New FR Dragon Article: The Wailing Dwarf. Reveals some new crunch.

[Khaalis]

My personal opinions on the article is that overall it was well written as a basic plot hook. I'd like to see them actually turn this into a published adventure. It has potential.

On the balanced party issue, IMHO, I see no issue with this. Some people play games where the party is thrown together in some random fashion so you end up with a bard, a monk, a sorcerer, and a ninja but to me this is generally more unrealistic and harder to "swallow" than professional adventurers who specifically build a party based on their needs. Previous FR material is built more on the professional adventurer than the random adventuring group, even going so far as to actually have given life the the concept of the Adventurer's Guild. It is still possible to run games with "odd" party composition, but the DM has to be willing to work with that. Personally, my players generally always discuss who wants to play what and hammer out a balanced party or as close to it as they can get, unless I am specifically running a game based on a unique concept like "all members of a thieves' guild", or "all members of the wizard college," etc.

As for the magic items, the impression I got when reading it was not that the characters were famous for the items they carried, with one exception. Instead, it seemed to me that most of the characters made the items famous. From the sound of it these were all paragon level characters.

- The captain was famous for notable service in Amns merchant marines. He was also known to carry the Clockwork Blade of Venom. (This is mentioned more like an afterthought.)

- The elf was famous for her voice and her Bow of Death’s Reach. (This sounds like she made the bow famous, similar to how Wulfgar has made Aegis-fang famous.)

- The halfling rogue was famous for his ”acquisition” of the relic Punching Dagger of Quar-Shan. (This says to me the item was a famed relic to begin with but the halfling became famous for managing to steal it from the Assassins Guild of Calimshan.)

- The wizard’s greatest claim to fame was his magical implement the Jagged Staff of Hellgate, which to me sounds like something he created. I get the feeling that the wizard implement is basically going to be something similar to 3X Legacy Weapon system or the UA's Item Familiar.

- The cleric was famous for her knowledge but was also known to carry the Astral Mace of Blasting that she made famous because of the tales that it was given to her directly by an agent of Oghma.

Thats JMHO on how I read it. I wouldn't expect to have high level characters that don't have at least one signature magic item. This doesn't preclude that they are loaded down like magical Xmas trees. If anything they don't mention any other treasure or magic that the party might have, just a single item each. To me, this sounds like they are leaning more toward slightly more powerful and useful items, but less of them. I'd much rather a PC have the Jagged Staff of Hellgate than 4 items that add +2 to saves, stats, etc.

JMHO. YMMV.

 

[Sitara]

So we have a:

fighter or warlord,

bard, fighter or rogue,

halfling rogue

Warlock or wizard (I think warlock).

Cleric

 

[Walking Dad]

So we have a:

fighter or warlord,

bard, fighter or rogue,

halfling rogue

Warlock or wizard (I think warlock).

Cleric

Make it:

Fighter (Defender) -> the Cleric is confirmed, and there is no other defender

Ranger (Striker) -> the text says ranger. would be a strange title for the average bard, fighter or rogue

Rogue (Striker) -> seems so

Wizard (Controller) -> there is only one confirmed controller class

Cleric (Leader) -> what else?

 

[Nymrohd]

Considering that the purpose of the article is to grant Realmslore about a location, and that location has been described far more eloquently in Dwarves Deep, while here it is at best trite, with a party of adventurers who each has one specific identifying item, and guardian nagas that keep troll slaves for food I think it is mediocre at best.

But well, legacy items sound nice.

 

[Walking Dad]

...

But well, legacy items sound nice.

I hope they are not mandatory. The next "everybody has it or the player weekened himself".

BTW: I don't like the disadvantages of the Legacy Items. Something you burn Feats and playtime for should be only helpful.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Apparently I am missing the point, because I don't really see what is disbelief-breaking about that. In a world where things work like they do in D&D, why *wouldn't* people form groups that way?

I mean, you never see a baseball team try to make a team out of all slick fielding middle infielders with no power, right, or a rock band with 4 guitars and no drums. Why would adventuring parties work any differently?

That's I honestly think the first part of that is a patently ludicrous comparison, and anyone who agrees with it has played too much D&D and it's melted their brain a little

Obviously there's no comparison between a sports team, with a mandated number of members playing mandated positions. It's not that a baseball team has any choice over what it's members do - they have to play certain positions, follow certain arbitary rules - not just the rules of physics and physiology. So just... no... to that.

