Another solid article - Strongholds

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Yeah, that narmed me, too. Like some overzealous editor got halfway through changing it from one to the other and then got distracted.

I also find it a little wonky that a PC is expected to sink so much GP into construction when GP is such a closely moderated resource. I mean +3 armor, or a castle that gives me a non-staking +1 to some CHA checks on the off chance the DM happens to let me make some CHA checks in my castle?

That's kind of a problem with GP in 3e and 4e in general, though.

I do like the article, all told, and it gets me thinking about giving out strongholds "for free" to characters just as a lark. Not sure I would use the rules therein, but it's a useful story item to consider, and I like that there's an article for considering it.

Considering that your party gets about 25 magic items from level 11 to 15, and there are 15 "essential" magical items that the party needs for those 5 levels, I think it's okay to sacrifice one of them for a castle...

 

[I'm A Banana]

Considering that your party gets about 25 magic items from level 11 to 15, and there are 15 "essential" magical items that the party needs for those 5 levels, I think it's okay to sacrifice one of them for a castle...

Okay, but the character who does so is basically sacrificing combat ability for some story development.

Aren't 3e and especially 4e sort of content with the fact that you don't have to be penalized for taking an RP option?

I do suppose as of essentials and their noncombat utilities, that may have changed....

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Okay, but the character who does so is basically sacrificing combat ability for some story development.

Aren't 3e and especially 4e sort of content with the fact that you don't have to be penalized for taking an RP option?

I do suppose as of essentials and their noncombat utilities, that may have changed....

In the end, I don't sweat the GP anymore. I did in 3E, because I couldn't figure out any better system, but in 4E, it's easy. Here, get your +x level appropriate bonuses, and the rest I spread around as I see fit.

And unfortunately, no matter what 4E might have wanted to achieve, it didn't, because there are clearly still prices for non-combat stuff like airships and griffon mounts, or the Map of Unseen Lands, or Handy Haversacks, or all those non-combat rituals.

If 25,000 is too much for your Paragon Level character, it's probably still peanuts for your Epic Level character.

 

[Scribble]

KM-

Now that you can't buy the more powerful items that you're likely to be using anyway, characters will have more gold to spend on random stuff. This fits the bill nicely.

 

[Ahrimon]

Okay, but the character who does so is basically sacrificing combat ability for some story development.

Aren't 3e and especially 4e sort of content with the fact that you don't have to be penalized for taking an RP option?

I do suppose as of essentials and their noncombat utilities, that may have changed....

I've never understood this "I must squeaze every last ounce of combat efficiency out of my character! If I'm not 100% ultra-super combat effective at every second of the game then I fail." mentality.

I really liked this article. I love out of combat stuff like this. But I'm the guy willing to sacrifice a plus or two in order to get the cool miscellaneos items. To each their own I guess.

KM, I'm not going after you. I'm just using your post as my example.

 

[Riastlin]

I too liked the article.

I agree though that some of the bonuses and DCs should be tweaked. +2/tier doesn't seem that bad for the skill bonuses, particularly since if the players start to abuse it, the DM can simply set up the campaign so that they cannot always make their important checks in the stronghold.

The DC's based on level of creature seemed just odd though. If anything, I would say that the DC should based upon the level of the creature that made the lock, wall, etc. That way its no longer as easy for the level 1 goblin to climb the wall as it is for the level 20 fomorian.

As for Bigby's, I think its almost better served as an expansion to an existing stronghold. I can imagine the 300 square limit being used up pretty quickly, particularly if you want to have some of the "special" rooms and multiple levels. Bigby's would be a decent way to expand the stronghold though. Though, I suppose you could still expand it anyway, and I also like the above suggestion of just giving the stronghold a gp cost per square and letting the PC(s) decide how much they want to spend. After all, that's more or less how building a house works (not exact I realize, but fairly close).

The important part of the article though in my mind was that it provides a good flavorful option for both players and DMs, backing it up with a little bit of crunch, while leaving plenty of room for individual groups to customize the rules as befits their particular style. Plus, it makes the Lair Items in AV2 actually useful. Now, if only I could convince my players to show an interest in something like this.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

Chuck me into the "I liked this article" bin. Frankly, if Dragon could produce an article of this type of quality once a month I'd have not cancelled my auto-renew. This isn't some compendium or grid filling article. It's a true enhancement to the game and offers a thousand hooks for hack DMs like myself.

Some of the numbers off (escape a prison with a DC 21 check, that's way too easy for a Heroic Tier character). Luckily, I'm the DM and not these silly books

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

My group loves this kind of thing, and have since the halcyon days of 2nd edition and the aforementioned blue tome of Castles. Flawed or not, I think these rules provide an excellent jumping off point for groups.

I like rules that seem "half finished" as another poster pointed out, because chances are good that I'm going to modify the heck out of them anyway with my own houserules, so all it means is less stuff for me to change. YMMV, of course, but it suits me just fine.

 

[Scribble]

It's possible these rules ARE half finished simply because they're in the Unearthed Arcana section...

Meaning they might have been suggested, and even researched as a full blown article or rules element, but they couldn't find a sufficient way to work them into the rules base as a whole, so rather then bury them in the vault of forgotten rules they get put into UA for us to do with as we please.


I like articles like this... I've had a sort of love hate relationship with the idea of rules balance, and "core" rules systems...

On the one hand, I like the fact that when running the game, balance and core rules means I'm not sorting through a confusing mess looking for the right way to rule something, and I have an idea on how tough a situation is..

But on the other, one of my favorite things about the old 2e and previous Dragons was the sense of wonder I got when opening an issue for the first time... You never really knew WHAT to expect.

Now I can open an article and pretty much always expect some feats- some items, some powers, etc...

Overall I prefer the benefits I gain, but miss the wonder...

The UA articles add a little of that back.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm not a fan of the level scaled DCs for things either, but the article is cool and has some nice ideas. Numbers can always be tweaked anyway. Personally I think I'd make things like lock DCs dependent on how much you spend on them. You want the super duper extra good DC27 locks, well you spend some extra gold. Otherwise you can have the ordinary DC20 locks. Or you can spend way more and have the ultra magical fiendish DC40 locks that are made to keep out the god of thieves.

As for scaling the skill bonuses in rooms by tier. I disagree with that. This is a fundamental mistake in understanding skill bonuses. The to-hit bonus from Expertise scales by tier +1/+2/+3, but that is because it is working to offset an increasing disadvantage of faster scaling monster defense. With skill bonuses a +1 is equally useful at all levels. It always gives you a +5% chance of success, just as good at epic as it is at heroic. Of course static bonuses are not the most exciting things, so I agree I would probably also work other useful attributes of libraries and laboratories and such into the game, but these can be story elements and need not be all listed out in the article. I could easily see an article just for say wizards that talked about this stuff in more detail, and the same for other classes.