I just read the mod in prep for a thursday game and just finished reading it. Keith and Claire I gotta say Bravo, This looks fantastic, I can't wait to run it. I love the way the skill challenges are written out in great detail of how you intend for them to work.
Great feel for the City as well, fantastic use of prior mods certs to call in favors.
And I really do enjoy the conclusion options.
I am not really able to judge the fights difficulty as I've only had chance to play Core 1-14 and Spec 1-3p1 and run ADCP and SPEC 1-3p1 for paragon mods but they look to be reasonable, I'll be sure to come back and report what my players thought after thursday.
Hmm one ooops I think i found, on the BBEG, the equipment lists a +4 symbol of power that doesn't appear anywhere else I can see, that seems odd.
Not sure I would call that an oops, but perhaps an artifact of the process. We had to build the stat block for the dude and get it approved with the proposal, and that came from original creature (in OG) we evolved the NPC/Monster. I don't decide on magic items until almost the last thing we do before submission of the adventure draft, and by that time I had decided this was an ideal adventure to have a wide choice of implement, so having a specific implement as another bundle choice seemed inappropriate. At that point, I could not change the monster stat block. Hopefully that slight inconsistency is not too confusing for DMs. Sorry if that bothers you, but I am happy with what we offered in the treasure bundles.
Keith
It didn't bother me, just when we played I crit about 3 times with him and was tempted to use the implements crit dice =P I didn't but it would have been entertaining, and possibly a little deadly, my players really enjoyed the mod. You were not kidding about time at the end, we did it as fast as I think we could and finished in 4:45.
I don't decide on magic items until almost the last thing we do before submission of the adventure draft, and by that time I had decided this was an ideal adventure to have a wide choice of implement
Perhaps you could clarify for us whether "any +3 implement" is indeed intended to mean its literal reading of "any implement with a +3 enhancement bonus" (i.e., any L11-15 implement) or whether this bundle was missing a word and we should be reading it as "any +3 magic implement".
In either event, you might want to consider a slight revision to avoid misunderstanding.
I try to follow Chris Tulach's example and write in simple, plain English. I meant "any +3 implement" to mean just what it says, so, yes, the player may choose any L11-L15 implement from any player resource. If I had meant to say "any L11 implement" or "any +3 magic implement," then I would have written that (the first wording being slightly more clear). I have sent Shawn Merwin a query to confirm he understood my meaning and does not have a different opinion as to the meaning of what he approved. I will post his reply, assuming he does not post it himself.
Keith
I try to follow Chris Tulach's example and write in simple, plain English. I meant "any +3 implement" to mean just what it says, so, yes, the player may choose any L11-L15 implement from any player resource. If I had meant to say "any L11 implement" or "any +3 magic implement," then I would have written that (the first wording being slightly more clear). I have sent Shawn Merwin a query to confirm he understood my meaning and does not have a different opinion as to the meaning of what he approved. I will post his reply, assuming he does not post it himself.
Keith
Thanks for clarifying your intent to us Keith, as a reader of these forums I'm sure you know how often simple plain english is misunderstood when we try to apply game rules to it =) Also thank you for answering questions from the masses directly here and being involved in the community, it may not always show but we appreciate it!
Typos are always possible, mistakes occur when we are in a hurry, and, yes, English is not always precise. So no issue with the question.
BTW if the OP or others have feedback on WATE1-6 (or any of the Waterdeep adventures), I devised forum threads in the LFR Waterdeep group to try to capture feedback on Waterdeep adventures.
Keith
Huh? When you would want to grant access to all level 11 to 15 implements, wouldn't you need to say that? If you say any +3 implement, you just mean the basic +3 with nothing special.
Huh? When you would want to grant access to all level 11 to 15 implements, wouldn't you need to say that? If you say any +3 implement, you just mean the basic +3 with nothing special.
"Any +3 implement" literally means any implement with a +3 enhancement bonus (e.g., +3 magic orb, +3 rod of reaving, +3 symbol of power). Or, to put it another way, is a +3 symbol of power a +3 implement? Then, as such, it's a valid selection from this bundle.
"Any +3 magic implement" means a specific item, one with the +3 magic property. There's no such thing as a "basic +3 with nothing special". Magic is a specific type of item in just the same way flaming is a specific type of item.
I try to follow Chris Tulach's example and write in simple, plain English. I meant "any +3 implement" to mean just what it says, so, yes, the player may choose any L11-L15 implement from any player resource. If I had meant to say "any L11 implement" or "any +3 magic implement," then I would have written that (the first wording being slightly more clear). I have sent Shawn Merwin a query to confirm he understood my meaning and does not have a different opinion as to the meaning of what he approved. I will post his reply, assuming he does not post it himself.
