So it seems I will only use traps to enhance encounters. In the material it seems to indicate that the DC's for finding the traps were increased? Is that true, and if so, by how much. That wasn't clear to me.
Has anyone ever made a large dungeon/adventure using mostly minions?
- Thread starter jshaft37
- Start date
So it seems I will only use traps to enhance encounters. In the material it seems to indicate that the DC's for finding the traps were increased? Is that true, and if so, by how much. That wasn't clear to me.
D'karr
Adventurer
I haven't looked at the article in some time but if I recall correctly it was the Hard DC + 5 as a Standard Action to perceive the trap. Figuring out how to disable it was easier, but we usually found them by triggering them.
Got it. After rereading the section I understand. DC+5.
Frylock
Explorer
Some Thoughts on My Dungeon Crawl System
Thank you for your kind words, Quickleaf, but I must respectfully disagree with your statement that we should take "some of the changes with a grain of salt." They should all be taken with a grain of salt.
Personal preference is always a factor in how you play the game, so some of what I've written may simply not be to one's liking, and should therefore be dsicarded. Also, my system, at it's heart, is a system designed to more realistically tell certain types of stories (i.e., dungeon crawls, wilderness treks, single-night castle infiltrations) that don't allow for less than 10 encounters between extended rests. Not all stories are written that way, and those stories are as legitimate as any, so my system isn't always appropriate. In other words, the dungeon crawl systems (and its various components) aren't intended to replace the "standard system," but are instead a few more tools for your toolbox. Though these tools are balanced against each other, the game is meant to be adjusted on the fly to account for different play styles and varying levels of character and DM optimization. It shouldn't be difficult to take what you like and discard the rest. The only part I defend as objectively good is my approach to traps (though even that is not absolute). I won't listen to any arguments otherwise.
Although I'm tempted to clog these boards with explanations for what I've written, instead I'll simply point out to you that I have several blog entries on Loremaster that discuss lessons I learned running the system repeatedly. Please take a moment to read them if the system appears to be interesting to you. A list of links is provided below. I will be revising and re-pulbishing the article within the next few months after some more playtesting. I have things to say about upper paragon and epic play, and there are a few more ideas I'll be adding to the lower levels as well. Stay tuned.
What I Learned from Running "Ghost Tower of Inverness" as a 4e D&D LFR
What I Learned from Running "Ghost Tower of Inverness" Part II: Electric Boogaloo
Dungeon Crawl System Blog: Moving from Session to Session
Dungeon Crawl System Blog: Moving from Session to Session II / Low Player Turnout
Dungeon Crawl System Blog: Third Crack at Ghost Tower of Inverness at the DC Gameday
Thank you for your kind words, Quickleaf, but I must respectfully disagree with your statement that we should take "some of the changes with a grain of salt." They should all be taken with a grain of salt.
Personal preference is always a factor in how you play the game, so some of what I've written may simply not be to one's liking, and should therefore be dsicarded. Also, my system, at it's heart, is a system designed to more realistically tell certain types of stories (i.e., dungeon crawls, wilderness treks, single-night castle infiltrations) that don't allow for less than 10 encounters between extended rests. Not all stories are written that way, and those stories are as legitimate as any, so my system isn't always appropriate. In other words, the dungeon crawl systems (and its various components) aren't intended to replace the "standard system," but are instead a few more tools for your toolbox. Though these tools are balanced against each other, the game is meant to be adjusted on the fly to account for different play styles and varying levels of character and DM optimization. It shouldn't be difficult to take what you like and discard the rest. The only part I defend as objectively good is my approach to traps (though even that is not absolute). I won't listen to any arguments otherwise. Although I'm tempted to clog these boards with explanations for what I've written, instead I'll simply point out to you that I have several blog entries on Loremaster that discuss lessons I learned running the system repeatedly. Please take a moment to read them if the system appears to be interesting to you. A list of links is provided below. I will be revising and re-pulbishing the article within the next few months after some more playtesting. I have things to say about upper paragon and epic play, and there are a few more ideas I'll be adding to the lower levels as well. Stay tuned.
What I Learned from Running "Ghost Tower of Inverness" as a 4e D&D LFR
What I Learned from Running "Ghost Tower of Inverness" Part II: Electric Boogaloo
Dungeon Crawl System Blog: Moving from Session to Session
Dungeon Crawl System Blog: Moving from Session to Session II / Low Player Turnout
Dungeon Crawl System Blog: Third Crack at Ghost Tower of Inverness at the DC Gameday
Similar Threads
