding low-level heroes in D&D. These guys are heroes. They are supposed to be able to fight monsters--yes, even aboleths. The statblocks are meant to simulate a fight with such things. And even if you don't buy that argument, why can't there be stronger aboleths and weaker aboleths? Do aboleths just pop into existence being ridiculously powerful?
I'm also concerned that the instant we, as designers, try to step outside the box and challenge a presumption, it leads to such an argument. It's like you're saying "give us something new and unexpected," only "don't give us something new and unexpected."
Yes, DMs present the story. However, there is a 30-year-plus overarching history for the Realms that is also the story. By gimping encounters IN ANY RULE SYSTEM such that something known to be epic is actually no longer epic, it diminishes the encounter and breaks verisimilitude. It just does.
I appreciate your logic, but I just don't agree. Where in the book does it say Clariburnus isn't an epic threat? In fact, it DOES say that he IS an epic level threat. See the breakout box on page 14 (which I wrote, actually). It says right there that a high level statblock would be an "adequate" (though "accurate" is probably more accurate) representation of the character's true power level, but it makes the character completely unusable in your game.
And it goes on to say that if you aren't comfortable with that, then by all means, raise their levels, don't send the PCs against them, or--as I advised earlier--treat a fight with that statblock as a "skirmish to test the PCs' power." Deplete Valindra or Clariburnus's hit points, and they flee the scene, vowing revenge one day in the future. In your game (and in my game too, personally) the PCs wouldn't kill these characters until much higher levels.
The statblocks are NOT be-all, end-all representations, but simply tools to use in your campaign. As I said before, I would rather err on the side of giving DMs tools that they might use or at least be able to adapt, rather than not including them at all.
Meet my friend Acererak. He's a demilich. Oh, btw... in 4E he has a lvl 10 statblock. That is taking something epic and diminishing it. Understand?
I completely understand that, but that's assuming that statblock is supposed to be the be-all and end-all of Acererak, and it wouldn't be.
As I have been saying over and over in this thread (and as it says in the book itself, p 14), these statblocks are only tools to let your low-level heroes actually encounter these powerful threats without being utterly massacred.
There's absolutely no reason you can't have a 10th level statblock for an epic level threat and use it--you just have to be more creative in your storytelling than "the PCs show up, kill the bad guy, take his stuff." And if you want Valindra and Clariburnus to be like that in your game, fine. If you want to run them more as what they are in the Realms, you will NOT have them killed so easily by significantly less powerful heroes.
Would it make you happier to see epic-level statblocks for all the princes of Shade? I mean, 'cuz I'll do it. But that's way, WAY outside the scope of the NWCS. That would be useless design, because your heroes would never actually fight them.
There was a wonderful opportunity here with Neverwinter. We already had the "epic" enemies of the Princes of Shade, the Aboleth, the rulers of Thay, etc. Why gimp those out when the blank canvas of intermediate enemies was so open? There was a chance here to design and develop all-new heroic and intermediate encounters, the people or monstrous things working directly below the epic enemies.
It says this in the book and I'll echo the sentiment here: a game that is all about taking out minions of the big bad guys, who you'll never actually get to face, can be kinda lame.
That was one of the big problems that people seem to assume the Realms had: the PCs fight the small fries, and the big good NPCs like Elminster and the Seven Sisters go fight the big bad guys like Clariburnus and Szass Tam, etc. I don't think that was at all necessarily true; I mean, obviously you can play it that way (and disenfranchise your PCs), and your philosophy seems to be playing exactly into that strategy. Is that how you run your games?
(And what about the product says DON'T DO THAT?)
Your arguments are completely ignoring what the NWCS is: a guide for running a campaign from level 1 to level 10. The PCs are supposed to get immersed in the Realms here, and move on to a larger campaign elsewhere in the setting. Why, for someone who loves the Realms as you so clearly do, would you be trying to tear down something with that goal?
I'm sorry, I keep hearing that you're approaching it from a story perspective, but it rings hollow. If the goal was to actually build more story, and not just make current epic enemies "useable" at low levels, then why did we get new statblocks for the same-old same-old instead of NEW story, new NPCs, new ideas to flesh out the heroic tier?My feeling is that by going with new statblocks for (formerly) high-level encounters, everyone missed out (including players) on deep creativity. Why are the orcs essentially just standard orcs? Why drag dread rings and Thayans ALL the way across the entire map, when something new could have been developed, something intrinsic to the region?
Well, we HAVE done that. That's the Ashmadai, New Neverwinter, the Dead Rats, the orcs (which are NOT just standard orcs), the Kraken Labyrinth, the Harper intrigues, the Neverdeath graveyard, etc., etc. We included these other things for three reasons: 1) to maintain Realms continuity (see the novel Gauntlgrym), 2) to offer HUGE variety for a DM to use, and 3) to make it definitely, definitely a REALMS product, and not some derivative fantasy setting book haphazardly forced into the Realms. We packed basically as much Realms stuff as we could into the book until it's basically bleeding Realmslore.
Is there a whole huge amount of stuff in Neverwinter, suspiciously coincidentally in one place? Sure there is.
But as the DM, you have the prerogative to use what you want, ignore what you don't, and modify things that don't seem right to you.
Cheers
To start, I’ll say this: Jorunhast, I understand that you feel any printing of stats for a creature that represent a power level below player/DM expectations diminishes that creature in your mind’s eye. I hear you, OK?
Keep that in mind.
First, in your criticism I don’t think you’re talking about the play experience at all. Rather, I think you’re talking about your perception of what the Realms is, and your mistaken assumption that everyone who knows anything about the Realms must think of it in exactly the same way.
Your criticism is valid, because some people think like you do. However, the criticism falls apart once play gets under way.
Consider: if I were a player running a low level character and considering even the possibility of facing Aboleths, I'd be quaking in my boots.
I'd have to play my character as not knowing about Aboleths, of course, but as a player I'd be recalling everything from the Cthulhu Mythos and the Elder Gods, including roleplaying games, card games and board games that I’ve experienced.
Why would I do this? Because it's fun and because the threat (to my character) is real.
The thing is, I'd feel this way even after reading the Neverwinter Campaign Guide. And why wouldn't I? I mean really, they're Aboleths. No matter the level, I'm going to be quaking in my boots.
My question to you, Jorunhast, is this: if you were at the gaming table as a player, having read the NWCG, would you stop play to point out to everyone that they don't need to worry?
Even after you've fought your way down into the Chasm of Neverwinter and encountered some truly horrible things, would you say, "Oh, no big deal. We're not high level characters so what we've experienced doesn't matter. If we were facing real Aboleths it would be so much more horrible."