Keith
If you are a wizard (for example) who can use a light blade as an implement - is this intended to allow for any +3 light blade as well? Or does the phrase +3 implement only include those items that are specifically implements (orb, wand, etc.)?
Carl
My intent was items specifically labeled as implements.
Keith
Thanks for the Clarification. I was the original player at ixbat's table that asked the question. My Warlock is definitely going to enjoy his new Rod. My Swordmage is giong to be rather dissapointed. I'd been thinking about replaying this later at a local con so he could pick up one of the Swordmage themed weapons. I think I'm better off not playing this mod with him. This will allow me to avoid the temptation of trying to talk my fellow players into letting him replace his +3 Bloodclaw Longsword with a more thematic weapon.
I understand you reasoning for this and in the future would suggest future authors considering a similar bundle try alternate wording such as the following:
Any NonWeapon Impliment of Level 15 or less
This wording would probably be less ambigous. I will also say it was overall a rather enjoyable mod.
Implement isn't ambiguos.
A X item that can be used as an implement isn't an Implement it is a X item.
And there seems to be some confusion of expectation looking at Madfox's response.
Implement isn't ambiguos.
A X item that can be used as an implement isn't an Implement it is a X item.
And there seems to be some confusion of expectation looking at Madfox's response.
With classes that use weapon categories for implements (note I'm not saying AS an implement like a songblade can be used AS an implement for bard powers) the line is a little fuzzy on what constitutes an implement. Staves muddle it up further to some degree, and if I were to take my shaman's totem and smack someone over the head with it, it would be a weapon, an improvised one yes but a weapon.
A X item that can be used as an implement isn't an Implement it is a X item.
I suppose you could say that a staff is an implement that can be used as a weapon, while a dagger is a weapon that can be used as an implement.
I'm not entirely sure the rules support this level of precision, however. The logical consequence of this way of looking at the rules would be for us to conclude, for example, there is no such thing as a swordmage implement--swordmages don't have implements, they merely have the ability to use some non-implements as implements.
Of course, since the rules make explicit reference to "swordmage implements" (FRPG, p. 139 errata), that can't be right. I don't think an interpretation which says that a rule referring to "sorcerer implements" only includes staffs and not daggers is a good interpretation, as that's likely to cause problems down the line.
A better way to look at things is that certain items are both weapons and implements, and the rules appear quite fine with that being the case.
Actually they do. The PHB specifically says that Staff Implements may be used as a weapon for example.
I realise people (including me) don't like the way implements work in many cases, as can be seen by the sheer number of ways they have already created exceptions, and the problems with some things (eg when using you weapon as an implement you cannot gain its properties), but the simple fact is that being a weapon that can be used as an implement doesn't make it an implement.
The simple way of looking at it:
Is it in the Weapon section? If yes then it is not an Implement, even if it may be used as one.
Is it in the Wonderous Items section? If yes then it is not an Implement, even if it may be used as one.
The big fix 4E needs is to have an "Implement" group and put Wands, Staffs, Holy Symbols etc into that big basket and then ascribe functions to the Implement types, just like they do with Weapons. (Eg The Magic Property has "Weapon: Any" If there was a general Implement group you could then have the Magic property have "Implement: Any" - this would remove the need to add a whole slew of new sections every time you wanted to add a new implement type.)
Hello Cailte,
I agree with you that the author's intent was to exclude weapons and that is why I will be respecting his intent and abstaining from taking an impliment with my swordmage. The simple fact there is a difference between RAI and RAW in this case.
RAI is that the Author intended to allow Non-weapon impliments. RAW states that a +3 Bloodclaw Longsword would be a legal choice for this bundle as longswords ARE swordmage impliments. I looked in the PHB and did not find any exclusive list of impliments. It lists the impliments for the classes in the PHB and how to read a class listing to determine a class's impliments, but does not say anywhere that Heavy Blades are NOT impliments. Your interpretation of implients would forbid swordmages from taking Impliment Expertise as it states that you must choose a type of impliment.
I will certainly suggest to others that they do not take weapons from this bundle as it was not what was intended, but I could not tell somone that did so that they were cheating. Being a Rules Lawyer, but not cheating.
Page 224 says the following "Magic items fall into seven broad categories; armor, weapons, implements, clothing, rings, wondrous items, and potions."
AV1, AV2 and the EPG have added additional categories.
Page 224 also begins the section on Reading a Magic Item, which continues onto page 225 where the section titled Cetegory and Price is found. In this section it says "For implements, it shows the specific kind of implement."
