3.5 Recapturing the Lethality of the Original Tomb of Horrors

[ColorBlindNinja]

So, from what I've read/seen, the 3.5 update of the classic Tomb of Horrors removed a fair amount of the danger factor.

I'd like to try to recapture some of what made the original so lethal, but for the most part, I don't want no save deaths as that's kinda cheap.

My initial idea was that this isn't really the Tomb of Horrors, but a replica created by the Dark Powers of Ravenloft to torment the player characters. The temptation is strong to use that as a handwave for some of the more unfair moments of the dungeon, but I'd prefer to use that only as a last resort.

I'll try to add proposed ideas to the OP, and I welcome any suggestions you have.

Thanks!


- Putting Pit Fiend poison on the spikes (DC 27 Fort Save, secondary damage = death).

The main trap is the "rocks fall, save to avoid lethal damage" when someone attempts to open the false door.

The canny rogue is going to attempt to open the door via a rope while being outside of the hallway.

The handle of the false door is covered in contact poison(save or die) to catch the canny rogue.

The cautious rogue will be wearing gloves to avoid any contact poison.

Immediately in front of the false door is a pit trap.

The careful rogue was testing for pit traps 30ft in front of them while wearing a safety line.

Anything passing through the direct middle square of the hallway causes a shock plate to discharge from ceiling to floor (single target, save vs lethal amounts of electric damage)

The observant rogue noticed the obvious location for a trap and avoided it ... and also made sure their safety line avoided it.

That is a revamped false entrance to the specified goals (While writing this I died at the bolded part).



Edit: The module is intended for characters around level 10, so that's the expected level for the PCs.

[OldTrees1]

It would help if you defined the expected playstyle, the expected optimization level, and the expected mortality velocity (average PC is expected to face X saving throws / attacks before dying).

The reason the old Tomb of Horrors got away with "no save just die" is because it expected the playstyle where you would only face one of those traps if you already failed. Having a gauntlet of "save or die" effects is the same approach (since you will roll a nat 1 before the midway point) except you get a bit deeper.

[Darth Ultron]

I'd like to try to recapture some of what made the original so lethal, but for the most part, I don't want no save deaths as that's kinda cheap.


You want to make the Tomb of Horrors lethal, but don't want to kill characters?

Or do you just not want save or die effects? Do you want two saves and die? Or just the more wear down the hit points until death?

[ColorBlindNinja]

You want to make the Tomb of Horrors lethal, but don't want to kill characters?

Or do you just not want save or die effects? Do you want two saves and die? Or just the more wear down the hit points until death?

What I want to avoid is death without any saving throws; save or die is just fine, as is HP damage.

Edit:


It would help if you defined the expected playstyle, the expected optimization level, and the expected mortality velocity (average PC is expected to face X saving throws / attacks before dying).

I wasn't thinking about exceedingly well optimized characters when I came up with this thread, but I was hoping to be as faithful to the original module as possible.

[FreddyNoNose]

What I want to avoid is death without any saving throws; save or die is just fine, as is HP damage.

Edit:



I wasn't thinking about exceedingly well optimized characters when I came up with this thread, but I was hoping to be as faithful to the original module as possible.

I don't see how no save death is cheap.

[OldTrees1]

I wasn't thinking about exceedingly well optimized characters when I came up with this thread, but I was hoping to be as faithful to the original module as possible.

I take it then that you expect the playstyle where the PCs avoid triggering the sources of "save or die" in the gauntlet of "save or die" traps. (Bags of Marbles, Anchors, Pickaxes, 12ft poles, Mortar, 500ft of rope, a bag of pulleys, ...). So we are expecting what, that they encounter the saving throw of every 20th threat?

So that leaves the question of when do you expect the average PC to die? The first hall? The false throne? The big throne? The final encounter? Or do you expect them to survive?

[Tainted_Scholar]

I don't see how no save death is cheap.

