|
So my weekly IRC group has decided to take a break from our long running Rogue Trader game and I'll be taking over GM duties. Since I'm posting here, you might correctly deduce that we've decided to go with 13th Age! I'm still reading the book but I'm liking what I'm seeing so far. Most importantly one of my friends (the RT GM) and I have been bouncing around ideas for him to play a "Sun Bro", that is, to emulate Solaire of Astora of Dark Souls fame. So far we've settled on the idea of a Paladin with Divine Domain: Sun and Cleric Training (which will typically default to Javelin of Faith). We love the idea of the Sun domain not only because of the At-will holy damage to melee attacks, but more imoprtantly the invocation literally lets him become Grossly Incandescent, glowing brighter and brighter with the sun's power. However the problem is that the Sun Invocation works on daily spells. Now the book does say "If the domain you choose is designed to help cleric spells and attacks, reinterpret the talent to help your paladin powers.", but the Paladin has no Daily abilities. My idea would be to allow it to apply to Smite Evil, which is once per battle + a limited pool of extras he can use each day. So basically if he uses Invocation of the Sun and uses Smite Evil he rolls a d6 vs the Escalation die and if it is equal to or under that smite is free/refunded. This does mean, however that if he saves up a Smite until the escalation die reaches 6 it becomes effectively unlimited in use until the die changes. On one hand I love the idea of the Paladin becoming Grossly Incandescent until he is Like the Sun Itself laying down massive blows, on the other hand I worry it could be a bit overpowered. That said I seem to recall people here saying Paladin is perhaps the weakest class, and the invocation itself is a daily ability, so maybe its not an issue. Even if it does prove to be, the guy is good-natured enough that he probably won't be upset if we have to change things. What does everyone think? While not completely decided on it, he does seem to be strongly leaning towards the concept, so if he goes for it, I just want to make sure I find a way to make Invocation of the Sun worthwhile. All in the name of Jolly Co-operation, of course.
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 04:42 |
|
|
Gorgo Primus posted:Alright, thanks for the advice. I think I'll get 2 of each, 5d20s, and 5d6s. If you're going to be supplying the dice for everyone, you should consider getting this: http://www.amazon.com/Random-Polyhedral-Dice-Multiple-Wiz/dp/B009R6J8RY/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1384390101&sr=8-3&keywords=dice. It won't cost you much more and everyone will be able to have a full set.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 01:55
|
|
|
HomegrownHydra posted:If you're going to be supplying the dice for everyone, you should consider getting this: http://www.amazon.com/Random-Polyhedral-Dice-Multiple-Wiz/dp/B009R6J8RY/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1384390101&sr=8-3&keywords=dice. It won't cost you much more and everyone will be able to have a full set. That looks like the Chessex Pound of Dice bag that I got for my group as a Xmas present a few years back. It's probably about the same number of dice. I believe at the time it was around $20 so it's probably a good deal, since prices have likely gone up at least a smidge. ...or not. Here's the current one on offer: http://www.amazon.com/Chessex-001LBCHX-Pound-O-Dice/dp/B008C0KXYS/ref=sr_1_1?s=toys-and-games&ie=UTF8&qid=1384390733&sr=1-1
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 02:00
|
|
|
One thing to watch out in the Pound of Dice is that they're factory seconds. This generally means some misapplications of paint or the wrong green, but it can also be a source of some more... characterful dice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 02:08
|
|
|
Gasperkun posted:That looks like the Chessex Pound of Dice bag that I got for my group as a Xmas present a few years back. It's probably about the same number of dice. I believe at the time it was around $20 so it's probably a good deal, since prices have likely gone up at least a smidge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 02:16
|
|
|
I haven't noticed any particular problems with the Pound of Dice, but then again even with about 6 people or so at the table, it's pretty hard for folks to use up most of the dice. In a game like 13th Age, that might be different, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 02:20
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:So my weekly IRC group has decided to take a break from our long running Rogue Trader game and I'll be taking over GM duties. Since I'm posting here, you might correctly deduce that we've decided to go with 13th Age! I'm still reading the book but I'm liking what I'm seeing so far. Most importantly one of my friends (the RT GM) and I have been bouncing around ideas for him to play a "Sun Bro", that is, to emulate Solaire of Astora of Dark Souls fame. In my experience, the escalation die reaching 6 is vanishingly rare and smite is already intended to toss out fairly often so that even if they did save it up and start tossing it out every attack in one battle per day I doubt it would unbalance anything. If you find it too powerful in play, maybe make it a d8 instead of a d6 after it succeeds once. It isn't much bonus damage, but I'd also consider taking the Path of Universal Righteous Endeavor talent at champ tier so that everything you do does holy damage and the Sun Domain will tack +2 damage onto everything you do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 02:22
|
|
|