Can you point to a heavy blade that has Implement(Heavy Blade) (I cannot) if not then there are currently no items that belong to the Implement Category of magic items that are Heavy Blades.
Currently the different types of implements include: Holy Symbol, Staff, Rod, Wand, Orbs, Totems, Tomes, and Ki Focus items.
Consider this: chair is an item of furniture, if you take it and bash someone with it you have used it at as a weapon, but it is still an item of furniture (though probably a broken one). It is the same with heavy blades, a character may be able to use them as implements but that doesn't make them Implements.
The fact the character builder applies a rule RAI, also doesn't make it RAW - cf Focused Expertise (Ki Focus) , which like Implement Expertise (Heavy Blade) is a RAI rather than RAW implementation.
It's simple. Implements are items that can be used to channel powers with the Implement keyword. Any level of precision beyond that is not supported by the rules.
"Implements are items wielded by certain characters to channel their powers. Your class description or a feat tells you which implements you can wield, if any. To use the powers and the properties of a magic implement, you must be able to wield that implement.
The implement keyword identifies a power that can be used through an implement, and the implement must be a type wielded by the power’s class." (PH2, p. 220)
There are certain items that are nothing but implements. There are certain items which are both something else and also implements. They are, however, all implements.
A contrary interpretation requires us to believe that when the rules talk about "sorcerer implements", they aren't including daggers, when they talk about "bard implements", they aren't including musical instruments, and when they talk about "swordmage implements", they aren't talking about anything at all.
It means that a dagger-wielding sorcerer can't benefit from the Dual Implement Spellcaster feat. It means that a druid wielding an Alfsair Spear ("This spear is a favorite druid weapon") can't actually use the item while wild-shaped.
The Arcane Implement Proficiency feat clearly assumes that weapons can be implements, not merely something else which is being used as an implement. "Choose a kind of implement associated with any arcane class other than your own. You can use that kind of implement with your arcane powers. If that implement is also a weapon, you do not add the weapon’s proficiency bonus to attack rolls made while you wield it as an implement." (AP, p. 124)
It is true that one section identifies items as falling into broad categories. That description does not, however, state that an item cannot fall into multiple categories, nor does it trump the many other rules which require us to consider a weapon to be an actual implement for the rules to make sense. If it makes it easier, you can think of this as a general vs. specific issue: PH p. 224 tells us that, generally, implements, weapons and wondrous items are separate categories; the sorcerer class description tells us that daggers are specifically both a weapon and an implement.
The rules don't have any problem with the idea that an item can be both a weapon and an implement (not merely 'used as an implement', but 'an implement'). I think a contrary interpretation is unwarranted, and creates a significant number of problems for several classes.
So page 224-225 of the PHB is wrong then?
Geez, what a pointless argument. We know what the author intended, he's stated so right here, can't we just leave it at that? And agree that the rules on weapons-as-implements are deeply confusing in 4e?
So page 224-225 of the PHB is wrong then?
Nope, they're good general rules. They're just not trying to be comprehensive definitions that are all-encompassing.
PH p. 224 tells us that items fall into certain general categories. That's generally true... except for the times when items fall into more than one category.
PH p. 225 tells us that all magic weapons and implements deal extra damage on a critical hit. That's generally true... except for the times when a magic weapon or implement does something other than damage on a critical hit, or does nothing at all.
PH p. 226 tells us that each use of a daily magic item power must come from a different magic item. That's generally true... except for the times when an artificer or some other ability recharges the magic item's daily power.
These aren't wrong, you're simply reading into them a level of authority and finality they weren't trying to possess.
Geez, what a pointless argument. We know what the author intended, he's stated so right here, can't we just leave it at that? And agree that the rules on weapons-as-implements are deeply confusing in 4e?
Sure. This particular context is fairly trivial. However, I think it's meaningful to make it clear that when the rules (in a module or a rulebook) say "implement", they mean "an item you can channel an Implement power through" not "only those items listed in the Implement section of the magic item chapter".
I'm more concerned that someone not walk away from this discussion with the idea that a PC can only take Arcane Implement Proficiency (heavy blades) if the DM is willing to turn a blind eye, or that a sorcerer wielding two daggers and using Dual Implement Proficiency is cheating, than with how a particular bundle reward is interpreted.
You are not reading the right part of 225:
Category and Price
.... For weapons, the line beneath this information tells you which weapon groups can be enchanted with that set of qualities, and for armor, it notes the same for the five types of armor (plus clothing). For implements, it shows the specific kind of implement.