Mostly because it goes against what 3.5 stands for. 3.5 doesn't really do, "You die, no questions asked". In 3.5 any explosion can be dodged, any poison shrugged off, and any mind control resisted. So to suddenly take that away is cheap.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I don't see how no save death is cheap.

:smallconfused: OK, I suspect most people would disagree with you.


I take it then that you expect the playstyle where the PCs avoid triggering the sources of "save or die" in the gauntlet of "save or die" traps. (Bags of Marbles, Anchors, Pickaxes, 12ft poles, ...)

Naturally.


So that leaves the question of when do you expect the average PC to die? The first hall? The false throne? The big throne? The final encounter? Or do you expect them to survive?

For the most part, if a PC triggered a trap that would kill them in the original module, I'd expect them to die.

So, I guess I'd expect most of them to die before they even enter the actual dungeon.

[OldTrees1]

Naturally.



For the most part, if a PC triggered a trap that would kill them in the original module, I'd expect them to die.

So, I guess I'd expect most of them to die before they even enter the actual dungeon.

Okay so you are expecting the 1st "save or die" to be their last and you expect the average PC to die before entering the actual dungeon.

If we expect there to be 2 false entrances, for the PCs to disarm/bypass 80% of the traps, and for each trap to have a 95% mortality rate, then:

You are looking at having 5 traps in each of the two false entrances and have each of those traps require a natural 20 to survive if triggered.

This is for assuming an 80% bypass rate, a per trap lethality of 95%, and mortality velocity of "dead before they enter the actual dungeon". Honestly that sounds a bit high on the trapfinding DC and a bit high on the mortality velocity.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Okay so you are expecting the 1st "save or die" to be their last and you expect the average PC to die before entering the actual dungeon.

If we expect there to be 2 false entrances, for the PCs to disarm/bypass 80% of the traps, and for each trap to have a 95% mortality rate, then:

You are looking at having 5 traps in each of the two false entrances and have each of those traps require a natural 20 to survive if triggered.

This is for assuming an 80% bypass rate, a per trap lethality of 95%, and mortality velocity of "dead before they enter the actual dungeon".

So that's a DC 30 something saving throw VS being killed. Does that sound about right?

Edit: And a DC 40 or so for Disable Device.

[Jormengand]

The 3.5 ToH already has enough "No, you die, why, because screw you that's why" in it. You don't need more.

[ColorBlindNinja]

The 3.5 ToH already has enough "No, you die, why, because screw you that's why" in it. You don't need more.

I was under the impression that most allowed saving throws and the DCs weren't too outrageous. Also, some traps in the original that killed you, don't in the 3.5 version.

[OldTrees1]

So that's a DC 30 something saving throw VS being killed. Does that sound about right?

Edit: And a DC 40 or so for Disable Device.

The Saving throw DC sounds right.

The Disable Device DC is irrelevant. The Playstyle in question (if I understood correctly) does not roll disable device checks and does not fail them either. The Playstyle in question involves the Player/PC forgetting to expect the right kind of trap X% of the time. The Search DC and Disable Device DC can be 30 without any problem. The question is whether the PC will search the right area from the right distance and then attempt to disable it from the right distance & angle.

[ColorBlindNinja]

The Saving throw DC sounds right.

The Disable Device DC is irrelevant. The Playstyle in question (if I understood correctly) does not roll disable device checks and does not fail them either. The Playstyle in question involves the Player/PC forgetting to expect the right kind of trap X% of the time. The Search DC and Disable Device DC can be 30 without any problem.

OK, though most PCs will take 20 on the Search checks, and in many cases will realize their presence. Though, perhaps that's for the best.

[OldTrees1]

OK, though most PCs will take 20 on the Search checks, and in many cases will realize their presence. Though, perhaps that's for the best.


They will be taking 20 on the Search checks. The question is do you trust the Rogue to know the trap is there before attempting the Search check. The low search DCs are for covering the Player's understandable incompetence in the area of trap paranoia.