This seems like a good place to mention the One Page Encounter Contest: http://stuartkeating.com/setpiece Similar to the OSR One Page Dungeon Contest, except for singular encounters. Deadline is December 15, looking for submissions and sponsors.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 02:38
|
|
|
PublicOpinion posted:In my experience, the escalation die reaching 6 is vanishingly rare and smite is already intended to toss out fairly often so that even if they did save it up and start tossing it out every attack in one battle per day I doubt it would unbalance anything. If you find it too powerful in play, maybe make it a d8 instead of a d6 after it succeeds once. It isn't much bonus damage, but I'd also consider taking the Path of Universal Righteous Endeavor talent at champ tier so that everything you do does holy damage and the Sun Domain will tack +2 damage onto everything you do. That said, if you're not attached to the holy synergy, Evil Bastards is a fantastic way to stretch out your smiting and is ripe for reinterpretation to strip out the alignment baggage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 03:59
|
|
|
HomegrownHydra posted:If you're going to be supplying the dice for everyone, you should consider getting this: http://www.amazon.com/Random-Polyhedral-Dice-Multiple-Wiz/dp/B009R6J8RY/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1384390101&sr=8-3&keywords=dice. It won't cost you much more and everyone will be able to have a full set. Oh cool, these are all factory firsts too! I'll be getting this then, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 08:18
|
|
|
PublicOpinion posted:In my experience, the escalation die reaching 6 is vanishingly rare and smite is already intended to toss out fairly often so that even if they did save it up and start tossing it out every attack in one battle per day I doubt it would unbalance anything. If you find it too powerful in play, maybe make it a d8 instead of a d6 after it succeeds once. It isn't much bonus damage, but I'd also consider taking the Path of Universal Righteous Endeavor talent at champ tier so that everything you do does holy damage and the Sun Domain will tack +2 damage onto everything you do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 08:28
|
|
|
So what are some house rules people use? I already plan on using (or at least proposing) BedlamDan's cool alternative treasure/money system and I plan on letting anyone use the human's pick +2 to whatever stat they please regardless of race. Magic item examples would be cool too, I already dug back for PublicOpinion's Hell Marsh themed items.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 03:59
|
|
|
moths posted:One thing to watch out in the Pound of Dice is that they're factory seconds. This generally means some misapplications of paint or the wrong green, but it can also be a source of some more... characterful dice. Yeah, my pound of dice is mostly good, but there are a few miscast ones, and one d10 without any numbers that I use to make the nerdiest possible Guys and Dolls references.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 04:06
|
|
|
Had my first session in a month just now, thanks to various scheduling difficulties. Not one, but two of the PCs went over the edge of an airship in attempts to stave off the band of harpies attacking them. Only one of them had a rope to swing on. The other one used the power of sheer METAL. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 05:26
|
|
|
Campaign's first ever dragon might be showing up in tomorrow's game. It's got a "lair master" thing going on and also is famed for the boundless hate in its heart, so I gave it this as a dragon ability: The Dragon's Hatred: When someone deals damage to the dragon, they become Hated. There is only one Hated enemy at a time. When someone deals more damage to the dragon the previous Hated did, they become the new Hated. The Hated is Vulnerable, and the dragon's allies get the Escalation Die as a bonus to attack against the Hated enemy. It also has an attack especially for the Hated enemy. I just noticed I don't specify when it the condition ends. The obvious choice is when the dragon dies/surrenders, but it might be funnier to have it persist against the dragon's killer for all time (or until they exorcise its vengeful ghost). PublicOpinion fucked around with this message at 07:49 on Nov 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 07:46
|
|
|
How much success have people here had with adapting adventures from other systems, such as D&D? For some reason I was sorting through my ancient D&D materials for my AD&D monster manual when I noticed my copy of The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh and suddenly though "Hey this could be fun." I mean, I'd do a hell of a lot of streamlining (such as ditch all but the most major fights, aiming to make it maybe 3-6 fights total) but it certainly has potential. I always loved it for not being just another dungeon crawl, instead being (loosely) more of a mystery with the PCs investigating a seaside "haunted" mansion (being used as a base by smugglers, who use illusion spells to make people think the place is haunted to keep them away). It also has the potential to be really "interesting" in that in the original module there is the potential for the PCs not only to capture themselves a small smuggler's ship, but get their hands on an ancient and coded book that supposedly contains the secrets for creating a Philosopher's stone. In the original module the smugglers, in addition to the usual illicit goods transport, are smuggling arms for a group of lizardmen for nefarious purposes. However I figure in 13th age I can let icon relationship rolls determine what they're smuggling on the side and for whom. Of course, I'd also need a reason why the PCs (who haven't been made yet) are there in the first place. The alchemy book, of course, would be a natural plot device reason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 08:30
