Second, I have a big complaint over the additions of the new Phalagar. The reach four ability with threatening was enormous with big damage for a 1-4 mod. What seems to have been omitted by the writer is the number of targets that can be grabbed at a time. The Monster Manual clearly states with tentacled creatures how many grabs can be had at one time. This encounter does not state if it can do one grab, ten grabs, or one thousand grabs. In this combat, with massive reach and threatening, the creature's description should state that only one grab can be done at a time. We had two characters grabbed by each and it was still doing opportunity attacks to get near them, not fun with 1st and 2nd level characters.[HTML][/HTML][/HTML][/HTML]
Second, please use the spoiler formatting (including editing what you have already posted) shown below when giving out potential spoiler information on this forum. Not everyone wants to know about the contents of an adventure they haven't played yet.
Show
As to the first issue, I am sorry your DM missed that but such things do happen and even bolding the text doesn't always stop it, especially if the DM is running the adventure cold. I don't know if your DM did this or not, but from my personal point of view, I consider running an adventure cold to be bad DMing (though I do understand that sometimes, especially at Cons, it is a necessity). Still, I will discuss this with my Global.
As to the Phalagar, this was not an error on the part of the author. The creature was not an invention of his own. It is a published monster that first appeared in H2 Thunderspire Labyrinth and was taken verbatim from the Rules Compendium. And if it doesn't state a limit to its grab, then it has none.
Now as to whether this is too deadly is a separate issue. To be sure, it is challenging but it was also playtested. Still, if we get multiple complaints about this, we may revisit the issue.
So, again, thank you for your feedback and I am glad you enjoyed the adventure.
As to the first issue, I am sorry your DM missed that but such things do happen and even bolding the text doesn't always stop it, especially if the DM is running the adventure cold. I don't know if your DM did this or not, but from my personal point of view, I consider running an adventure cold to be bad DMing (though I do understand that sometimes, especially at Cons, it is a necessity). Still, I will discuss this with my Global.
As to the Phalagar, this was not an error on the part of the author. The creature was not an invention of his own. It is a published monster that first appeared in H2 Thunderspire Labyrinth and was taken verbatim from the Rules Compendium. And if it doesn't state a limit to its grab, then it has none.
Now as to whether this is too deadly is a separate issue. To be sure, it is challenging but it was also playtested. Still, if we get multiple complaints about this, we may revisit the issue.
So, again, thank you for your feedback and I am glad you enjoyed the adventure.
I think a lot of this is about DMs taking the time to prep mods. I always take a pen and highlighter to any mod I will run, making a note of these types of things.
I would suggest either using a different term, or putting this adventure-specific definition in a box or sidebar, similar to the way some adventures emphasize opportunities for Quest card completion.
One other issue I found irritating, and while it's more of a core rules issue, it becomes an adventure issue when an author chooses to use such a creature: As far as I can tell (and please, let me know if I'm wrong, as I'm going to be running this module this evening), there are no rules for dealing with a creature being able to grab at range.
Sure, I can make up rules, ranging from "Sorry, you're not close enough to hit the creature; trying to attack its appendages is just another way of saying you're using the Escape action (or Aiding Another on an Escape action)" to "As long as it has an appendage extended, for purposes of being able to be attacked, it's treated as though the creature were occupying all squares in a line between it and the grabbed target" (and there's some interesting house rules you can make up in between those two), but this is the sort of thing in which a little uniformity would be good.
Show
The copy of the module I have lists the kruthik as 'medium natural humanoid (reptile)'. According to the Monster Manual they are supposed to be 'medium natural beast (reptile)'. If these kruthik are supposed to be humanoids then the beastmaster's Release the Hounds and Sick 'Em powers will not work on them (those powers affect natural beasts) Has this been corrected already?
I also agree that on paper the phalagar looks overpowered.
I also agree that on paper the phalagar looks overpowered.
