My criteria for the list wasn't things that GMs would find impossible to fix. Instead I was aiming for things that ideally should have been addressed before the module went to print.
I would assume it's because the Well of Dragons is not the delivery point. The Well is also not right next to the place it is miles away and does not have a road going to it.
Page 72 says the treasure 'will be added to an even more monstrous hoard at the Well of Dragons'. I would assume anything closer to the Well than even Baldur's Gate would go direct to the well unless there was a very good reason otherwise.
Wagons don't require roads, note the westward expansion of the United States. Whether the trails, gold rushes, or whatever else, people had to blaze new paths from time to time. They didn't wait for a road to be built.
But even if this weren't the case, my map shows a road from Greenest to Scornubel, and from there, there's a river. If the most direct path doesn't make sense, it would pay off to explain why.
You are not supposed to deal with all the Sanctuary enemies at once. The book was made before the building encounters guild lines came out as well.
In this case I find the adventure makeup makes it far too easy to bite off way more than you can chew. The only thing that doesn't make it an automatic death is the eight minute path around the cathedral. So GMs have an out here - decide the kobolds can't hear/see the combat and never decide to get involved. As above, I never said it couldn't be fixed. But why not reduce the size of the whoop-and-holler group to something fewer than FIFTEEN additional creatures. Four would do.
Uh this is not an issue. This is something that you can do to make stuff easier.
It's minor. I noticed it because I take issue with how a lot of people ignore the impact of infinite cantrips. There's a whole paragraph about check DCs, stuff breaking off in the lock, and a Strength Check. Or any Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, or Wizard could just cast a free, unlimited, doesn't-need-to-be-prepared spell making the lock work perfectly again. I think the spell is mentioned elsewhere in the adventure (something about requiring X castings of it) but I can't find that spot now and can't search it without a PDF.
It's to show that low level characters can damage high level ones. It is supposed to attack the npc's and after taking a few points of damage it leaves.
I agree with your assessment of the design. I still feel it's an inappropriate to use a dragon as scenery, even to demonstrate a new feature of the system. I especially chafe at the idea that the dragon wouldn't use it's breath weapon on anyone who was dealing it damage. In my view, if you're going to put it there, don't hobble it with metagame limitations that make no sense in the actual world. I also don't agree that the NPCs attacks are automatically ineffective, as stated in the book.
It's stopping the cult from getting new dragons and getting some payback at Cyanwrath. Plus it's nice to just have an old fashion dungeon crawl.
I agree the dungeon crawl aspect is a welcome thing. But there's a lot that doesn't add up:
1) What dragon squeezed through the twisty 5-foot corridors to lay these eggs here? Or...
2) If they were moved, why move them here? The Well of Dragons is just down the road and around the river bend. This seems like a po-dunk place to put something so valuable, particularly if you're not willing to hold the treasure caravan a week to let them hatch. It isn't as if the cult knows a whole bunch of dragons with actual lairs who they could get to tend to these eggs, is it?
3) Did the cultists dig this chamber, or did the find it? If they found it, was it always a dragon hatchery?
I think too many answers to the questions are either 'just because' or 'we didnt think of that', but that could just be my opinion.
I also think that any party looking to get the valuables back would have a bit of a dilemma when discovering the camp had evacuated. Why assume there's anything in the caves? Everybody left. Go follow them!
Need more details about this.
Fighting in 2 is likely to draw the attention of 11, 12, and 13. So those should be numbered 3, 4, and 5, because they're almost certain to be explored next.
It's so the cultists can quickly move through the area and avoid the stirges. It's also a good escape point for Frulam if she needs to bail.
I'm not buying that a rug-covered chute is a well-traveled path used to avoid stirges.
It's also a pretty-terrible escape point, since if you assume the adventurers aren't going to follow you through it, you're guaranteed to meet them using the one-and-only path out of the cave. She'd be better off hiding under the bed.
Not an issue. Baby Dragons can't hatch outside of the caves anyway and even if they tried to. It's a bad idea that would likely backfire.
They only need to wait a week, and this far in, there's nothing stopping them from doing that. What do you think a baby dragon is worth, let alone three? Certainly more that the pittance looted from Greenest. And how many would want to raise one as, e.g. a mount? Maybe it's only an issue with players from a certain generation, but it sets off alarm bells for me.
It's because there are too notable locations in area 10. The Dragon eggs and roper and the Kobolds hidey hole.
The hidey-hole (10B) is not a notable location. Note how it isn't described in any way. The entire section, save one sentence detailing the height of the ledge, is devoted to describing the kobolds who are actually a feature of 10. What is the floor like? Are there beds down there? A fire pit? If so, where would the smoke go, and why wouldn't the party notice it on entering the area? GM has to do all of this on the fly, which again isn't impossible or even difficult, but why put the area in at all, and label it as a place, if you're not going to use it?
It's a non-area...
He is not that important, Rath is. It is mentioned later in the part that matter. The really issue is that there should be a character file on each npc.
Page 80 says 'Rath Modar and his associate figure prominently in The Rise of Tiamat'. Maybe you have access to it and know for sure, but I'm just going by what the book I have says.
Agreed, that's why I marked it 'Minor'. It's effectively a typo, except I assume it was created by revising the number of them at some point and not fixing all the text.