Even after your DM has gone all out, playing up the horror (something the NWCG pushes DMs to do) and your fellow players are cheering and high-fiving after the final, dramatic encounter with an Aboleth, would you still say that, in the end, it meant nothing because really horrible monsters don't do low level encounters and the one we fought surely couldn’t be the most powerful there is, so what does our effort matter?
Granted the Aboleths are making the entire populace of Neverwinter slowly go insane and your group might have just put a stop to that, but that's beside the point, right?
Finally, would you look all your friends in the face and force yourself to disbelieve that they actually felt any thrill during play, just because of some stat-block?
In the end, stat-blocks and a fixed, rigid mind’s view of how the Realms “is” aren’t nearly as important as the play experience. The Neverwinter Campaign Guide realizes this and puts that at the fore.
Sure, the NWCG could have gone the route of giving us the same old mid-level hirelings and henchmen we’ve had for the entire life of the Realms up to this point, and I’m sure the game designers would have done a good job of it.
But they tried to do something new and I applaud them for it.
It's funny. I point out what I don't like, which are in fact reasons why I didn't buy a particular product, and I get accused of not only having a "staggeringly limited viewpoint" but flat-out statements that my particular approach to the game is wrong and that I'm "tearing down the Realms!" Very dramatic. Then I'm accused of just nitpicking. Finally, the self-professed forum troll decides to come out for another stab at "yer thinking about it all wrong."
I'm not saying anything all that terribly different than what's been said on ENWorld, other sites, or even on the main 4E discussion board here. These are not isolated opinions, though, and I'm not simply repeating what I've seen elsewhere. I've read through the new Neverwinter and decided not to buy it.
Just thought you might like to know why. Making future products better usually means you need to see detractors as well as proponents. *shrug*
I was never interested in convincing you to buy the product. What I am trying to do is clear up a professed confusion about the purpose of these statblocks. They are meant to be used in multiple ways. They aren't meant to be encyclopedic entries for these NPCs. If a misunderstanding gets in the way of enjoying the product, there's nothing I can do about that except try and clear up the misunderstanding.
I also think that writing off the entire product on the basis of one small issue (which is in turn based on a misunderstanding) is a little unfair, but I absolutely respect your opinion.
In general, my posts in this thread have not been for your benefit, Jorunhast, or any single reader's benefit, but rather for everyone. I am simply suggesting multiple ways to use the tools that are given in the book.
Cheers
That really isn't the point here. I for one am not arguing with your opinions, only what I see as incorrect premises. If person A were to say, "This product is lame because Elminster's stats are wrong," and then person B were to point out that (in truth) "what you seem to think are Elminster's stats are actually Halaster's stats," then person B is not harping on person A. Person B is just pointing out a flaw in person A's premeses.
I was never interested in convincing you to buy the product. What I am trying to do is clear up a professed confusion about the purpose of these statblocks. They are meant to be used in multiple ways. They aren't meant to be encyclopedic entries for these NPCs. If a misunderstanding gets in the way of enjoying the product, there's nothing I can do about that except try and clear up the misunderstanding.
I seem to recall that pro-Mystra and pro-Chosen people used to try and correct misperceptions as well. That they were not "superheroes" and that they didn't need to respond to all emergencies, taking the place of PCs.
But what did the primary designers do? Got rid of Mystra, the Chosen, pretty much all of the well-liked gods and NPCs.
It works both ways, doesn't it?
I also think that writing off the entire product on the basis of one small issue (which is in turn based on a misunderstanding) is a little unfair, but I absolutely respect your opinion.
I did not say that these were the [b]only[/b] reasons why I didn't buy it.
But given the forum response to what I've posted so far, I'm not sure it would be appreciated if I laid out every single issue.
In general, my posts in this thread have not been for your benefit, Jorunhast, or any single reader's benefit, but rather for everyone. I am simply suggesting multiple ways to use the tools that are given in the book.
Cheers
And that's fine. Nor have the things I've said only been meant for you or any other person specifically. Just sharing my thoughts, that's all. Which are apparently a "staggeringly limited viewpoint" and wrong-headed in the extreme. According to some here, anyway.
As of this writing, 69 of 104 respondents to a(n admittedly unscientific) poll rate the NWCG as "pretty freakin good" or better over at ENWorld. I like how people who haven't read the product state they're refraining from voting until they've actually read it.
You'll also find some discussion of the product on this ENWorld thread (titled: underwhelmed with Neverwinter Campaign Setting) as well.
Some good discussions there.
EDIT: The threads do get derailed somewhat at the end, but the beginning pages of each are pretty good and not filled with stupid.
Which are apparently a "staggeringly limited viewpoint" and wrong-headed in the extreme. According to some here, anyway.
I can see that phrase is going to be an issue, huh.
To make myself clear, I was saying that holding that viewpoint WOULD BE "staggeringly limited," but I recognize your long DMing experience and did not assume your viewpoint really is limited in that way. I was only pointing out that what you were saying sounded extremely limited.
It's like if I seemed to be saying "you can only ever play fighters because all the other classes aren't real classes," I'd want you to point out that I was saying something that sounded really strange. And did I really mean that?
My statement was only meant to explain my point, to demonstrate my argument for looking at the book with an eye toward adaptation, and I'm sorry if you took offense to it.
Cheers
Personally, I don't think the culling was needful or useful . . . though it did set up some awesome plot hooks about getting the gods back (or what happened to their priesthoods, etc, etc).
I'm doing one of the gods myself (Helm), and Ed seems to be doing pretty well with Mystra, etc., etc.
Cheers
If anything, it's a return to the old school Ed Greenwood advice of "Elminster is always the PCs' level + 10, Khelben is + 5."
No, it's Elminster is Level Y and if you're only level X your are weaker than him and if you are level Z you are stronger than him.
The long and short of it is this: the NWCS is a toolbox. And given the choice between having a tool (Clariburnus) that not everyone wants to use, but some people do, and others can adapt for their usage, and NOT HAVING THE TOOL AT ALL, I'll go with having the tool.
So why not have a level 1 Bane, Cyric and Shar for the heroic PCs to beat up?
Actually breaching Thay and confronting Szass Tam is a job for epic heroes.
Why so unusable? Why not include a level 4 Szass Tam?
So why the hate?
If anything, it's a return to the old school Ed Greenwood advice of "Elminster is always the PCs' level + 10, Khelben is + 5."
No, it's Elminster is Level Y and if you're only level X your are weaker than him and if you are level Z you are stronger than him.
That is the way of earlier editions (3e especially), placing NPCs on a pedastal and girding them very firmly in story/mechanics armor. What we're trying to do here is show a way you can use high level threats to challenge low-level characters. And perhaps your story comes up with a way for the NPC to actually die, and perhaps not. Regardless, the mechanics are there as a tool for you to use.
