Trouble at Durbenford - advice? Also, mounts.

[aboyd]

My players have opted to get into the 3.5 edition module, Trouble at Durbenford. I've owned it for a while but not read much of it, so aside from telling them that the prince wanted Nanoc and would pay 5,000 gold for it (which I made up and may be very far off from what the module offers), they have heard very little. I couldn't even tell them what kind of weapon Nanoc was, because I couldn't find the stats for it on a quick scan.

Anyway, my question is this: given that the players are just getting into Durbenford and have only talked with a representative of the prince, what is your advice? They are a level 6 fighter, level 7 spellthief, level 7 knight, level 8 rogue/bard, and level 7 who-knows-yet (new player). So they're a little underpowered, but only a little. The knight delivers about 15-45 HP of damage per swing, which seems competent. He rides a tiger, apparently (new character, haven't checked up on it yet). I don't yet know if medium PCs in full plate will fit on a tiger, or if it's affordable for a 7th level character. I assume it is, so I let it go for now.

Anyway, I'd love your tips on running Durbenford. What did you experience as a DM or player? What was difficult to run or play? How would you fix or change things? What are the main characters and/or plots that I need to convey during the next session? Is there a "necessary class" that the party really needs? Since we have a new player who hasn't decided what to play, I can urge him toward something.

Also, anyone know the riding rules? If this knight wants to have his tiger attack and then use its free grapple on an enemy while the knight is riding, is that even possible? Can the knight attack too?

The knight instructed his tiger to eat an unconscious, defeated enemy. OK for knights to do that?

Sorry for all the questions. Hopefully everyone finds something they can dig into and answer.

 

[Starbuck_II]

Also, anyone know the riding rules? If this knight wants to have his tiger attack and then use its free grapple on an enemy while the knight is riding, is that even possible? Can the knight attack too?

The knight instructed his tiger to eat an unconscious, defeated enemy. OK for knights to do that?

Sorry for all the questions. Hopefully everyone finds something they can dig into and answer.

Well, Knights can't attack unconscious foes without losing a Challenge, but the code doesn't restrict his mounts technically.

Grapple while riding seems iffy, but attack while riding is legal. Movement uses te mounts so he has a full attack possible (as long as he is guiding with his knees a easy Ride check but armor check penalties apply).

 

[Dross]

Well, Knights can't attack unconscious foes without losing a Challenge, but the code doesn't restrict his mounts technically.

It may not be specifically spelled out, but I'd consider the tiger an extension of the Knight and thus say the challenge is lost.

If after the battle? Well I don't know much about knights, but most forms of chivalry don't take kindly to eating an unconscious enemy (even via the tiger). The foe is practically a prisoner (YMMV though), so how knights are supposed to treat prisoners would give you some guidelines.

Grapple while riding seems iffy, but attack while riding is legal. Movement uses te mounts so he has a full attack possible (as long as he is guiding with his knees a easy Ride check but armor check penalties apply).

Grappling + riding does seem iffy (but it's a "common sense" thing, not a rules thing) without some negative mod. -20 seems the go for acting as if not grappling
I'd check the STR v plate mailed rider but there is nothing wrong with the concept.
If the mount moves more than 5 feet you do not get a full attack (it takes time to get to your foe). A couple of PrC's remove this limit. Full attack otherwise is fine.
My SRD says only a fast mount/dismount suffers armour check penalties

Hopefully a search will reveal one or more threads about mounted combat although they may have been pre-crash.

Arms and Equipment guide (3.0) could be helpful as well.

 

[Khazan]

if it helps, there is a 'review' of the module here

i see a glaring lack of a cleric in that party....yikes! maybe the new player could be gently nudged toward playing the healer, with some assistance in the form of wands of cure x wounds, etc.

i don't know much about a Knight's mount, but can it be told (i.e., ordered) to devour someone or something? and if so, it seems that it would be one drowsy, useless tiger for quite some time after eating a medium sized opponent.

 

[aboyd]

Thank you guys for all the advice. I would take more if anyone else wants to chime in.

Also, I have an extra question. I have a player who says that I'm doing the hide skill wrong. I ask for a roll with each action. So for example, if he wants to hide behind a tree, hide check. On the next round, if he wants to move out from the tree and advance to some shrubbery, hide check -- possibly two checks if he needs to use two move actions. I run it this way because this is how I run my other skill checks too. For example, if you climb a rope, it's one climb check per move action. According to the player, "Pretty much doubles the chance of failure, thus nerfing the hide skill." Is that true? I thought I was running it as expected.