[Gildedragon]

May I suggest using the
Injury Points (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/injury.htm) or Wound points (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/vitalityAndWoundPoints.htm) variant. Both of these make HP a fair bit more lethal.
Turning armor into DR might also be a good fit as you make PCs easier to hit.

[ColorBlindNinja]

They will be taking 20 on the Search checks. The question is do you trust the Rogue to know the trap is there before attempting the Search check. The low search DCs are for covering the Player's understandable incompetence in the area of trap paranoia.

True, careless players shouldn't last long in the Tomb of Horrors. :smallwink:

[OldTrees1]

False Entrance 1(Rockfall):

The main trap is the "rocks fall, save to avoid lethal damage" when someone attempts to open the false door.

The canny rogue is going to attempt to open the door via a rope while being outside of the hallway.

The handle of the false door is covered in contact poison(save or die) to catch the canny rogue.

The cautious rogue will be wearing gloves to avoid any contact poison.

Immediately in front of the false door is a pit trap.

The careful rogue was testing for pit traps 30ft in front of them while wearing a safety line.

Anything passing through the direct middle square of the hallway causes a shock plate to discharge from ceiling to floor (single target, save vs lethal amounts of electric damage)

The observant rogue noticed the obvious location for a trap and avoided it ... and also made sure their safety line avoided it.

That is a revamped false entrance to the specified goals (While writing this I died at the bolded part).

[ColorBlindNinja]

False Entrance 1(Rockfall):

The main trap is the "rocks fall, save to avoid lethal damage" when someone attempts to open the false door.

The canny rogue is going to attempt to open the door via a rope while being outside of the hallway.

The handle of the false door is covered in contact poison(save or die) to catch the canny rogue.

The cautious rogue will be wearing gloves to avoid any contact poison.

Immediately in front of the false door is a pit trap.

The careful rogue was testing for pit traps 30ft in front of them while wearing a safety line.

Anything passing through the direct middle square of the hallway causes a shock plate to discharge from ceiling to floor (single target, save vs lethal amounts of electric damage)

The observant rogue noticed the obvious location for a trap and avoided it ... and also made sure their safety line avoided it.

That is a revamped false entrance to the specified goals (While writing this I died at the bolded part).

Neat. I can't decide whether this is sadistic or hilarous, either way I'm adding it the OP.

[Jormengand]

I was under the impression that most allowed saving throws and the DCs weren't too outrageous. Also, some traps in the original that killed you, don't in the 3.5 version.

Some technically don't kill you outright, only deal enough damage to kill you, maybe allowing a reflex save to be only severely injured instead. The mouth of no-you-just-die is alive and well, though, as are the arrow traps which don't stop firing at you until you disable them and then dispel magic on them and there's no indication that this is the correct course of action. If you're playing the Tomb of Horrors, you're not playing a game. You're rolling dice at people until they stop moving.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Some technically don't kill you outright, only deal enough damage to kill you, maybe allowing a reflex save to be only severely injured instead. The mouth of no-you-just-die is alive and well, though, as are the arrow traps which don't stop firing at you until you disable them and then dispel magic on them and there's no indication that this is the correct course of action. If you're playing the Tomb of Horrors, you're not playing a game. You're rolling dice at people until they stop moving.

OK, I see what you're saying.

[OldTrees1]

Some technically don't kill you outright, only deal enough damage to kill you, maybe allowing a reflex save to be only severely injured instead. The mouth of no-you-just-die is alive and well, though, as are the arrow traps which don't stop firing at you until you disable them and then dispel magic on them and there's no indication that this is the correct course of action. If you're playing the Tomb of Horrors, you're not playing a game. You're rolling dice at people until they stop moving.

I always thought they expected you to plug the arrow slots, and then get hit by them as you exit the dungeon (because the spirits remove the plugs during the hours spent in the dungeon).

[mabriss lethe]

I feel almost obliged to link this article John Wick wrote concerning ToH: The Worst Adventure of All Times (http://johnwickpresents.com/updates/the-worst-adventure-of-all-times/)

[Jormengand]

Oh, and there's also the bit where the module tells the DM to mock the players.