I really want to get away from the concept of a statblock being a total representation of a character. It's a tool to run a particular encounter against a particular band of heroes. There is absolutely no reason heroes shouldn't encounter NPCs multiple times over the course of a campaign, using different statblocks to reflect the specific situation.
Take, for example, a battle with, say, Artemis Entreri. You can build a 5th level solo statblock of him, to represent how powerful he is in comparison to the PCs at that level; basically, he mops the floor with them a little, then escapes. Then your planned story might have them fight Artemis again at level 10, but now he's less potent--more like a level 10 elite. Then at 15th, he's a level 15 standard monster.
The reason the mechanics need to scale here; there's pretty much no point to facing foes of more than 4-5 levels difference.
So why not have a level 1 Bane, Cyric and Shar for the heroic PCs to beat up?
Why not? I could think of a story where the heroes face a manifestation of Bane at a low level--say in a dream sequence. You could build a pretty awesome level 1 solo encounter for a Son of Bane dream sequence (ala Baldur's Gate 2).
Actually breaching Thay and confronting Szass Tam is a job for epic heroes.
Why so unusable? Why not include a level 4 Szass Tam?
See above, but I personally think actually invading Thay makes more sense as a long-term goal from a story perspective. And yes, you could run a Szass Tam encounter as early as heroic tier for lots of story reasons. I personally have been at a table where Tam was written into one character's backstory, and we basically DID fight manifestations of him (or at least his goons) when we were significantly lower level than the one Szass Tam statblock we have would indicate.
Cheers
I think another problem I am seeing here is that other's can't accept that someone may not like something that you like. These are forums where people can speak freely about they like and what they don't like. I have the book and while it's not bad, it's not a show stopper either. When I read the book I get a sense that yes it talks about a lot but doesn't go into enough detail about those certain areas. Areas such as Gauntlgrym could have used a bit more such as detail and maps. Please Jesus, Mary and Joseph don't give me the leaving room for the DM to come up with his own ideas bit. The main reason we play in campaign settings and not our own homebrew is because we don't want to have to do all the work if we don't want to.
Mirtek, that's unusually trollish for you. Your arguments and comments are always pretty spot-on and fact-based.
So why the hate?
Sorry being so harsh, but that is just an approach that makes me wanting to pull my hair out just from how much it frustrates me and especially so when done to something I used to like.
And while my tone might not be the most diplomatic, I don't see any fault with the arguments itself.
When an epic prince of shade can't be epic because it would be uncool for the heroric tier PCs to only fight his lieutenant until you can finally take the fight to the prince why only fight the heroic prince of shade until you can finally take the fight to Shar instead of directly fighting heroic Shar?
For me consistency is of important. If you set fact X and Y in a relation you need to keep that relation (or at least have the decency to pull out some reason why it's suddenly broken).
I really hate it when comic books are ignoring this all the time. E.g. villian X is as strong as hero Y, hero Y is stronger than hero Z but when they do a crossover with hero Z and villian X, then X is suddenly only as strong as Z. Sometimes at least they have the decency to use a bad deus-ex-machina to explain that, but most often they simply ignore continuity. That's why I don't read these comics anymore.
4e did good by lowering the absolute power ceiling for PCs to 30 and subsequently made the epic threat fightable by level 30 PCs. NPCs who were formerly level 50 in 3.x are now at most level 35 solo and thus within reach of the absolute ceiling of PC power. No more endless treadmill were there is no upper level for PCs and thus no upper level for villians and you keep chasing the next.
If a prince of shade is too powerful for you at heroic, then you simply fight his underlings until you have grown powerfull enought to fight him. And you know that this is not a meaningless endless wave of flunkies, but a finite wave of flunkies (who are also increasing in quality from replacable grunts to taking out key operatives whose death really hurts the prince and his goals) with a clear end in sight.
Yes, PCs are heroes at level 1 already. But also heroes who have yet to grow into their full potential. Otherwise we could call the dragons at all level ancient and leave out young/adult/elder.
That is the way of earlier editions (3e especially), placing NPCs on a pedastal and girding them very firmly in story/mechanics armor.
I don't see this as armor. Armor would be the variable always "PC level +X" approach. Otherwise it's just putting them into their place saying: "There they are, nothing less nothing more and yes, you can actually become more and then they're still where they are and now beneath you"
Why not? I could think of a story where the heroes face a manifestation of Bane at a low level--say in a dream sequence. You could build a pretty awesome level 1 solo encounter for a Son of Bane dream sequence (ala Baldur's Gate 2).
But that's already excusing Bane's current weakness by clearly explaining that it was just a dream or a particular low level aspect or whatever.
Take, for example, a battle with, say, Artemis Entreri. You can build a 5th level solo statblock of him, to represent how powerful he is in comparison to the PCs at that level; basically, he mops the floor with them a little, then escapes. Then your planned story might have them fight Artemis again at level 10, but now he's less potent--more like a level 10 elite. Then at 15th, he's a level 15 standard monster.
I actually think this is a really good example of how such a thing can be well done. But an important point is that in this case he's not scaled down too much.
At some point the discrepancy between his supposed place in the hierarchy and his down-leveled version simply grows to great to hold the suspension of disblieve in one piece.
If anything, it's a return to the old school Ed Greenwood advice of "Elminster is always the PCs' level + 10, Khelben is + 5."
No, it's Elminster is Level Y and if you're only level X your are weaker than him and if you are level Z you are stronger than him.
That is the way of earlier editions (3e especially), placing NPCs on a pedastal and girding them very firmly in story/mechanics armor. What we're trying to do here is show a way you can use high level threats to challenge low-level characters. And perhaps your story comes up with a way for the NPC to actually die, and perhaps not. Regardless, the mechanics are there as a tool for you to use.I really want to get away from the concept of a statblock being a total representation of a character. It's a tool to run a particular encounter against a particular band of heroes. There is absolutely no reason heroes shouldn't encounter NPCs multiple times over the course of a campaign, using different statblocks to reflect the specific situation.
Take, for example, a battle with, say, Artemis Entreri. You can build a 5th level solo statblock of him, to represent how powerful he is in comparison to the PCs at that level; basically, he mops the floor with them a little, then escapes. Then your planned story might have them fight Artemis again at level 10, but now he's less potent--more like a level 10 elite. Then at 15th, he's a level 15 standard monster.
The reason the mechanics need to scale here; there's pretty much no point to facing foes of more than 4-5 levels difference.So why not have a level 1 Bane, Cyric and Shar for the heroic PCs to beat up?
Why not? I could think of a story where the heroes face a manifestation of Bane at a low level--say in a dream sequence. You could build a pretty awesome level 1 solo encounter for a Son of Bane dream sequence (ala Baldur's Gate 2).Actually breaching Thay and confronting Szass Tam is a job for epic heroes.