 

[Khazan]

Hide skill? i think if someone is watching and he has to move to get to a hiding place, then the check is made at -10; he is rushing to get to a hiding place quickly so there's some big risk involved.

also, there's a rule of thumb that's something like : the hiding place distance has to be 1 foot away per rank of Hide the character has, or else the hiding place is just to far away to reach without being seen.

also, any Hide attempt means the character has to move at half his movement rate to attempt the Hide without a penalty, otherwise it is a -5 penalty for moving faster than half his movement rate. basically i guess it means you have to move carefully, so you can't be dashing around at full speed.

i think you have it right, though i don't understand the "possibly two checks if he needs to use two move actions" statement. Hide checks are considered part of movement, so its not considered a separate action.

if on his turn, the player elects to Hide, he rolls a Hide check. if on his turn he elects to move and then Hide, he can do so without penalty as long as he moves half his movement rate (and assuming there's a hiding place within that distance).

if on his next turn he stands in place and does nothing except stay hidden, our DM lets us use our prior Hide check roll (it could require a new Hide check but i'm not certain). if on his next turn he elects to move from Hiding Place A and get to Hiding Place B, then it is as above.

other people might be able to correct or explain that better, but i hope it helps a bit. as far as his statement that it "Pretty much doubles the chance of failure, thus nerfing the hide skill", well, it isn't easy moving and hiding while someone is even casually observing.

 

[aboyd]

i think you have it right, though i don't understand the "possibly two checks if he needs to use two move actions" statement. Hide checks are considered part of movement, so its not considered a separate action.

Right. What I mean is this. A rogue needs to advance 30' down a shadowy hallway. I say, "shadows grant concealment -- you may hide as you advance the entire length." So player uses a move action to move 15' (half his normal rate). Just as you suggested, as part of that move, he makes a hide check. Great. He's halfway. He still has a standard action left, which he elects to use as another move action. He goes an additional 15' (half his normal rate). As part of that move, he makes a hide check.

My player asserts that having to make 2 hide checks in that situation doubles the chance of failure, and is thus a "nerfing" of the rules. He believes that the first hide check should cover everything.

In fact, this came up because he had originally been even more far-reaching. His new character moved behind a tree to hide, and then on his next turn he walked over to some docks to wait for a boat -- the player asserting that all of it was covered by his initial roll. Another player complained, saying that if he had known you could go find full cover and get a good hide and then have it "stick" even as you walked around in plain sight, he would have been doing that all the time during the course of our year-long campaign. I agreed that the "new interpretation" totally undermined the previous year of play. So now the guy trying to hide for the first time is upset, and feels that I've gimped his new character.

 

[Jhaelen]

Hide skill? i think if someone is watching and he has to move to get to a hiding place, then the check is made at -10; he is rushing to get to a hiding place quickly so there's some big risk involved.

also, there's a rule of thumb that's something like : the hiding place distance has to be 1 foot away per rank of Hide the character has, or else the hiding place is just to far away to reach without being seen.

This is more than just a rule of thumb. Prior to Complete Adventurer it was _impossible_ to move and stay hidden while being observed (unless you can Hide In Plain Sight, of course). The rule has since been added to the Rule Compendium in the Hide skill description.

Anyway, I have a hard time imagining anyone trying to rely on his Hide skill not taking levels in the Shadowdancer prestige class.

 

[Herzog]

I agree the 'as part of your movement' section of the Hide skill can be interpreted in more than one way.

However, I would allow someone to make one check during a double move, if only to limit the number of rolls made.

I might even let him use the same roll for the entire abovementioned hallway. I would, however, require a new roll whenever the circumstances change. Like leaving your cover or concealment, or going from a stationary hide to a moving hide.

In return, possible observers get an new Spot check every time the circumstances change: someone bringing a lightsource into the hallway, someone drawing attention to the viscinity of the hiding character (someone else failing a hide or move silently, for instance).

In conclusion: I would allow the character to use a single hide check (opposed by a single spot check) as long as the circumstances do not change.
But all that is to reduce the number of rolls to be made. And remember, even that one roll he's making can fail..... especially with observant opponents

 

[Treebore]

Wish I could help you but it has been about 5 years since I ran Durbenford, and then didn't run very much of it, I just remember really liking it.