The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth is up (EDIT-All Chapters Now Added)

[grodog]

Uh-oh. Now I'm nervous.

Why, I'm a nice guy?

Seriously, we definitely took Tsojcanth in a wild direction, one that I don't think a lot of people are going to expect. (Well, unless they know C.A. and me, in which case they might see it coming. )

It's not terribly dissimilar to various fan-created versions of Tsojcanth we've seen over the years, and

Spoiler

adding another major demon into the pantheon isn't a bad thing, is it? I like the interplay between the good and evil sides of Tsojcanth, since it will help most DMs be able to leverage the figure more easily (since many pose him as good, just chuck the evil info onto another figure; if you posit him as evil, the fact that he may have masqueraded as good isn't necessarily a bad thing).

.

But while there are some, uh, "creative interpretations," I think we managed it without technically violating anything in official canon. But of course, I could be wrong...

I haven't read that closely yet (although I did notice the typo on page 3, 1st new paragraph of page, lines 3-4: "...servitude. A terrible battled followed, and..."), but I am curious how close you're making Iggwilv's Horn and the location of the Lost Caverns themselves---if I read right on my first, quick read, it sounds like you've set them both within the same mountain??

Also, do you know the publication schedule for parts 2 and 3?---will they, for example, both follow in each the next two months (or weeks, even )?

 

[Mouseferatu]

but I am curious how close you're making Iggwilv's Horn and the location of the Lost Caverns themselves---if I read right on my first, quick read, it sounds like you've set them both within the same mountain??

Hrm. When I sent in the material, it was pretty explicit that while they were connected underground, the entrances were on different peaks (since the original module is pretty clear that Iggwilv's Horn overlooks Tsojcanth's caverns, rather than than contains them). But that's something that could've been changed in development, I suppose. I haven't read it completely yet.

Also, do you know the publication schedule for parts 2 and 3?---will they, for example, both follow in each the next two months (or weeks, even )?

I think Chris Thomasson has said that each will follow a week or so after the last.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Hrm. When I sent in the material, it was pretty explicit that while they were connected underground, the entrances were on different peaks...

I should amend this. I think that it was pretty explicit in the material that C.A. and I turned over. But it was a while ago, and it's possible that for someone who hadn't just recently reread the module, as we did, that it wasn't spelled out as thoroughly as we'd intended.

So if it the adventure as published does imply that the Caverns and the Hollow are in the same peak, it may be due to a misunderstanding between us and development, as opposed to a deliberate change.

 

[RichGreen]

I would say the Wizard, Cleric, and Fighter (either one) would give them the right mix. Unless the Bard is exceptionally strong as a fighter or arcane caster because of character build and.or magic items. Then I would take him over the fighter or the wizard, depending on what he was strong in.

Thanks. Do you think this party would be about equal to what's recommended for the module? It's hard to judge ELs when there are three PCs especially if two are spell-casters.

Cheers


Richard

 

[Treebore]

Thanks. Do you think this party would be about equal to what's recommended for the module? It's hard to judge ELs when there are three PCs especially if two are spell-casters.

Cheers


Richard

I'm just taking into account that with the fighter and cleric you should have enough "fighter power" and that with the Wizard and Cleric you should have enough spell power/healing.

I've never found (well, hardly ever) the CR/EL ratings to be good measures to go by.

I just look at certain "numbers" and figure out how long the combat should last with average hits and damage, and I assume all damage spells are saved against. My "estimations" have worked a heck of a lot better than the CR/EL's usually given.

 

[grodog]

So if it the adventure as published does imply that the Caverns and the Hollow are in the same peak, it may be due to a misunderstanding between us and development, as opposed to a deliberate change.

I'll re-read later today, too, and provide some quotes.

 

[rgard]

Um, that's because it's not an adventure meant to stand alone. When they say it's "part 1 of 3," that's 100% literal. Basically, this is just the Introduction, background, and surroundings--what, in the old Dungeon, would have been a "Backdrop" article.

I don't expect everyone to love it, and I can accept the fact if you don't care for it, but at least judge by what it is and what it's meant to be--the first chapter of a three-chapter "book."

It's awesome imho. I like the art too and can't wait for installments 2 & 3. Ya done well!!! If I wasn't the DM, I'd play my Fiendblade in this!!!

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Psion]

Adobe really ought to have a "print monochrome" button in Acrobat, if they don't already.

Most printers let you print B&W only if you want.

That said, you are still wasting black ink on gutter art. One method I've seen used effectively is to have layers with gutter and background art that can be turned on or off.

 

[Shroomy]

Somebody on the WoTC Dungeon boards posted requests to make the .pdfs easier to print. The WoTC rep reading the boards said they were going to take the suggestions to Chris Thomasson.

 

[GVDammerung]

Um, that's because it's not an adventure meant to stand alone. When they say it's "part 1 of 3," that's 100% literal. Basically, this is just the Introduction, background, and surroundings--what, in the old Dungeon, would have been a "Backdrop" article.

I don't expect everyone to love it, and I can accept the fact if you don't care for it, but at least judge by what it is and what it's meant to be--the first chapter of a three-chapter "book."

Couple of things.

A) I didn't say I did not care for it, I just said it was unimpressive or "prefunctory." If I thought it was bad or poor, I'd have said so. I did not.

B) I specifically noted that I hoped the future installements improved, recognizing that this was not a stand alone thing but the first of a series. As the first of a series, IMO, it can be evaluated as such, as others have in this thread.

I think your response is off base on both the above accounts. You err when you opine that I "don't care for it" when I simply found it so-so or "prefunctory." You err again when you opine that I did not consider it in its proper context, "the first chapter of a three-chapter 'book,'" when I specifically noted that I hoped the further installments would improve. I think you are reading way more negativity into my comments that is objectively there.

Let me star it for you, if that helps. 3 out of 5 stars.

When something comes in parts, it is evaluated in terms of each of its parts and then, finally, as a whole. That whole may be greater than or lss than the sum of the parts, but it is fair to evaluate the parts, as well as the whole, if that is how the material is to be presented.