Why so unusable? Why not include a level 4 Szass Tam?
See above, but I personally think actually invading Thay makes more sense as a long-term goal from a story perspective. And yes, you could run a Szass Tam encounter as early as heroic tier for lots of story reasons. I personally have been at a table where Tam was written into one character's backstory, and we basically DID fight manifestations of him (or at least his goons) when we were significantly lower level than the one Szass Tam statblock we have would indicate.
Cheers
Problem. This is not something that Artemis would do. Now in a home brew campaign anything is possible but if you are playing straight Artemis Entreri then he wouldn't have allowed you to escape nor would he have escaped. I could understand if you met Artemis at the time when he truly was the equivalent of a 5th level character but not doing one of those "novel" ideas.
The problem I am seeing is this is something that should have been left up to a DM. Clariburnus would not normally "test" the PC's, he would just waste them. His full stats should have been given so the DM can adjust him to a lower level if that is what he wanted to do. It's a bit too "storyish" in my opinion.
Well, it *is* being left up to the DM. It's including a tool for the DM to use, if he/she wants to. If anything, it just makes it easier, because here you have a ready-made statblock to stage a skirmish between your PCs and the honest-to-goodness Big Bad.
IMO, we want the same thing--we're just approaching it from opposite directions.
I think another problem I am seeing here is that other's can't accept that someone may not like something that you like. These are forums where people can speak freely about they like and what they don't like.
I completely appreciate and respect this. As I've said before, I am not trying to shoot down gripes--all I'm doing is explaining the approach and the reasoning behind it. I would much rather your feedback be "I understand what you're doing and don't like it" vs. "this is dumb" or "there was obviously no plan here."
I want feedback on the CONCEPT of relative statblocks, rather than a knee-jerk "but that's not what level he's supposed to be." (Of course it isn't--the statblock isn't an encyclopedic reference for the character, but rather a specific tool to be used for PCs of a specific level.)
I accepted a long, long time ago that not everyone is going to like everything that comes out. No one can design a product that is the perfect thing for everyone, because everyone's needs are different. The best you can do is to listen to your audience, appeal to the most people you can, and make it adaptable so that even if people aren't completely on board, they can still find ways to use it.
I really, really value the feedback given in this thread. I just want us to be discussing with a full understanding of the intentions.
Please Jesus, Mary and Joseph don't give me the leaving room for the DM to come up with his own ideas bit. The main reason we play in campaign settings and not our own homebrew is because we don't want to have to do all the work if we don't want to.
The NWCS is built, more so than any 4e product before it, as a source of inspiration and ideas. It isn't meant to dictate your campaign to you, but rather give you a place to tell your own story. And if that's not firm enough a structure for you--if you prefer dungeon delves and fully drawn maps and statblocks for each monster telling you where each one is--then the product might not be for you. You're going to want the adventures that end up as print products or come out in Dungeon. Heck, there are even Neverwinter-specific ones!
In any game design, you have to strike a balance between how much direction you give to the DM, and how much you don't. The aim of the NWCS is to give more power than has been given previously to the DM--I'm sorry that doesn't come across, or it isn't what you want.
Cheers
Problem. This is not something that Artemis would do. Now in a home brew campaign anything is possible but if you are playing straight Artemis Entreri then he wouldn't have allowed you to escape nor would he have escaped.
I think I could buy that with reducing someone by a tier and then having the fight end with something that forces them to leave without being able to finish the stop. E.g. fighting the mid-paragon Artemis at high heroic level upon "defeating" him having the burning building in which you were fighting collapse and separate you (aka Artemis was trying he would have still needed a little more time than what circumstance gave him).
However for me the key this would work since he is not that much above me that he could have simply crushed the whole city just to get me and I have to wonder why the heck he didn't just do that.
Too explaing why a prince of shade wouldn't snuff out my heroic party there must be a pretty hardocore event interrupting our fight and that would need to happen before we actually fought much at all.
It's just another MMO import, whether they think we recognize it or not.
Now don't get me wrong, the recurring villain is a tried-and-true trope of fantasy. But generally, those kinds of enemies "level up" with the players (in a sense). It's not terribly realistic to think that Clariburnus, with his eons of experience, would let some up-and-comer hero wannabes whack on him for a while, then run off while spouting "another day, heroes!" while twirling his moustache. Clariburnus, if he's really to be believed as an EPIC prince of shade (hundreds of years experience, yadda yadda) would wipe the floor with them and be done with it.
That's the real problem. Not the "we want to have recurring villains" idea that's ages old. You have to do recurring villains so that they make some sense, and aren't just there because you think it's a kewl idea to bring the big bads down a peg so the lowlies can poke at them for a while.
The way this is being defended, though, it makes me suspicious that this isn't some kind of test run for importing the deal into 5E. Where one's level becomes nearly irrelevant. Where stat blocks become totally unfixed and "levels" lose their meaning?
Why not? I could think of a story where the heroes face a manifestation of Bane at a low level--say in a dream sequence. You could build a pretty awesome level 1 solo encounter for a Son of Bane dream sequence (ala Baldur's Gate 2).
But that's already excusing Bane's current weakness by clearly explaining that it was just a dream or a particular low level aspect or whatever.
Absolutely. Surely you don't think 1st level PCs should really fight Bane. I mean, I don't.
As I've said before, if I ran a Neverwinter game and my PCs fought Valindra or Clariburnus as noted in the statblocks therein, those would not be climactic final battles with those villains, unless the PCs had found some story way to weaken them or make them vulnerable. If the PCs reduced those statblocks' HP to 0, then that means the villain would just make tracks and come back for revenge some other time.
Take, for example, a battle with, say, Artemis Entreri. You can build a 5th level solo statblock of him, to represent how powerful he is in comparison to the PCs at that level; basically, he mops the floor with them a little, then escapes. Then your planned story might have them fight Artemis again at level 10, but now he's less potent--more like a level 10 elite. Then at 15th, he's a level 15 standard monster.
I actually think this is a really good example of how such a thing can be well done. But an important point is that in this case he's not scaled down too much.
At some point the discrepancy between his supposed place in the hierarchy and his down-leveled version simply grows to great to hold the suspension of disblieve in one piece.
Agreed, and you still need to be responsible about doing it, at least within the context of your own game. But I think a skirmish with Valindra or one of the 12 Princes of Shade is a reasonable thing for a party of 10th level heroes who have saved Neverwinter. It's a taste of things to come, particularly if Thay and Netheril become enemies in the rest of the game. And it's also serious bragging rights for the players, who have every reason to be proud of themselves.
Problem. This is not something that Artemis would do. Now in a home brew campaign anything is possible but if you are playing straight Artemis Entreri then he wouldn't have allowed you to escape nor would he have escaped. I could understand if you met Artemis at the time when he truly was the equivalent of a 5th level character but not doing one of those "novel" ideas.