ShowThe copy of the module I have lists the kruthik as 'medium natural humanoid (reptile)'. According to the Monster Manual they are supposed to be 'medium natural beast (reptile)'. If these kruthik are supposed to be humanoids then the beastmaster's Release the Hounds and Sick 'Em powers will not work on them (those powers affect natural beasts) Has this been corrected already?
ShowNow that I look at it, I'm pretty sure this is a bug in the Compendium, which lists the kruthik brutes as being humanoids instead of beasts. (That's the reason for the extra bit of text in the "Tactics" section specifying that the beastmaster's power works on the kruthiks even though they are the wrong type.) I'll check with HQ and see if there is a reason to update the adventure. It doesn't change anything, since the text specifically states that these abilities work regardless of the kruthiks' type, so it's probably not worth issuing a new version of the adventure.
Seems like the lack of rules is a rule in and of itself. You can't properly attack the limb/appendage that is doing the grabbing, so you can only attack the main body, as usual...
I'm not sure this answers anybody's questions, but as a data point, here's a quote from page 35 of Adventure Book Two of H2 Thunderspire Labyrinth, the source for this particular critter. Specifically, this is from the "Tactics" section of the encounter in which it features.
ShowThe phalagar remains underground, but its tentacles can be attacked as if the creature were occupying a space above ground.
Regarding "that encounter"
Show
I think the terrain for the combat is over-advantageous for the monsters. It is a total hose-job for ranged attackers. Reach 4 basically covers the entire room, and threatening reach means there is no place you can make a ranged attack without provoking. Coupling that with his basic attack grabbing, and you have the great potential to make a ranged character feel less than useless.
Looking at the creatures' stats now, and they don't look like they'd be that much of a threat without the significant terrain advantage. This fight looks like it will be extremely swingy, based on party composition (ranged vs melee) and particularly by starting positions. If you're a melee heavy party, and you can start adjacent to the enemies then it will be a cakewalk. Our party had a fighter, melee/balanced cleric, wild mage sorc, starlock, and archer ranger. So it was definitely not ideal for us.
We succeeded with some difficulty, so it was a good challenge. I just think that it may have been considerably less than fun for the ranged characters, who were basically getting smacked twice per round without the creature attacking. (By provoking from ranged attacks, then taking the damage at the start of their next turn from being grabbed.) On rounds when the close burst recharged, it was even worse. (They were eventually able to get out of burst ranges.)
It was also cool that there was the option to use the symbol to hurt the monsters, as a means to damage them without provoking. (That's how the DM ruled it, even though the stat block for the attack lists it as Ranged, so I could see DMs having the skill check provoke.) Too bad for us they bombed those rolls, and only managed to set them free. But even that helped us out in the end. :p
Hmm, you know. Maybe in hindsight it was a pretty cool fight. It has the potential for suck, but so does anything I guess.
Looking at the creatures' stats now, and they don't look like they'd be that much of a threat without the significant terrain advantage. This fight looks like it will be extremely swingy, based on party composition (ranged vs melee) and particularly by starting positions. If you're a melee heavy party, and you can start adjacent to the enemies then it will be a cakewalk. Our party had a fighter, melee/balanced cleric, wild mage sorc, starlock, and archer ranger. So it was definitely not ideal for us.
We succeeded with some difficulty, so it was a good challenge. I just think that it may have been considerably less than fun for the ranged characters, who were basically getting smacked twice per round without the creature attacking. (By provoking from ranged attacks, then taking the damage at the start of their next turn from being grabbed.) On rounds when the close burst recharged, it was even worse. (They were eventually able to get out of burst ranges.)
It was also cool that there was the option to use the symbol to hurt the monsters, as a means to damage them without provoking. (That's how the DM ruled it, even though the stat block for the attack lists it as Ranged, so I could see DMs having the skill check provoke.) Too bad for us they bombed those rolls, and only managed to set them free. But even that helped us out in the end. :p
Hmm, you know. Maybe in hindsight it was a pretty cool fight. It has the potential for suck, but so does anything I guess.