Comparing it to a rock band has some validity - but then bands do vary widely in their exact composition, and whilst there is a pattern, the reason for that pattern isn't "mechanical" and "instrinsic to the universe", it's because they want to achieve a certain sound, and emulate the predecessors, perhaps if there was some legendary, well-known band of adventurers in the FR, I'd find the arrangement a little more believable. On the other hand, they're a poor comparison because they're not doing something dangerous and when people do something dangerous, they generally take as many people as practically possible.

If the party didn't have exactly 5 members with exactly 5 significant magical items, I guess I'd barely have noticed. For me though, when there are the precisely "correct" number of characters according to the rules (not just a "balanced party", note, a numerically-correct 4E not 3E party - no doubt were the same author writing for 3E, there would have been four people in the party). So for me it's the compound of precisely 5 people of precisely the right "spread" of classes with 5 significant items that breaks the sense of disbelief (and it does, for me, you cannot deny that, because it's my feeling, sorry - sense of disbelief is not entirely rational, it's mainly intuitive).

If it doesn't for you, that's cool, but I think you're a little more immersed in the "D&D" world than me, for better or worse. I tend to see a reality behind the world that isn't D&D mechanics, just vaguely represented by them, which I guess gives a different view.

 

[Wyrmshadows]

For me though, when there are the precisely "correct" number of characters according to the rules (not just a "balanced party", note, a numerically-correct 4E not 3E party - no doubt were the same author writing for 3E, there would have been four people in the party). So for me it's the compound of precisely 5 people of precisely the right "spread" of classes with 5 significant items that breaks the sense of disbelief (and it does, for me, you cannot deny that, because it's my feeling, sorry - sense of disbelief is not entirely rational, it's mainly intuitive).

If it doesn't for you, that's cool, but I think you're a little more immersed in the "D&D" world than me, for better or worse. I tend to see a reality behind the world that isn't D&D mechanics, just vaguely represented by them, which I guess gives a different view.

I have to agree with you. I understand why folks build the groups they do, but as a DM I am more comfortable with an organic type of group that are friends or mercenaries familiar with each other and drawn together by whatever circumstances and/or desires. This group IMO would only rarely look like Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric.

Honestly that reminds me of the D&D cartoon where folks are simply their roles...Cavalier, Acrobat, Barbarian or whatever. Too, too gamey.

For many years the individuals in my group were allowed to play whatever classes they wanted and I, as DM, adapted things to suit that reality. Sometimes I had an NPC travel with them who was a cleric for example if no one wanted to play a cleric. Never have I expected my players to form some archetypal D&D adventuring group. In fact, the very idea of arbitrary gameyness leaves a bad taste in my nouth.



Wyrmshadows

 

[Scribble]

On the other hand, they're a poor comparison because they're not doing something dangerous and when people do something dangerous, they generally take as many people as practically possible.

US Army Rangers Fireteam. Four man unit each with a purpose and a piece of equipment no less!

* Rifleman: acts as a scout for the fireteam; called "Ready";
* Team Leader (M203): also works as the grenadier; called "Team";
* Automatic Rifleman (M249 SAW): also serves as second in command for the fireteam; called "Fire";
* Assistant Automatic Rifleman: carries extra ammunition; called "Assist";

 

[Arnwyn]

My personal opinions on the article is that overall it was well written as a basic plot hook. I'd like to see them actually turn this into a published adventure. It has potential.

Me too, but I wouldn't hold my breath. The Wailing Dwarf has been mentioned since at least early 2e (first details in FR11 Dwarves Deep), and is just one of many FR landmarks that could have been fleshed out.

 

[kennew142]

I understand the desire to see a party grow organically rather than being constructed, but I still think most parties would cover all the roles. This may result in a party with more than five members. My own gaming group has six players, plus a GM, so we typically break the mold (although less so in 4e than in 3e).

I can see a group of friends or relatives who've (for one reason or another) become adventurers. If they are missing one of the major roles, they would likely look for someone to fill this role.

"Do you know what we need in this little group of ours? We need a healer ...."

or "We need a wizard."

or "We need someone who can keep us safe until we can get a spell off."

Et cetera...

This is even more true in the FR, where it has been clearly established that adventurer is a profession. They even have companies, with names, bylaws, charters and licenses.

That said, I don't have a problem with an example in a gaming article having an oprimized party. The authors are trying to illustrate the game. In many ways, it would be irresponsible of them to provide weak examples. In a novel, I would argue the other point. A party should be chosen for internal logic and story reasons. A gaming article isn't a novel.