Well, it was just an example meant to illustrate the concept of scaling based on story demands. And I'm sure there are any number of situations in which Entreri would not kill the heroes. He might not have been paid to. He might have been paid to test their abilities. They might have something he wants but can't get if he kills them. He might think they're dead. He might want to use them later against a bigger threat. Or maybe he even feels sympathetic or merciful.
All of these are similar to things Entreri has done over the course of his career (think of how he's treated Cattie-brie, for instance). I don't think "straight Entreri" is just a ruthless killing machine by any stretch.
Cheers
As I've said before, if I ran a Neverwinter game and my PCs fought Valindra or Clariburnus as noted in the statblocks therein, those would not be climactic final battles with those villains, unless the PCs had found some story way to weaken them or make them vulnerable. If the PCs reduced those statblocks' HP to 0, then that means the villain would just make tracks and come back for revenge some other time.
Okay let's say you take Clariburnus down to 0 hp. What's to keep him from turning around and killing everyone in your party? Why would he actually run away if he is truly an epic level encounter? What's causing him to actually run away?
Well, and let's be totally honest. This "variable statblock" thing, depending on encounter, it's not a "new design philosophy" by any stretch of the imagination. MMOs have been doing it for years now, where you can meet a boss while leveling, he runs off mid-combat, then you get an epic version once you reach max level and start doing dungeons.
It's just another MMO import, whether they think we recognize it or not.
And where did MMOs get it from?
I don't think the chicken vs. egg argument will really get us anywhere.
And as I said earlier, previous editions of D&D allowed you to challenge NPCs who were much higher level than you (+6-10). Not that you'd win, necessarily, but you could still do something. In a system so heavily balanced as 4e is, you just don't stand any mathematical chance against a significantly more powerful antagonist, so if you want to stage a brief skirmish, you have to use scaled encounters.
And I'm sure you could craft all kinds of reasons why Clariburnus would actually fight the saviors of Neverwinter. Even some that don't involve twirly moustaches.
The way this is being defended, though, it makes me suspicious that this isn't some kind of test run for importing the deal into 5E. Where one's level becomes nearly irrelevant. Where stat blocks become totally unfixed and "levels" lose their meaning?
Not defended--explained.
And gods and goddesses, I hope not! That sounds terrible.
Cheers
As I've said before, if I ran a Neverwinter game and my PCs fought Valindra or Clariburnus as noted in the statblocks therein, those would not be climactic final battles with those villains, unless the PCs had found some story way to weaken them or make them vulnerable. If the PCs reduced those statblocks' HP to 0, then that means the villain would just make tracks and come back for revenge some other time.
Okay let's say you take Clariburnus down to 0 hp. What's to keep him from turning around and killing everyone in your party? Why would he actually run away if he is truly an epic level encounter? What's causing him to actually run away?
And additionally, why would he let himself get bloodied in the first place? Why would an epic aboleth allow itself to be hurt, really hurt, and not just let loose with psionics?
Unless part of the goal is to make terms like "bloodied" lose their meaning? Chip away at "level" and the other terms start to lose their meanings as well.
Why would an epic aboleth allow itself to be hurt, really hurt, and not just let loose with psionics?
Personally I don't have problems with heroic tier aboleth, not just as de-leveled paragon aboleth but as an aboleth that is simply heroic tier (after all, the MM aboleths already start as low as 16).
As I've said before, if I ran a Neverwinter game and my PCs fought Valindra or Clariburnus as noted in the statblocks therein, those would not be climactic final battles with those villains, unless the PCs had found some story way to weaken them or make them vulnerable. If the PCs reduced those statblocks' HP to 0, then that means the villain would just make tracks and come back for revenge some other time.
Okay let's say you take Clariburnus down to 0 hp. What's to keep him from turning around and killing everyone in your party? Why would he actually run away if he is truly an epic level encounter? What's causing him to actually run away?
And additionally, why would he let himself get bloodied in the first place?
Here's an example. The PCs have thwarted Clariburnus's schemes in raising Xinlenal, and he has finally decided--unlike every villain ever--that his best choice is just to deal with this himself. He goes in and attacks the PCs, using the statblock listed in the book. He makes it absolutely clear that they stand no chance against him. When those stats are "bloodied," then Clariburnus actually takes a wound--inky blackness seeps down his flesh where blood should be shed. Rather than being afraid, he finds this amusing. Then, when the heroes deplete the hit points listed, Clariburnus either gets actually afraid (considering them a threat) or merely that he starts to take them seriously. He casts a spell that stuns them all and leaves, the better to plot full vengeance.
Sure, he could just kill them all, but why just murder them when he can make them really hurt? Go after their families and loved ones, thwart their goals, etc. Or better yet, use them to advance his own goals--manipulate them into taking out Netheril's enemies. If death is the worst fate he can think of for the PCs, I hazard to guess that you're not playing Clariburnus "straight."
Why would an epic aboleth allow itself to be hurt, really hurt, and not just let loose with psionics?
Well, these obviously aren't epic aboleths.
Is that your take on aboleths, that they're always epic and powerful? This wasn't the case in earlier editions of the game, and I see no reason that aboleths shouldn't be allowed to scale like any other monster.
Cheers
Epic Aboleth #2: "Yeah?"
Epic aboleth #1: "Why didn't we spew glop at them, mind blast them, and use them as fertilizer for the egg pits? I can't remember..."
Epic aboleth #2: "Hrrrmmm, I think you said something about having a stomach ache. Oh, no... wait. We were both sleepy after that Illithid gave that lecture on the necessity of smooth surfaces in alien-esque Roger Dean artwork."
Epic aboleth #1: "Oh. Yeah. That must have been it."
Epic aboleth #2: *nnNNNgorkl*
Epic aboleth #1: "But wait a sec, Fred. That still doesn't explain why we let them stab us repeatedly for 5 minutes until you -finally- teleported us away."
Epic aboleth #2: "Pssh. You're forgetting that we are inexplicable creatures of madness. Sheer madness, man! LooLooLoo!!!"
Epic aboleth #1: "I hate you, Fred."
I think the heroic-tier aboleths vs. heroic-tier epic villains are two separate issues, and we should probably discuss them as such. What I said for Valindra or Clariburnus doesn't necessarily apply to the aboleths.
Cheers
The problem I am seeing is this is something that should have been left up to a DM. Clariburnus would not normally "test" the PC's, he would just waste them.
See, this isn't a position I'd take, were I the DM.
Ancient wizards who've managed to survive the harsh realities of the Realms, as well as about a thousand years of back-stabbing and in-fighting amongst each other while trapped in another plane of existence, do not generally make a habit of eliminating relatively minor or inconsequential threats simply because they have so much raw power.