The issue is that the rules for what you can wield as an implement appear to be written without consideration for the rules on what an implement is (possibly because there isn' a set definition for what an implement is)
I really have no problems as a DM with the RAI application of feats like Implement Expertise and Dual Implement Spell Caster, but trying to apply rules in contradiction to the magic item rules when specifically discussing magic items I do have a problem with.
The magic item rules are pretty clear when you read them all: Implements say Implement (Type) in their description - everything that doesn't is something else.
I have a question that has not been addressed here or I missed it when it first came out. The necromancer has listed specifically a +4 holy symbol of power but it doesn't appear in the treasure. What is up with that? It is a specific item used by an enemy so why is it not a viable player option? Could the writer please address this point?
Not sure I would call that an oops, but perhaps an artifact of the process. We had to build the stat block for the dude and get it approved with the proposal, and that came from original creature (in OG) we evolved the NPC/Monster. I don't decide on magic items until almost the last thing we do before submission of the adventure draft, and by that time I had decided this was an ideal adventure to have a wide choice of implement, so having a specific implement as another bundle choice seemed inappropriate. At that point, I could not change the monster stat block. Hopefully that slight inconsistency is not too confusing for DMs. Sorry if that bothers you, but I am happy with what we offered in the treasure bundles.
Keith
He did.
In the last adventure, I really liked the setup for the final combat. It had really neat and challenging aspects. I liked the way the one foe could call in others, so as to replace troops.
If I had to nitpick, I thought it would have been nice to speak to the foe at the end to learn a bit more. I'm hopeful that this is one of several loose threads that will come back to visit us later on. There were several interesting NPCs in this story arc.
Oh, and the first adventure clearly had something to do with furries. :-)
I try to follow Chris Tulach's example and write in simple, plain English. I meant "any +3 implement" to mean just what it says, so, yes, the player may choose any L11-L15 implement from any player resource. If I had meant to say "any L11 implement" or "any +3 magic implement," then I would have written that (the first wording being slightly more clear). I have sent Shawn Merwin a query to confirm he understood my meaning and does not have a different opinion as to the meaning of what he approved. I will post his reply, assuming he does not post it himself.
Keith
It's not Shawn Merwin, but it IS the writing director in charge of this module...
I have to say the Necromancer series is (in my opinion, of course), one of the best quest series released by LFR so far, for a few reasons:
1. I think it has the most well-established villain in LFR to date. Due to the shortness/limits of adventures, its relatively challenging to set up a good villain, especially one that's not just "I'm the bad guy for some reason!!!!" I liked how the series progressed as an investigation to not only thwart him, but understand his motivations as well. I especially like how PCs can see how he'd be rather....upset, but years of stewing anger drove him over the edge. Basically, this was simply just good writing. I do agree with Alphastream that I would've enjoyed interacting with him a bit more. (Unfortunately, our undead-hating priest killed him instead of capturing, which was fairly understandable from an RP standpoint, so not too big a deal.) In the future, when I run this, I'll hope to run a bit more interacting with the guy.
2. I think all 3 adventures were both challenging(combat-wise) and had interesting roleplaying and/or skill challenges.
3. I like how the authors put players in a position where they had to think, and didn't treat them as if they were 8 year olds with no attention span. (To be fair to other authors, sometimes I think many LFR players have less of an attention span than some 8 year olds I've known.)
4. The story awards were extra cool; one of my favorite to date.
5. I like how there's an aspect of shades of grey in there; it's obvious one of the prior (or current?) Lords of Waterdeep was doing some rather unpleasant things. The PCs, however, are not all-knowing and all-powerful in the complicated city, so they can't right every wrong. I'm of the opinion that PC accomplishments are tempered by the limits of the world in these kinds of cases. (If the PCs CAN fix everything in the world, it makes the world less believeable and makes all the NPCs look incompetent.)
6. While there's a continuous storyline, the writers did a good job of having the adventures run well for players who didn't do the prior adventures (or a mix of both.)
Lastly, I want to agree that the final fight was really cool. =) I think my main regret, is not making a Waterdeep character a year ago....
So anyways, great job guys!
-Rozman
Keith
Thanks.
-Rozman
For P1 high, your budget is 3000 xp, plus 200 xp minor quest. Major quest is 1000 xp.
I think the COREs may be allowed above that; I know that Specials are allowed above that.
So a regional P1 adventure which is not the end of the Major Quest, should have xp between 2100 and 2240 for low, and 3000 and 3200 for high, as the cap.
Slight variations may occur due to alternative encounters chosen.