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:How much success have people here had with adapting adventures from other systems, such as D&D? For some reason I was sorting through my ancient D&D materials for my AD&D monster manual when I noticed my copy of The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh and suddenly though "Hey this could be fun." I have had great success with this - especially some of the older, more story-based ones like Ravenloft. The Lich King had his talons on some of Strahd's workings, but overall I just worked in Icon Relationships wherever I could and used the base storyline. I'm currently using pieces of G1-G2-G3 in my campaign and they haven't twigged to it yet.  Though I'm about to twist it a bit wibbly-wobbly with time and space and send them out of the Hill Giant's steading several months after the fact.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 14:31
|
|
|
Tomorrow my group visits the Queen's Court which means their first face-to-face with an Icon, and political intrigue and dealmaking. I want it to be relatively easy for them to get what they want, but also they should want to get involved with other people's problems when they get there. To make that interesting I just had a first pass at making a system that involves gaining and spending points that represent political capital. I'd appreciate it if people took a look and shared their thoughts on a quick first draft: POLITICAL CAPITAL SYSTEM: Getting a decision you want costs 3 points. Party starts with 2 (they just did the forest a major solid) Gain a point by allying with someone. Gain another by agreeing to do something for an ally. All allies have 1 point already spent toward their most desired outcome. Arranging deals between other groups pools their points and allows renegotiation of chosen goals. Brokering such a deal costs 1 point, then roll d20: 1-5 nothing happens, 6-15 get your point back, 16+ gain 2 points (1 point more than you had before) Gaining points through other means requires background checks (DC 20, increase by 5 on each miss) or other investment of resources. I have a few matters to be brought to the court that I think they'll care about, and the group will be suggesting their own when we get there, so I'm not too worried about them making friends then abandoning the whole thing. I just want the mechanic to be simple to use and encourage the 'Josh Lyman' feel, while getting points is easy enough to make some change but hard enough that they don't become a shadow government overnight. General Ironicus fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Nov 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 00:29
|
|
|
Have you considered doing this with the Icon relationship system? You could do most of it as you're intending, but points would represent d6 rolls instead, and calling for a decision would simply be easier with more points rather than certain. An advantage of doing this would be that it would synergize with the bards' Icon related abilities. There's no reason the songs usually employed to curry favour with one icon over another wouldn't apply equally in a political microcosm like this. It also means players with an Elf Queen relationship may be able to approach things from another angle, or could be approached by different factions instead of having to seek out allies. It would still have the issue of not producing a result on a 1-4 roll, but in those situations I think you could call for a background check at say, 20-the sum of the failed d6s, as the players would be required to spend some effort to make a success happen. So if you rolled a 2 and a 3, you'd be rolling above 15, while 3 4s would only require a roll above 8, because your relationship is strong enough that it makes the task easier regardless. Of course, you might want to increase or decrease the base number to make it more or less challenging, but I think that would work. Your current system would allow a player run shadow government to be created if they spent enough time there, simply by having them accrue enough points to get decisions they wanted without rolling. This icon-based variant would ensure enough complications and tasks are introduced that if the players are going to run everything from the shadows, they won't be guaranteed success without working for it. The background roll is also a way to introduce a fail forward into the Icon system without it necessarily overlapping with the "complicated success" result. It might allow rolls to be completed by another icon/relationship instead, putting the players in debt temporarily with them or something. The consequences are fairly open-ended here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 01:12
|
|
|
I can see how this system would encourage political maneuvering, and I can also see what Pyradox means by a lack of random chance-- or variability, whatever you want to call it. The shadow government issue most likely won't have enough time to arise regardless, and I know that Ironicus' groups sessions tend to be on the shorter side in the first place. The system does seem to have very few drawbacks as it stands: there isn't much risk involved in brokering deals, and it seems fairly simple to build up 3 points and automatically get what you want. What happens if more than one faction has 3 points at the same time? When you ally with one person, does that cause more difficulty in deal brokering checks? Is there a way to make some of these rolls opposed, perhaps, to introduce that element of "heat of the moment" swing voting? Just a few thoughts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 01:25