Rather, they test and manipulate, so they can control.
Manshoon of the Zhentarim, long a feature in novels, is a perfect example of this.
Areas such as Gauntlgrym could have used a bit more such as detail and maps. Please Jesus, Mary and Joseph don't give me the leaving room for the DM to come up with his own ideas bit. The main reason we play in campaign settings and not our own homebrew is because we don't want to have to do all the work if we don't want to.
I don't look to sourcebooks to give me entire adventures.
I look to printed adventures for that. ;)
That said, Gauntlgrym could have used more space in the NWCG—maybe a web enhancement (would have loved a dungeon level or two) or a DDI article in Dungeon magazine (edit: who knows, maybe they printed one?).
Thankyou and good night.
Areas such as Gauntlgrym could have used a bit more such as detail and maps.
That said, Gauntlgrym could have used more space in the NWCG—maybe a web enhancement (would have loved a dungeon level or two) or a DDI article in Dungeon magazine (edit: who knows, maybe they printed one?).
A very good point from our drow friend there. I as well would have liked to see a full (or at least expanded) writeup of Gauntlgrym, but the strategy seems to me to be a DDI article eventually.
There's also another aspect to consider here, which is that Bob Salvatore is writing a novel series in and around Neverwinter, and the designers wouldn't want to contradict what he does.
Cheers
I thought the book was really well done. I really liked it a lot and hope to see more like it. The stat blocks are really the only thing I don't like about it but they aren't game breaking. I probably will just ignore them.
The problem is that when people buy a book that is supposed to take place in a given setting, people expect that book to conform to the inner logic of the setting. Part of that inner logic is that the Princes of Shade are millenia old archmages/monarchs who should and would wipe the floor with all but the most powerful group of adventurers. The same with the Aboleths.
And I don't think the Drizzt in Baldur's Gate analogy is a good one because Drizzt was really more of an easter egg and his party WAS extremely hard. I remember reloading my save file at least a dozen times before I actually beat him. But there aren't save files in P&P D&D.
I think a better analogy would be if the leader of the Iron Throne in Baldur's Gate 1 was actually Iyachtu Xvim and I managed to kill him on the first try with my level 7+ party. I would be like "Wut? This doesn't conform to the inner logic of the setting! Bioware sucks!" And in this instance Sarevok does actually come back after you beat him. However, as someone said earlier, a recurring character should really level up with the party (as Sarevok does, essentially) and not just be de-powered so that the PCs can beat on him a little bit.
Another good Baldur's Gate analogy is how Bioware handled the villains in their game. Instead of arbitrarily taking already well-known and known-to-be-powerful villains and de-leveling them to fit the confines of their game, they created a heroic tier villain (or what would be considered heroic tier in 4e) that was a whole new character and that was extremely memorable and turned out to be one of the most recognized villains in the history of Forgotten Realms fiction. That is what I would have liked to have seen in NWCS.
All in all I would like the designers to take my contribution to the disccussion not as an insult to your creative abilities but just as a bit of constuctive criticism to take into consideration when making the next Forgotten Realms campaign setting (which I hope to see soon).
Areas such as Gauntlgrym could have used a bit more such as detail and maps.
That said, Gauntlgrym could have used more space in the NWCG—maybe a web enhancement (would have loved a dungeon level or two) or a DDI article in Dungeon magazine (edit: who knows, maybe they printed one?).
A very good point from our drow friend there. I as well would have liked to see a full (or at least expanded) writeup of Gauntlgrym, but the strategy seems to me to be a DDI article eventually.
There's also another aspect to consider here, which is that Bob Salvatore is writing a novel series in and around Neverwinter, and the designers wouldn't want to contradict what he does.
Cheers
I feel the need to point out that they have done some Gauntlgrym DDI articles:
www.wizards.com/dnd/downloads/dungeon/19...
www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/d...
Now then, Ive been a little busy getting into this book, looks like pure awesome to me, what are we arguing about again?
;)
NPC's not being uber...
;)
Well dont that just figure! People get all bent out of shape cause they say theres too many epic NPCs in the Realms, so now theyre complaining that theres not enough!? hahahaha!
NPC's not being uber...
;)
Well dont that just figure! People get all bent out of shape cause they say theres too many epic NPCs in the Realms, so now theyre complaining that theres not enough!? hahahaha!
Pretty much...
NPC's not being uber...
;)
Well dont that just figure! People get all bent out of shape cause they say theres too many epic NPCs in the Realms, so now theyre complaining that theres not enough!? hahahaha!
I actually love the idea of scaling bosses from Neverwinter. It's also nice that they come out and say 'Yes, he's a big deal. Go ahead and kill him if you want though, the world's a big place and someone's waiting to fill his shoes.'
My only real complaint about the book is I wished they had introduced a little more loving in the way of feats -especially for the Bladesinger - and the fact that Gauntlgrym could have used a little more something in the book.
All in all, super pleased with the purchase.
Maybe with the Shadow Weave being damaged along with the Weave the Princes of Shade are not as powerful as before...nah.
Then every Arcane and Shadow user of the Realms would be effected but they clearly are not.
NPC's not being uber...
;)
You might want to get your facts straight first. Nobody is talking about NPC's not being uber. It's talking about NPC's that have already been identified as uber and then suddenly knocking them down several pegs so the PC's can beat up on them and we are left with the cheesy "I'll get you next time ha ha ha ha!" phrase.
It should be up to the DM to create storybook scenes like these.
Anyway, this thread is starting to give me a headache...
And in this instance Sarevok does actually come back after you beat him. However, as someone said earlier, a recurring character should really level up with the party (as Sarevok does, essentially) and not just be de-powered so that the PCs can beat on him a little bit.
Can you expand on this concept a bit? As I understand it, Sarevok is around level 14-15 when you face him at the end of BG1, and then he's about the same level when he reappears in BG2, then maybe a little higher in BG2-ToB. That would seem to suggest he's not depowered at all, but rather within reach of powerful heroes.
Another good Baldur's Gate analogy is how Bioware handled the villains in their game. Instead of arbitrarily taking already well-known and known-to-be-powerful villains and de-leveling them to fit the confines of their game, they created a heroic tier villain (or what would be considered heroic tier in 4e) that was a whole new character and that was extremely memorable and turned out to be one of the most recognized villains in the history of Forgotten Realms fiction. That is what I would have liked to have seen in NWCS.
Good feedback. Thanks!
IMO, the goal here was to mix the old and the new, though mostly hte new. That's why we have NPCs like Dagult Neverember, Soman Galt, General Sabine, Vansi the Orc, the Harper siblings, Mordai Vell, his badass dwarf handmaiden, The Prophet of Helm's Hold, her dragon, etc., etc. Sure, we featured two villains from previous canon (Valindra and Clariburnus) as well as two "off-stage" NPCs (Drizzt and Jarlaxle). Was that overreaching? Too much of the old canon?