Count down slowly from 10. You can nod or otherwise answer questions (for instance, there is enough time to grab the crown and the jade coffer lying near the couch, but nothing else before you reach 1), but your audible countdown may stampede charac-ters unfamiliar with this scenario up the stairs.Those who retreat continue to feel the effects of a cave-in, with dust blowing up the stairs behind them, and then bits of stone beginning to fall in the east-west tunnel, then thenorth-south tunnel, and so on as they retreat, with thesounds of loud collapses at the players’ heels...

If the party bugs out, ask them if they thought the adventure was too hard.

I can just imagine the tone of voice the DM is meant to ask that in. :smallannoyed:

[OldTrees1]

I feel almost obliged to link this article John Wick wrote concerning ToH: The Worst Adventure of All Times (http://johnwickpresents.com/updates/the-worst-adventure-of-all-times/)

Ah yes, the Required Reading for every DM that wants to run a Tomb of Horrors like dungeon. As far as I see it the Tomb seeks to fulfill one of two stories:
1) The story of the savvy rogues that notice each and every trap (See the rogues I described in the Rockfall)
2) The story of the lucky scamps that use instant reflexes to escape the trap or pull someone else out of danger (Readied Actions, Cunning Action, & White Raven Tactics).


The 3rd edition version of the Tomb of Horrors does a surprisingly good job at fulfilling those stories if the times I ran it are any indication. Although Search should reveal the Green Goblin Face trap, it is a trap in my eyes and thus I ruled it as a DC20 Search check to reveal it as dangerous.

However it could be designed to better mechanically support those stories too.


Oh, and there's also the bit where the module tells the DM to mock the players.

I can just imagine the tone of voice the DM is meant to ask that in. :smallannoyed:

It does not tell you to mock the players. It tells you to act as if the adventure was completed because the PCs were clearly fooled into thinking they just escaped the dungeon's "self destruct when the boss dies".

Although I never had to say something like that because the PCs changed their minds enroute. I forget if they decided they couldn't out run it or if they decided it was a trick.

[Jormengand]

It does not tell you to mock the players. It tells you to act as if the adventure was completed because the PCs were clearly fooled into thinking they just escaped the dungeon's "self destruct when the boss dies".

Although I never had to say something like that because the PCs changed their minds enroute.

"Aww, was the module too hard for you?"

I don't trust the Tomb of Horrors not to be about mocking the players, in any case. It's kinda lost its right to have any charity extended to it. The entire point of the module is to ruin players' days.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I can just imagine the tone of voice the DM is meant to ask that in. :smallannoyed:

Completely deadpan. :smallamused:

[OldTrees1]

"Aww, was the module too hard for you?"

I don't trust the Tomb of Horrors not to be about mocking the players, in any case. It's kinda lost its right to have any charity extended to it. The entire point of the module is to ruin players' days.

I understand and respect they you extend it no charity.

However I read that line in the module as more like one of the following than like your mocking reading:
"So how did you like the most dangerous dungeon? Too hard? Too short?"
"Did you like the challenge? Would you prefer the next adventure be easier or harder?"
"Did you have fun? It wasn't too unforgiving was it?"

[Tainted_Scholar]

Oh, and there's also the bit where the module tells the DM to mock the players.



I can just imagine the tone of voice the DM is meant to ask that in. :smallannoyed:

If the DM doesn't want books thrown at his head, then↓


Completely deadpan. :smallamused:

[ColorBlindNinja]

I understand and respect they you extend it no charity.

However I read that line in the module as more like one of the following than like your mocking reading:
"So how did you like the most dangerous dungeon? Too hard? Too short?"
"Did you like the challenge? Would you prefer the next adventure be easier or harder?"
"Did you have fun? It wasn't too unforgiving was it?"

