Goodman Games
http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/

Castle Whiterock Question & Actual Play
http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=47191
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Matt [ Sun Mar 29, 2015 8:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Castle Whiterock Question & Actual Play

Ran Castle Whiterock over the weekend. The heroes snuck into the courtyard at night and surprised the slavers, dividing and conquering them before killing Ikenvar.

Some bandits survived, one of the PC's died, and the two groups agreed to a truce. The heroes withdrawing with their unconscious teammates, and the bandits doing the same. So Ikenvar may still be alive (traditionally non-heroes do not "go unconscious" but I may rule that since Ikenvar was a named NPC, he has the same privilege the heroes have).

Now my question is thus: Is there anything stopping the PCs from just climbing over the tunnel that leads to Area 1-1 and dropping into the courtyard from above? I have serious problems imagining the layout of the upper level in 3D. I've seen the 'model' from Player Handout E but it didn't really help.

It may be the answer is "No, perfectly legal for the PCs to climb up and over the gateway and guardpost." But the text on page 29 of the Red Book is written in such a way that it *very strongly implies* that the heroes are expected to fight or bluff their way past the main gate. I just can't figure out why exactly they'd do it that way--the hard way--and there's no text supporting the idea of just climbing over.

All in all it was not a hugely memorable kickoff session. They're just human bandits after all. I ran it like a "big things have small beginnings" kind of adventure but I think I would have preferred a slightly more exotic opening.

That being said, the PCs were 1st level and it's 5E which is all about mundane foes for the first two levels.

Author:  DCCfan [ Mon Mar 30, 2015 3:41 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Castle Whiterock Question & Actual Play

That is why I like the DCC RPG rules better. You can spice up mundane slavers by allowing them to cast their tattoos at the heroes like a magic missile. The manacled hands could strangle for 1d4 damage and cause a -2 to attacks unless a Ref save is made or something like that.

Author:  Matt [ Mon Mar 30, 2015 8:44 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Castle Whiterock Question & Actual Play

DCCfan wrote:
That is why I like the DCC RPG rules better. You can spice up mundane slavers by allowing them to cast their tattoos at the heroes like a magic missile. The manacled hands could strangle for 1d4 damage and cause a -2 to attacks unless a Ref save is made or something like that.


Is there any edition of D&D where the DM couldn't just make that ruling?

Author:  DCCfan [ Mon Mar 30, 2015 3:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Castle Whiterock Question & Actual Play

I think DCC encourages it more. Thinking outside the box is not something I remember from my 3.5 days. Encounter levels and massive stat blocks seemed to get in the way. Every monster had to have all it's attacks spelled out in detail with the right feats and powers. However you are right any judge using any edition could make that ruling.

Author:  fonkin [ Mon Dec 14, 2015 1:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Castle Whiterock Question & Actual Play

Re: the OP's question, no there's nothing that would prevent them from climbing over the tunnel and then rappelling down the other side into the courtyard. However, as the DM, you can make it very unappealing. Note the rocky cliffs, the steepness of the climb, the number of Climb check required both ascending and then descending. Note the exposure of the party to the bandit sentries in the watch tower as well as down in the bandit camp. That's a lot more die rolls than a simple 3 or 4 round battle at the gate or a "diplomacy" check to get inside the door, and the results of failure will be much, much worse!

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 8 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/