All in all I would like the designers to take my contribution to the disccussion not as an insult to your creative abilities but just as a bit of constuctive criticism to take into consideration when making the next Forgotten Realms campaign setting (which I hope to see soon).
I certainly don't take this feedback as an insult, and I'm glad to receive constructive criticism. My problem is that if a criticism seems based in a fundamental misunderstanding, I can't really process it unless I address the fundamental misunderstanding. (See my Elminster vs. Halaster example above.)
Maybe with the Shadow Weave being damaged along with the Weave the Princes of Shade are not as powerful as before...nah.
Well, let's not dismiss the concept out of hand. After all, the Spellplague DID affect every spellcaster in the Realms . . . but then again, it also states in the FRCS that people eventually adapted to the new order of magic, so this probably isn't a likely explanation after all.
You could, however, speculate that the 12 Princes and Telamont were permanently reduced in power and have just been successful at hiding it for the last century. This might explain why Netheril hasn't come to dominate more of the continent. That could be a very interesting story hook.
And one other thing, related a bit to previous posts but not the main topic: I'm rather a fan of heroic tier containing most of the prime material sort of adventures, and then paragon and epic heading off into the planes. There's still plenty to do in paragon, so you should definitely stop in from time to time, but I think the expectation is that only half the campaign will be material, the rest planar at that tier. Epic should be mostly planar, because that's where the epic threats are. This is part of why I feel epic statblocks for villains are not really that useful, because it seems very unlikely that following the expected course of a campaign, the PCs will really want to pop back into the material world to take out an epic villain or two.
That said, you can certainly run a Realms-only game all the way through 30th level--it just runs the risk of making some of your players bored.
Cheers
My only real complaint about the book is I wished they had introduced a little more loving in the way of feats -especially for the Bladesinger - and the fact that Gauntlgrym could have used a little more something in the book.
All in all, super pleased with the purchase.
I'm glad!
On the question of feats: The system already has thousands upon thousands of feats, and at this point I'm not sure creating more feats adds a lot to the system. The R&D stance at this point seems to be to put out fluff/flavor rather than crunch--create ways to use the system, rather than creating new parts for it.
Your feedback is, however, noted and considered.
On that point, what sort of feats would you like to see? Standard mechanical bumps? Weapon style sorts of feats? etc.
It's talking about NPC's that have already been identified as uber and then suddenly knocking them down several pegs so the PC's can beat up on them and we are left with the cheesy "I'll get you next time ha ha ha ha!" phrase.
Well, one can certainly come up with less cheesy explanations of things. As noted earlier, high level villains don't get that way by heedlessly slaughtering every group of would-be heroes. They use/manipulate them, point them at their enemies, etc., etc.
It should be up to the DM to create storybook scenes like these.
I agree, and as I've said before, these are tools for the DM to do exactly that.
(I also apologize for my tendency to discuss things basically to death. It's a character flaw born out of being very enthusiastic about the subject.)
Cheers
You could, however, speculate that the 12 Princes and Telamont were permanently reduced in power and have just been successful at hiding it for the last century. This might explain why Netheril hasn't come to dominate more of the continent. That could be a very interesting story hook.
Off topic: that’s a brilliant idea! I think it goes well with an idea I’ve been toying with where all magic users were basically reset and have spent a century relearning magic, as well as looking for the odd source of magic that wasn’t Weave based or that “went beyond the Weave” in some way.
I could see Netheril having Sembia battle Cormyr by proxy during this time, if only to keep Cormyr’s War Wizards from getting ahead magic-wise, as well as keeping Cormyrian-based expeditions to unearth ancient Netherese magical lore out of Netheril’s southern border.
The themes are probably my favorite part (I'm not terribly impressed with the bladesinger, and I am a confirmed "pointy-ear" guy...particularly drow as my avatar might indicate)...but they are also the most maddening. The themes look like they are going to play into many of the factions and how the players interact with those factions...and many of them are pretty limited by race. In most cases, the limitations make sense from a "realism" perspective, but not so much from a "fun" perspective. I found myself often looking things over, and being wow that looks neat until I get to the part where it says I have to be human. Pass. I play one of those IRL.
Even Bregan D'aerthe spy (which is completely awesome coming from a drow fanboi such as myself) seems a bit limiting because it's drow only. Given the awesome powers the theme provides with levitate, it makes sense to be drow only...but from a RP perspective, Jarlaxle would not limit his information network to only drow. He'd certainly be employing other races as spies and agents, and try to get them into all levels of Neverwinter society.
To be fair, some of those might also be open to other races with DM approval, but the character builder does not presently support that.
The themes that are open to multiple races, seem rather lack luster mechanically. Being a long time realms fan (and generally a do-gooder), the very first theme I went to look at was harper agent. I'd ALWAYS wanted to get a character into the harpers, but was just underwhelmed by the theme mechanically. Taking it for pure RP reasons would make me feel I was missing out on something more useful mechanically. It's not BAD, it's just if my DM didn't add in lots of things to make the theme relevant, it could be frustrating to not have some of the very cool mechanical benefits provided by some of the other themes.
Are the above things worth complaining about? No, all things being equal I'm very impressed with everything I've seen from the guide so far. I hesitate to even post as much criticism as I have, knowing that at least one of the authors will probably be reading this and possibly take it to be more negative then I intend. Really, I'd just like to see race selection a little less restricted for the next sourcebook that comes out is all.
Are the above things worth complaining about? No, all things being equal I'm very impressed with everything I've seen from the guide so far. I hesitate to even post as much criticism as I have, knowing that at least one of the authors will probably be reading this and possibly take it to be more negative then I intend. Really, I'd just like to see race selection a little less restricted for the next sourcebook that comes out is all.
Ah man, now I've given the impression that I have thin skin. Which I can't, by definition, have, since I work in the publishing industry.
Feedback noted, and I totally hear you on the character builder issue. A funny coincidence is that back in the day, when I did a DDI Channel Divinity: Tymora article, I didn't put restrictions on race or class at all to take some of the options, and people argued for MORE restrictions.
Taking into account character builder, I think generally the best plan is to leave the crunch without race/class restrictions, and just let the DM handle all that in game. At least this way, you can in theory apply it to your character in the builder, if it's house ruled to be available.
Cheers
Then again, having made them more open ended might have detracted from how well they fit in to the rest of the campaign setting and how the factions tie together. It's probably a good thing I am not a game designer!
A young red dragon named Cinderscar heard many rumors about the pirates and their lucrative treasure haul over the years and being a young greedy dragon, he attacks and kills off the pirates.