"I had to tone it down a bit, the original was too hard." :smalltongue:

[Jormengand]

Oh, there's also the pillar which isn't trapped, so the not!trap can't be found, but what it does do is split the person off from the rest of the party and force them to solo an EL 10 encounter (at ECL 9) to escape, and all the enemies are massively under-CRed, and the pillar which takes all your equipment and throws you out of the devil face of instakill, but fortunately turns it off for just long enough to chuck you out safely. Oh, and even the treasure tries to kill you: there's a gem which deals two hundred damage and throws a twisted wish at the user, and everyone else nearby, and the crown which stops you leaving the room it's in. There is a way to take the crown off, but guess what? That forces you to make a completely uninformed choice and if you get it wrong, it tries to kill you as well. But don't worry, because there's a broken staff, and even though it's already broken, guess what it does? It tries to freaking kill you, because even the broken treasure is trying to kill you.

Oh, and the treasure you get at the end of the module? Guess what that tries to do. :smallannoyed:

[OldTrees1]

Oh, there's also the pillar which isn't trapped, so the not!trap can't be found, but what it does do is split the person off from the rest of the party and force them to solo an EL 10 encounter (at ECL 9) to escape, and all the enemies are massively under-CRed, and the pillar which takes all your equipment and throws you out of the devil face of instakill, but fortunately turns it off for just long enough to chuck you out safely. Oh, and even the treasure tries to kill you: there's a gem which deals two hundred damage and throws a twisted wish at the user, and everyone else nearby, and the crown which stops you leaving the room it's in. There is a way to take the crown off, but guess what? That forces you to make a completely uninformed choice and if you get it wrong, it tries to kill you as well. But don't worry, because there's a broken staff, and even though it's already broken, guess what it does? It tries to freaking kill you, because even the broken treasure is trying to kill you.

Oh, and the treasure you get at the end of the module? Guess what that tries to do. :smallannoyed:

Yep all solid critiques.

Although, is that last comment about the false demilich boss fight? While the fight is terribly designed, it is a rather obvious fight.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Oh, there's also the pillar which isn't trapped, so the not!trap can't be found, but what it does do is split the person off from the rest of the party and force them to solo an EL 10 encounter (at ECL 9) to escape, and all the enemies are massively under-CRed, and the pillar which takes all your equipment and throws you out of the devil face of instakill, but fortunately turns it off for just long enough to chuck you out safely. Oh, and even the treasure tries to kill you: there's a gem which deals two hundred damage and throws a twisted wish at the user, and everyone else nearby, and the crown which stops you leaving the room it's in. There is a way to take the crown off, but guess what? That forces you to make a completely uninformed choice and if you get it wrong, it tries to kill you as well. But don't worry, because there's a broken staff, and even though it's already broken, guess what it does? It tries to freaking kill you, because even the broken treasure is trying to kill you.

Don't forget about trap that teleports you to the dungeon's entrance, but sends your gear straight to Acererak. So your PCs are unarmed, naked, and have to start from square one.


Oh, and the treasure you get at the end of the module? Guess what that tries to do. :smallannoyed:

It's part of Acererak's phylactery isn't it? Edit: Or does it try to kill you in the 3.5 version?

[Jormengand]

Don't forget about trap that teleports you to the dungeon's entrance, but sends your gear straight to Acererak. So your PCs are unarmed, naked, and have to start from square one.
and the pillar which takes all your equipment and throws you out of the devil face of instakill, but fortunately turns it off for just long enough to chuck you out safely.
It's part of Acererak's phylactery isn't it? Edit: Or does it try to kill you in the 3.5 version?

In 3.5, you get a cursed backbiter spear which tries to kill the wielder.

[ColorBlindNinja]

In 3.5, you get a cursed backbiter spear which tries to kill the wielder.

That doesn't surprise me.

Would the Taint rules from Heroes of Horror enhance the Tomb of Horrors experience?

[OldTrees1]

Yeah, all in all the Tomb of Horrors is a good teaching tool. It has some faults you learn to avoid and some neat ideas you learn to iterate upon.



That doesn't surprise me.

Would the Taint rules from Heroes of Horror enhance the Tomb of Horrors experience?