|
|
|
Make sure you include a seemingly sensible and supportive figure whose influence could easily help the right thing be done, but he/she/they refuse to help until they get their self-serving and possibly detrimental desire done first.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
PublicOpinion posted:Campaign's first ever dragon might be showing up in tomorrow's game. It's got a "lair master" thing going on and also is famed for the boundless hate in its heart, so I gave it this as a dragon ability: I had a mechanic like this going for the killer of a vampiric, druidic gorilla in my game. Sadly it never really came up as some people left the game. If it persists after Dragondeath, I say give em a cursed die of some sort instead of the vulnerable thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
Whycalibur posted:I can see how this system would encourage political maneuvering, and I can also see what Pyradox means by a lack of random chance-- or variability, whatever you want to call it. The shadow government issue most likely won't have enough time to arise regardless, and I know that Ironicus' groups sessions tend to be on the shorter side in the first place. The system does seem to have very few drawbacks as it stands: there isn't much risk involved in brokering deals, and it seems fairly simple to build up 3 points and automatically get what you want. What happens if more than one faction has 3 points at the same time? When you ally with one person, does that cause more difficulty in deal brokering checks? Is there a way to make some of these rolls opposed, perhaps, to introduce that element of "heat of the moment" swing voting? Just a few thoughts. I thought of the lack of variability as a positive aspect. It's supposed to encourage them to know what needs more doing and when they're safe to go meddle in the next thing. I was thinking I need to implement diminishing returns to encourage using lots of tricks, but very few tricks twice. At least one more thing to spend points on would also be a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 01:40
|
|
|
General Ironicus posted:I thought of the lack of variability as a positive aspect. It's supposed to encourage them to know what needs more doing and when they're safe to go meddle in the next thing. I was thinking I need to implement diminishing returns to encourage using lots of tricks, but very few tricks twice. At least one more thing to spend points on would also be a good idea. I agree that you want goals to be achievable, that's why the stuff I wrote was based around introducing complications or tasks, not actively preventing them from completing the goal. I think the fun in a lot of political brokering scenarios is to have to adapt to the other character's machinations and plots, so having opportunities to introduce those where appropriate could make things a little less one-sided. Another thing is that because you've only got a positive scale, the players could go from enemies to friends and back with little consequence. You might want to try having positive and negative points tracked separately, with the result indicating how far the groups are willing to trust the players. That would allow some double dealing and deception, but betrayal might carry an increased risk. You could also go the Dungeon World route and have the points represent leverage instead of relationship strength, which should give the players some more flexibility in their approach. At this point it's kind of a favour for a favour thing, but there's no political capital gained from something like blackmail evidence or threats. It means the players are in the common RPG situation of having to be errand runners for whoever they need a favour from. There's also no incentive to ever betray someone unless you're specifically approached to do it by another faction, so if they end up not liking a necessary faction they don't have much alternative to working with them. If the points represent leverage then a task for one faction could easily provide leverage on another if the players decide not to complete their deal. So each individual point might be able to be spent on multiple factions, rather than being locked into a single one. You could also allow them to do their own research on factions, building up dossiers and collecting evidence to manipulate them without ever talking to them initially. This lets the players basically be their own faction and work for themselves, rather than having to ally with one of the others. The Shadow government option is available to them, but no moreso than it is to any other faction, and other factions might have reasons to work against them to prevent it. This is another place dossiers could come in handy - if the players can predict reactions to certain types of leverage it might make them inclined to think about how they use it, based on the results they're looking for.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 02:00
|
|
|
So can people with actual experience tell me how these three fights look at a glance for a party of 5 level 1 players? I'm not too worried about the skeletons, but I'm a bit worried the other two fights might be tricky, which is why I set up the whole reinforcements angle. I pretty much stuck to the DIY monsters guidelines for stats, though I made up abilities for some of the major enemies. The third fight really depends on what the PCs do before hand and whether they manage to trick or sneak their way onto boarding the ship without the smugglers realizing whats going on. I kind of wonder if I should even be working on stuff like this when the players haven't even made characters yet.  [edit] Also how do you guys go about designing magic using enemies? Sanbalet and Punketah were the trickiest do up (though I still did them pretty fast). Galaga Galaxian fucked around with this message at 02:13 on Nov 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 02:09