Prior to this event, the pirates had discovered a cave about 80 feet down in the moat and had been excavating a hole down to it to bury their treasure and set up traps to get to it, thereby ensuring no one but them could get to it. Needless to say, they had visions of grandeur and saw themselves as becoming a real power in the region. Unfortunately Cinderscar had other ideas and before a single trap was installed, they pirates were attacked.
Two months later a very contented Cinderscar was visited by an emissary from Skelkor. Gauwervyndhal, the Dragon Empress, wants to expand her influence and try to re-grow her power base back to its former glory by recruiting foreign dragons to her way of seeing things. Namely that dragons should rule the world. The envoy, a dragonkin loyal to the queen, offers Cinderscar a gift in the form of tougher than normal Kobolds (from the Draconomicon) to protect his lair should he need to travel. The offer marks Cinderscar as a dragon of rank and influence in the region and comes with promises of power.
Cinderscar likes what he hears and agrees to the deal.
The fight will be interesting in that the PCs will have to fight their way across the island and then down the unstable platforms in the pit that leads down to the cave bottom where Cinderscar has set up his lair. I modified one of the scenarios in the Draconomicon so that when the PCs try descending the platforms at different elevations Cinderscar attacks them. Each platform can only take a few hits before it collapses, so it's a race to defeat Cinderscar and his minions before they plummet to their deaths.
Should they defeat Cinderscar they discover not only the treasure but the invitation from Empress as well.
And one other thing, related a bit to previous posts but not the main topic: I'm rather a fan of heroic tier containing most of the prime material sort of adventures, and then paragon and epic heading off into the planes. There's still plenty to do in paragon, so you should definitely stop in from time to time, but I think the expectation is that only half the campaign will be material, the rest planar at that tier. Epic should be mostly planar, because that's where the epic threats are. This is part of why I feel epic statblocks for villains are not really that useful, because it seems very unlikely that following the expected course of a campaign, the PCs will really want to pop back into the material world to take out an epic villain or two.
That said, you can certainly run a Realms-only game all the way through 30th level--it just runs the risk of making some of your players bored.
I think that just depends on the kind of campaign you want to run. There are plenty of paragon and epic tier threats in the Realms proper. A Shadowfell campaign is great for Paragon. But so is an underdark campaign with mind flayers/drow and on into lower epic with Aboleths, etc. And there's plenty of epic tier threats. Manshoon, Szazz Tam, Fzoul Chembryl, the Abolethic Sovereignty, Ancient Dragons. What's the point of having these threats if epic tier campaigns have to be in the planes. To me, heroic tier is for threats in a limited area, such as a city like Neverwinter, the Nentir Vale, etc. Paragon is for threats that threaten an entire nation or region, and epic is for the threats that threaten the entire world. The planes are optional adventure areas in Paragon and Epic. A campaign might start in Rasheman in heroic tier, then move into a Paragon campaign that faces a threat that threatens the entire unapproachable east like demons or warlock knights, and then might move into an epic campaign against an enemy that threatens the entire world, like Thay with an epic final boss fight against Szass Tam.
Really its just about consistency. A new player interested in the Realms might go out and buy both the FRCG and the NWCG and might say to himself "Why is Clariburnus, a Prince of Shade, only level 10 in the NWCG, but Naramus, a mere Knight of Shade, is level 11 in the FRCG?"
The fight will be interesting in that the PCs will have to fight their way across the island and then down the unstable platforms in the pit that leads down to the cave bottom where Cinderscar has set up his lair. I modified one of the scenarios in the Draconomicon so that when the PCs try descending the platforms at different elevations Cinderscar attacks them. Each platform can only take a few hits before it collapses, so it's a race to defeat Cinderscar and his minions before they plummet to their deaths.
Should they defeat Cinderscar they discover not only the treasure but the invitation from Empress as well.
Dude, this is awesome.
NPC's not being uber...
;)
You might want to get your facts straight first. Nobody is talking about NPC's not being uber. It's talking about NPC's that have already been identified as uber and then suddenly knocking them down several pegs so the PC's can beat up on them and we are left with the cheesy "I'll get you next time ha ha ha ha!" phrase.
It should be up to the DM to create storybook scenes like these.
So it's NPC's not being uber...
;)
What Delta said...
Anyway, this thread is starting to give me a headache...
When? The nit-picking to nit-pick or the NPC's not being uber. They should nuke the setting again because I am offended by not so uber NPC's. I demand justice!!!
that is all.
Never betray you trust
Oh, and totally read Shadowbane. ;)
Cheers
(Spam +1)
and +2 totallly read Shadowbane
- It is heroic tier, great. But why every monster level (with the exception of a level 11 salamander) is 10 or below? X level characters could have level X+4 hard encounters, so I feel the level 10 cap is wrong. A level 14 cap could have made things more interesting (Valindra level 14 solo anyone?)
- The non uber NPCs: we Realms fans like canon. I'm not saying a stat block should be encyclopedic.. or wait: I am saying just that. Now that the Neverwinter Campaign Setting is served with accessible villains, we want a Dungeon article detailing the canonical stats (at least I want it!!). Just to be clear, I like the idea of accessible villains, but I want canon. If I have to chose between 1) not having canon and as a DM having to level up an NPC to use it in paragon or epic tier and 2) having canon and as DM having to delevel an NPC to use it in heroic tier, I choose 2 all the way.
- I would have loved more precise facts, like a chronology of past events, by year or month (again, we Realms fans like canon), and a few more detailed locations for the Shadowfell road. I love what you did with Surcross and the Obsidian Ziggurat sidebar (specifying Lake of Salt), for example.
- I wanted more maps or detailed encounter locations (not an entire adventure, just more detail).
Anyway, I really hope WotC does more books like this in the near future.
I'd like to hear more about Luskan, what's going on in the Pirate's Skyhold, what the Eminence of Aurant are up to, and a scenario for the players to steal away Shade's latest flying city.
Following mpj's #4 above, I think it'd be cool if WotC did a follow up "Neverwinter Adventures" hardcover (or maybe several soft covers) that details specific adventure locations, serves to advance the timeline in Neverwinter a few months (:cough: Current Clack :cough
Yeah, the kind of thing you did there is what I'm talking about.
(...) a scenario for the players to steal away Shade's latest flying city.
Sounds like an ambitious plan :P
Expanding my post a little, I think what they did with Gommoth was great: "this are Gommoth's stats (ok, those in the MM) but if your players want to fight him use the Ogre mercenary from MV and add this stuff".
Mordai is my favorite NPC so far, he's a lot of fun to RP. I introduced him right from the start - escorting Neverember from his mansion, patting each other on the back like old pals. Gave the players something to think about, even before they know his 'connection'. ;)