I don't think the Taint playstyle fits the trap playstyle you are personally shooting for. Taint is designed to be unavoidable and focus on the mitigation or dealing with the consequences.


I might make a Tainted trapped riddled dungeon but it would focus more on traps that sap resources rather than lethal traps. That is closer to my dungeon design preference anyways. The challenge being not survival, but rather how far can you push into the dungeon before you have to turn back (and did you push too deep and can't make it back out).

[mabriss lethe]

Yeah, all in all the Tomb of Horrors is a good teaching tool. It has some faults you learn to avoid and some neat ideas you learn to iterate upon.




I don't think the Taint playstyle fits the trap playstyle you are personally shooting for. Taint is designed to be unavoidable and focus on the mitigation or dealing with the consequences.


I might make a Tainted trapped riddled dungeon but it would focus more on traps that sap resources rather than lethal traps. That is closer to my dungeon design preference anyways. The challenge being not survival, but rather how far can you push into the dungeon before you have to turn back (and did you push too deep and can't make it back out).

^This: The point of the Taint isn't to kill you. It doesn't want you dead. It wants to be friends. Close...close friends. so close that it whispers all of its secrets into your ear while you sleep. It wants to know you, help you...eventually... be you.

(Though I could see a Tainted dungeon that encourages PCs to embrace the taint to overcome otherwise deadly traps and encounters could have a lot of potential, but it would need to be carefully thought out. )

[ColorBlindNinja]

I don't think the Taint playstyle fits the trap playstyle you are personally shooting for. Taint is designed to be unavoidable and focus on the mitigation or dealing with the consequences.


I might make a Tainted trapped riddled dungeon but it would focus more on traps that sap resources rather than lethal traps. That is closer to my dungeon design preference anyways. The challenge being not survival, but rather how far can you push into the dungeon before you have to turn back (and did you push too deep and can't make it back out).

Ah, OK, it was just a random thought that occurred to me.

[OldTrees1]

^This: The point of the Taint isn't to kill you. It doesn't want you dead. It wants to be friends. Close...close friends. so close that it whispers all of its secrets into your ear while you sleep. It wants to know you, help you...eventually... be you.

(Though I could see a Tainted dungeon that encourages PCs to embrace the taint to overcome otherwise deadly traps and encounters could have a lot of potential, but it would need to be carefully thought out. )

Thank you for that idea that I will shameless steal, and then spend lots of time carefully implementing.

[mabriss lethe]

Thank you for that idea that I will shameless steal, and then spend lots of time carefully implementing.

Be my guest. Though it might require going back to the original source of the mechanics (d10 Legend of the 5 Rings) and reworking them. D20 adaptations of taint mechanics have always been a bit clunky.

[atemu1234]

At a certain point, just put the players' character sheets in a shredder. That gets the point across.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Should I keep the fake Construct at the end of the 3.5 version or use an actual demilich?

[Tainted_Scholar]

At a certain point, just put the players' character sheets in a shredder. That gets the point across.

If you run Tomb of Horrors, they'll shred the character sheets themselves.

[OldTrees1]

Should I keep the fake Construct at the end of the 3.5 version or use an actual demilich?

1) The party cannot handle a demilich at their level.
2) Acererak would not be in the final room of the material plane section of the Tomb of Horrors.

So it should not be Acererak in the final room.

However the fake construct is poorly designed so I would suggest replacing it. It is intended to convince the PCs that they are fighting a demilich but somehow defeat it or escape. If you have a copy of Lost Empires of Faerun, a beefed up and geared up Spellstiched Flameskull would be a better fit. Flameskulls can be mistaken as Demiliches and their Rejuvenation ability fits the concept of the dungeon sized resetting death trap.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I was thinking about the Juggernaut encounter; the original module has it kill you instantly, but the 3.5 one merely deals damage and offers a save for the gas that would incapacitate the party.

Should I increase the damage the Juggernaut deals, bump up the save DC or both?

Edit: I'm also thinking about the slime in room 21, how would I implement the brown slime?