D&D 3E/3.5 Help Starting 3.5 Characters at Level 9 for Tomb of Horrors

[Jacob]

Agreed.

<cough><scarab of protection><cough>

Your quip would have some merit if it would even be possible for the Scarab of Protection to be in the above mentioned game. It's priced at 38000 GP, well above the 25% limit on GP valued items for a PC to have at that point. All the same it's a nice item, and I would not be against a PC having and using this in the Temple of Horrors, because it's an expensive investment for something that doesn't last forever. Also, it doesn't break the dungeon from what I see. Have you had instances where it was otherwise?

 

[nijineko]

you can get cheaper versions of that item with a wee bit of math.

 

[Jack Simth]

Don't give the little munchkins anything they didn't painstakingly earn.

That's definitely one school of thought, and works for one set of groups.

Of course, with the expected fatality rate of the Tomb of Horrors, that's expected to be quite a setback for most of them. Plus, if the DM isn't particularly grand at creating adventures from whole cloth, and they can't afford much in the way of premade adventures, it can get rather dull doing the same set of low level adventures over & over. Add to that the issues with balancing encounters when you've got one player that's managed to escape the reaper for quite some time, and others who've recently had to make fresh level 1 characters, and it turns out that creating characters at higher levels works quite well for many groups.

But it is, however, quite dependent on the specific mix of individuals at the gaming table.

 

[Dandu]

That's definitely one school of thought, and works for one set of groups.

The one Tomb of Horrors was originally designed for?

 

[Vespucci]

The 1e Tomb of Horrors had pre-gen characters.

That said, "expected rate of fatality"? It's not a killer dungeon. It doesn't aim to humble the players, just to make them think. It has a couple of brutal episodes, but it's nothing on Isle of the Ape. Compare introductions (they're both written by Gary):

"As clever players will gather from a reading of the Legend of the Tomb, this dungeon has more tricks and traps than it has monsters to fight. THIS IS A THINKING PERSON'S MODULE, AND IF YOUR GROUP IS A HACK AND SLAY GATHERING, THEY WILL BE UNHAPPY! In the latter case, it is better to skip the whole thing." (ToH intro)

"The place you are about to send your Player Characters is a very deadly one indeed. Well, players have been asking for high-level adventures, and you are about to give them what they've been asking for (in spades). Before they begin, and before you prepare to run, remember this: if you DM this module according to the rules of the game, and its spirit, the best of players are going to be in real trouble before very long [...] Too many players are marching around claiming that they have character able to handle anything. Now is the time to let them demonstrate the mettle of these invincible characters they have." (IotA intro)
​

IMO, the Tomb's ferocious reputation comes mainly from refs not following the advice on skipping it. Of course, who wants to admit that their group is a "hack and slay gathering"?

 

[Dandu]

I have, on several occasions, admitted that I play the 3.5 equivalent of World of Warcraft, complete with NPCS who have giant yellow exclamation marks floating over their heads and dailies.

 

[Jack Simth]

The 1e Tomb of Horrors had pre-gen characters.

That said, "expected rate of fatality"? It's not a killer dungeon. It doesn't aim to humble the players, just to make them think. It has a couple of brutal episodes, but it's nothing on Isle of the Ape. Compare introductions (they're both written by Gary):

"As clever players will gather from a reading of the Legend of the Tomb, this dungeon has more tricks and traps than it has monsters to fight. THIS IS A THINKING PERSON'S MODULE, AND IF YOUR GROUP IS A HACK AND SLAY GATHERING, THEY WILL BE UNHAPPY! In the latter case, it is better to skip the whole thing." (ToH intro)
​

It's not specifically about thinking; it's about prediction. You have to be able to predict what the designer was thinking. In some cases, you need to do the obvious to proceed. In others, the obvious will get you killed. In a few cases with the 3.5 edition, [sblock]you need to do something that's not in the deliberately-reduced list of options for the spell. Specifically, Command. The end-boss is immune to magic, but reacts differently to certain things. One of which is the Command spell ("Forget"). In the original, Command let you use any one-word command. Later game designers came to the conclusion that it was quite breakable that way, and so they limited Command to a highly-specific set of options. The 3.5 version of the Tomb of Horrors has the end-boss responding to one that's not on that list.[/sblock]

"The place you are about to send your Player Characters is a very deadly one indeed. Well, players have been asking for high-level adventures, and you are about to give them what they've been asking for (in spades). Before they begin, and before you prepare to run, remember this: if you DM this module according to the rules of the game, and its spirit, the best of players are going to be in real trouble before very long [...] Too many players are marching around claiming that they have character able to handle anything. Now is the time to let them demonstrate the mettle of these invincible characters they have." (IotA intro)
​

IMO, the Tomb's ferocious reputation comes mainly from refs not following the advice on skipping it. Of course, who wants to admit that their group is a "hack and slay gathering"?

"is a very deadly one indeed" - from your own quote. Fatalities are expected.

 

[kitcik]

Your quip would have some merit if it would even be possible for the Scarab of Protection to be in the above mentioned game. It's priced at 38000 GP, well above the 25% limit on GP valued items for a PC to have at that point. All the same it's a nice item, and I would not be against a PC having and using this in the Temple of Horrors, because it's an expensive investment for something that doesn't last forever. Also, it doesn't break the dungeon from what I see. Have you had instances where it was otherwise?

Yeah they diluted it in 3E for 9th level.

When I played it in 1979 it was for 10-14th level characters, of which we had 6 and only 2 survived. One of those 2 had Scarab of Protection and, yes, the ability to ignore energy drain (which had no save) and death effects did prove quite useful.

Play the real ToH and find out for yourself...

 

[Vespucci]

Dandu - you're playing Pathfinder, right? Specifically, Kingmaker?

It's not specifically about thinking; it's about prediction. You have to be able to predict what the designer was thinking. In some cases, you need to do the obvious to proceed. In others, the obvious will get you killed.

The Tomb of Horrors is a designed dungeon. I don't just mean that Gary Gygax wrote it, I mean that, in the game world, it's place designed by a single intellect, with no natural 'development'. Getting inside the head of the designer of the Tomb is a serious challenge, but that's what's put to the PCs.

In a few cases with the 3.5 edition,

No. I refuse to defend the 3.5 "conversion". It's a dog.

"is a very deadly one indeed" - from your own quote. Fatalities are expected.

Check the quotes again. "IotA" would be a very odd way of abbreviating Tomb of Horrors. The text you've quoted back at me is actually from Isle of the Ape.

 

[javgoro]

Just a small thing to keep in mind with the 3.5 conversion of ToH, if you're using it. The four-armed gargoyle at the beginning is very, very, very nasty. Other traps and tricks can be avoided or surpassed by using your brain and thinking before leaping, but the gargoyle is not quite the case, so make sure to revise its stats and adjust them as you see fit for your group.