|
|
|
General Ironicus posted:I thought of the lack of variability as a positive aspect. It's supposed to encourage them to know what needs more doing and when they're safe to go meddle in the next thing. I was thinking I need to implement diminishing returns to encourage using lots of tricks, but very few tricks twice. At least one more thing to spend points on would also be a good idea. Well, that makes sense then. 13th Age in general encourages that kind of trust and open communication between player and GM, which is part of what I like in the system. A diminishing returns system would be handy, though; maybe once they ally with a certain group, it becomes more "expensive" to ally with or negotiate with an opposed group? The "swing vote" concept (which isn't a great name, I know) could be another way to spend banked points-- using them to influence a third party or other NPC during a political scene or a vote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 02:37
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:So can people with actual experience tell me how these three fights look at a glance for a party of 5 level 1 players? They seem pretty reasonable, though you might consider adding something to the skeleton fight. I try not to run mono-monster fights. If you're sticking with the canon skeleton "resist weapons 16+", I'd especially stick some other monster type in there (in fights consisting entirely of skeleton varietals, I dropped the resistance, because I mostly valued it for its ability to incentivize different tactics, and if every monster has it then it doesn't really force any choices). Speaking of skeletons and also magic using enemies, here are some from my most recent dungeon: Monsters of Skeleton Town There were a bunch more monsters, but the rest were very simple, leveled up versions of other monsters, or stuff reskinned.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 04:41
|
|
|
Yeah, good point (though I completely forgot about the resistance when I quickly statted that skeleton up). I used skeletons mostly because the module I'm loosely adapting used them. Given 13th Age's Lich King, I'd guess random wizards would be less keen on using undead as servants. What else might a 20 wizard-alchemist use to guard his secret lab? Has to be something that can survive sitting in a room for 20 years, hmmm. Your two enemies look cool, its nice to see that you don't need a laundry list of spells to make mages interesting. Love the sprite art too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 04:50
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:Yeah, good point (though I completely forgot about the resistance when I quickly statted that skeleton up). I used skeletons mostly because the module I'm loosely adapting used them. Given 13th Age's Lich King, I'd guess random wizards would be less keen on using undead as servants. Golems?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 04:50
|
|
|
Thought about that, but Golems always seemed like big mid/high level nasties to me. I guess they could be whimpy golems! Or just a couple of slightly less wimpy golems. Maybe a half rotted/mummified flesh golem, Or a rusted iron golem, or something similar.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 04:57
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:Yeah, good point (though I completely forgot about the resistance when I quickly statted that skeleton up). I used skeletons mostly because the module I'm loosely adapting used them. Given 13th Age's Lich King, I'd guess random wizards would be less keen on using undead as servants. Skeleton Golems--skeletons animated through arcane processes, not negative energy. (Only an expert can tell the difference, they were a big plot point for a campaign I ran where the Archmage was using deniable assets to blame his less patriotic activities on the Lich King. One of the players had golem arms, which would occasionally "malfunction" and assassinate someone who knew too much, much to the player's dismay) Slimes and oozes, compiled alchemically or spawned as a byproduct of experiments on life and left on the ground floor to discourage theives. Beastmen, made from the unholy fusion of man and beast, each with the abilities of some wild animal or other. They don't know there's a world outside, and if the players tell them about it, they find the very idea terrifying. Generally treat anyone from outside the same way normal people would treat monsters from the far realm---strange, unknowable things from beyond reality. Modrons! Aberrants of any stripe, because I'll take any excuse to drop a beholder into a game. Fungus monsters, easy to care for without much sunlight. Pseudo-sentient spell creatures.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 05:03
|
|
|
For a weak golem, wood is a good material. The skeletal hound's "take self damage, inflict ongoing" mechanic would work well for a wood golem as it leaves semi-animate splinters embedded in wounds. For a wood golem, I'd add an exception to the construct "immune to effects" ability to allow for ongoing fire damage. Servitor spirits/imps/elementals summoned by a contingency spell trap could work for you, and if it was something intelligent then it might be an opportunity for the PCs to try talking their way past (this may or may not be desirable).