Keith
The text suggests that the party has to pursue him through the tunnels (which, to me, implies some sort of skill check), but from the perspective of neatly ending the adventure, it would be more practical to have him either surrender to the party or come back out and fight until he's killed or subdued. If he's already been running through the tunnels for several rounds, though, the idea that he would suddenly turn around and re-engage the PCs doesn't make narrative sense to me.
I'll probably have him surrender if his undead have all been killed and continue fighting otherwise, but I'm not sure how to explain this to the players in a way that's consistent with the idea that he would have escaped if the party hadn't opened the lock.
I would do the following. If he escapes out the secret door, give the PCs the opportunity to do 3 rounds of Strength checks and/or Thievery checks, it only takes one to work. If they succeed, describe an exciting chase but they catch up with him and kill or capture him. If they don't succeed, or have to resort to using the Knock ritual, he is long gone. Unless you want to expand the play experience at home, don't create a skill challenge, because it will mostly be tracking checks.
The secret door is there because a smart villain would want one. He would also use Arcane Lock if he could. The design concept was to show you were fighting a smart (if disturbed and evil) adversary and you needed to move quickly to make sure he does not get away. With conditions like stun, immobilize, restrain, etc., this should not be hard. Also, if Azu is dazed, give the PCs extra rounds.
ShowThe secret door is there because a smart villain would want one. He would also use Arcane Lock if he could. The design concept was to show you were fighting a smart (if disturbed and evil) adversary and you needed to move quickly to make sure he does not get away.
Keith
I meant "any +3 implement" to mean just what it says, so, yes, the player may choose any L11-L15 implement from any player resource.
Following up on this...
I never realized it, but I guess this means that DRAG1-4 Falling Snow White Petal gives any implement of level 6-10.
It just says "Bundle E: implement +2".
I meant "any +3 implement" to mean just what it says, so, yes, the player may choose any L11-L15 implement from any player resource.
Following up on this...
I never realized it, but I guess this means that DRAG1-4 Falling Snow White Petal gives any implement of level 6-10.
It just says "Bundle E: implement +2".
It does not say "any +2 implement" so the only option would be a vanilla +2 implement.
It does not say "any +2 implement" so the only option would be a vanilla +2 implement.
Not sure if you've been following the whole thread, but it's specifically about the fact that there is no "+2 implement". That represents a category of implements.
To quote from earlier in the thread:
"There's no such thing as a "basic +3 with nothing special". Magic is a specific type of item in just the same way flaming is a specific type of item."
Fun mod for the combats. Story didn't really interest us overall, and honestly we found it a little hard to take seriously. What's interesting is that it seems our group was in the minority here. From reading the other replies, it seems most people who posted here really enjoyed the story!
The group I played with was pretty average. Some PCs were under-powered, while others were over-powered. All 4 roles were covered.
Specifically:
0. It was a little hard for us care about these guilds. Furriers? Wool-men? It didn't really grab our interest, especially in this Paragon scenario.
1. Master Brendan mentions that he didn't warn the Fine Carvers guild because he's afraid the Necromancer might learn of this and call off the attack. Actually, the Necromancer expects adventurers to show up, and even mentions that in his letter and taunts them to do so.
2. We could never take seriously a (mediocre) villain who called himself the "Necromancer" (capital N). Not sure if it was meant to be sorta laughable.
3. The whole thing with the performers disguised as undead was hard to swallow.
4. I'm not sure how PCs are supposed to deduce that the market (which one?) is the location of the real attack, even now. At least it was just given to you if you make an Insight check (though why is not explained other than it's a "very juicy target" among many other targets).
5. Our DM ran the fight in the market (didn't want to do 3 skill challenges back-to-back... for pacing reasons). Lots of fun fighting off waves of monsters!
6. The walk through Downshadow was very well done. It was cool to meet up with all the people we met in previous scenarios.
7. Something in the 2nd fight came up: how high is the ceiling? There's a guardhouse in the room, so it was assumed that it was a very high ceiling (more like a cavern).
8. The last fight was very epic, and we had a great time with it! The terrain was great. In hindsight, part of it is also because our DM made the chasm 60' deep with poison spikes at the bottom, it wasn't possible to detect the illusion, and the secret door across the chasm also didn't exist. (and he substantially beefed up the number of monsters)
This forced us to find (very) creative ways to get across the chasm. At one point our defender had managed to use his Flying Hook to swing across the chasm (over the course of 2 rounds... he ran out of movement), only to be hit by 8 relentless opportunity attacks from 2 boneclaws that were waiting for him. Ouch!
9. I didn't get why the Necromancer allied with Amn, since that seems to be at odds with his backstory.
Anyhow, great job overall on this scenario