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 05:05
|
|
|
Comedy option: Owlbear pen, full of owlbears who have starved to death
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 05:09
|
|
|
How about two or three of this? Rotwood Golem Double Strength Level 1 Wrecker Initiative: +1 Crushing Blow + 6 vs AC - 10 damage R: Shard Cannon +6 AC - 5 Damage Odd Hit: Animated Splinters - Target takes 3 ongoing damage Special: Dry Wood Burns really good The first Flame type attack that hits Rotwood Golem is automatically upgraded to a critical and the Rotwood Golem gains the “Burns Too Good!” ability Special: Burns too good!  At the end of each of it’s turns, the Rotwood Golem suffers 2d6 Fire damage. All of the Rotwood golem's attacks do +1d6 Fire Damage HP 54 AC 17 PD 15 MD 11 Or maybe just one Rotwood Golem and it can be accompanied by a Wormwood Golem 
Galaga Galaxian fucked around with this message at 05:50 on Nov 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 05:37
|
|
|
I am shamelessly stealing that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 05:44
|
|
|
Seems neat. If you wind up without a PC that throws fire, I'd put some source of environmental fire in the arena and have at them light themselves once a few have died.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 05:50
|
|
|
I guess the real question re: the wizard's bodyguards is, why does the wizard matter? Once you know that, you can probably pick an icon to send a few bodyguards to do the cushiest guard work ever and keep an eye on him, even if hes doesn't explicitly know they're there protecting him, and you can have more monsters in there than just his golems. (e: This also lets you link the adventure to later adventures) And if you can't come up with any reason for someone to want him alive, I'm not really sure why the players are kicking down his door and setting fire to his dilapidated golems.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 05:54
|
|
|
Well, I'm (somewhat loosely) adapting an ancient D&D module. The setting for it is the decrepit seaside mansion of an Evil Wizard-Alchemist. The Wizard himself died 20+ years ago of a heart attack in his hidden lab, but in the last few years some smugglers have moved in and are using a cave at the base of the cliff the manor sits on as a drop off point for illicit goods. Since the cave is accessed from the manor's basement, the smuggler's illusionist has been using all sorts of harmless magic traps to convince everyone the manor is haunted to keep nosy people from the nearby town of Saltmarsh away. In the original module the The only role the Wizard-Alchemist himself plays is that sitting on the desk next to some gold items and his skeletal corpse is a complicated and mostly-coded book that is basically "Philospher's Stones for Dummies". Its never stated outright but I always figured the bastard died of a heart attack because holy poo poo it works! As for adapting it to 13th Age, I figure the Lizardmen can be substituted for appropriate minions of whatever Icon relationship rolls get done up (or maybe kept as lizard men if a Positive Druid Icon roll shows up). The Alchemist's book might be of interest to certain factions, like the Dwarf King and the Archmage, who might've been the ones to indirectly send the PCs to investigate. Though I'd prefer not to outright tell the players "hey the places has an instruction book for making a Philosopher's stone hidden somewhere, be a dear and go fetch it". [edit] The Golems (skeletons in the original) themselves are located in a seemingly empty basement room (which the smugglers have barred and boarded off and written DANGER on the door) that houses the hidden door to the Alchemist's lab (where his corpse and the book may be found). Galaga Galaxian fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Nov 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 06:08
|
|
|
Sounds rad! Might I suggest brass golems instead, and each turn they transmute into a less impressive material? Sort of a hint as to the nature of the wizard's discovery?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 07:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 04:42 |
|
|
Since it was an alchemist wizard, an Ooze of some sort would also fit. Either left as a deliberate guardian, or looters knocking one shelf of potions into another and accidentally creating it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 07:50
|
|