I wasn't sure if this thread should be here or on the product boards or perhaps the GM board...

In reading the scenario I see two errors that may warrant correction.

Moved to the correct forum. Thanks for pointing out the chronicle error. I'll correct that today.

In act one, the box text reads "They are camped exactly on the ambush site described in Waman’s itinerary."

What ambush is described in Waman's itinerary? I don't get why this is revealed to the players this way. They know they're going to be ambushed -- the plan counts on it -- but do they know where? Does Waman reveal to them that he's setting them up for an ambush? I'm confused.

The intent here is that Waman gives the PCs a map of the road they need to take including an itinerary of where to stop and so on. At this stop, the PCs are pretty sure this is where they'll be ambushed, and when they get there they find the Thakur's men camped in the ambush spot, further complicating the plan.

As a side note the Osirion faction mission handout makes no reference to stealth being necessary to complete the secondary mission. The mod however states that if the players are observed while completing the mission they fail.

This raises 2 questions...

Should it just be assumed that stealth is always required when completing missions?

Is it even possible to trick a member of another faction using bluff for example to assist you in your mission if it is a secret one?

When you say secondary, are you talking about the statue mission?

When you say secondary, are you talking about the statue mission?

** spoiler omitted **

Since then there was no stealth needed could we solicate someone with the disable device feat to assist?

Sure.

Sure.

** spoiler omitted **

My all time favorite will always be how we convinced the Andoran Paladin that a poison provided to complete a Qadira mission was an oil of bless weapon. Good times

The Taldor faction player in my group was very angry about his mission. He felt like the mission text didn't really suggest or sufficiently hint at the significance of the statues to the completion of his task. I would suggest that DM's tell their Taldor players "are you *sure* you don't have anything else you want to do here before moving on?" They might need the extra help. My guy got another shot at the mission during the wrap-up, but he was already miffed and letting him try a roll at the end didn't really satisfy him.

I also found that 5 second level characters can pretty much sleep-walk through the combat encounters in this mod. One particular tweak might make the combat better at any tier...

The "ambush site" boxed text was also confusing to my GM when we played last night. We just scratched our heads and moved on.

Also, the two Taldor faction players in our group (including me) were a bit miffed over the second faction mission. I haven't read the pdf, but according to my GM there was only one way to succeed, and it required a pretty obscure skill check -- two characteristics I'd really rather not see in faction feats. They don't have to be easy, by any means, but ideally it would be nice to see some room for creative solutions. (Along the same lines, Baron Jacquo Dalsine really needs to learn the appropriate use of "smash it up and bring me the pieces" versus "discern how it functions and then carefully dissasemble it". Some barbarians might get confused.)

To avoid sounding overly critical, let me say that I enjoyed the overall scenario and appreciated the interesting roleplay options/solutions that were included. :)

Also, the two Taldor faction players in our group (including me) were a bit miffed over the second faction mission. I haven't read the pdf, but according to my GM there was only one way to succeed, and it required a pretty obscure skill check

Elora wrote:

Also, the two Taldor faction players in our group (including me) were a bit miffed over the second faction mission. I haven't read the pdf, but according to my GM there was only one way to succeed, and it required a pretty obscure skill check

There was only one opportunity to complete the mission, yes, but a couple of possible ways of solving it. The problem was that it's just not reasonable to expect the player to recognize the opportunity when it comes along, in this case; it's too difficult by half unless the DM really lingers on it.

Seems pretty clear to me. If it were a non-PFS game I'd probably have given an opportunity for a disable device or related check to be able to do it (Or at least a base int check). But as I understand it a Knowledge check cannot be higher than a 10 unless you are trained, which essentially makes it impossible unless you have someone with the correct knowledge.

A Taldan PC can always ask a non-Taldan to make a roll, though. They needn't tell them the actual reason for the request, and asking for outside-faction assistance has led to some great roleplaying in my experience.

They could... if someone else had the knowledge. Otherwise just seems like they're out of luck.

It's actually how our Osirions succeeded on their statue mission. They asked the Taldan rogue.

Oh sure, we ask for (and give) outside-faction assistance all the time in our group. But out of 6 PCs, no one had that particular skill. In fact, I'm 99% certain that including the session GM's society characters and everyone's back-up PCs, for a total of 11 PCs, there still wouldn't be anyone who could have tried the skill check. I'm sure if someone HAD invested in the skill, it would have been a "heck yeah, finally!" moment.

Oh sure, we ask for (and give) outside-faction assistance all the time in our group. But out of 6 PCs, no one had that particular skill. In fact, I'm 99% certain that including the session GM's society characters and everyone's back-up PCs, for a total of 11 PCs, there still wouldn't be anyone who could have tried the skill check. I'm sure if someone HAD invested in the skill, it would have been a "heck yeah, finally!" moment.

Of course I do not speak for Paizo or Josh.

Oh sure, we ask for (and give) outside-faction assistance all the time in our group. But out of 6 PCs, no one had that particular skill. In fact, I'm 99% certain that including the session GM's society characters and everyone's back-up PCs, for a total of 11 PCs, there still wouldn't be anyone who could have tried the skill check. I'm sure if someone HAD invested in the skill, it would have been a "heck yeah, finally!" moment.

Starting with season 1, each faction has one rather simple assignment and one difficult assignment. The assumption for PA progression is that no one is going to get 2 PA every single time they play a scenario.

I have positives, negatives and suggestion(s) for thought about this scenario. I'm a fan of constructive criticism as opposed to complaints. Please take these comments as constructive.

I hope the feedback was helpful for future scenarios. Or, perhaps, DMs who run it as a private game could take advantage of my notes.

Good mod, Craig. I wish my table could have experienced it cover to cover.

Starting with season 1, each faction has one rather simple assignment and one difficult assignment. The assumption for PA progression is that no one is going to get 2 PA every single time they play a scenario.

Playing off your feedback, Rene, what happens when your party breezes through the scenario using diplomacy (which not everyone does) and then the GM sends them on non-written side missions to extend play and a player dies (and let's say can't afford to be rezzed) during a non-written side mission?

I have positives, negatives and suggestion(s) for thought about this scenario. I'm a fan of constructive criticism as opposed to complaints. Please take these comments as constructive.

** spoiler omitted **...

Also if I remember correctly the last encounter required two successful rolls? Although I just might be remembering the dual 30s that my party rolled for this encounter...

Playing off your feedback, Rene, what happens when your party breezes through the scenario using diplomacy (which not everyone does) and then the GM sends them on non-written side missions to extend play and a player dies (and let's say can't afford to be rezzed) during a non-written side mission?

Rene

I agree with you to a point, but I don't feel it's fair to assume that every author can know every possible way a scenario can be played, especially when once considers the always intangible and varied GM play styles. Even in a game where a full diplomacy group blows through a scenario, I'd ask some of the same questions that were asked above: did the GM do the diplomacy amidst roleplay or were there skill check dice rolls and nothing else? In the case of the archers, did all of the archers just relent or did one relent to diplomacy and the rest wonder what their buddy was doing and attack anyway? There are so many different ways to solve a scenario that I'm not sure the low word-count of a $4 product could cover them.

I appreciate the notion of expecting 4 hours of play and getting 1.5--that sucks. In an OP environment, though, I think you just have to know that sometimes your scenario will be short, sometimes it will run long and unfinished, and sometimes it'll be spot on. There are too many "outside the scenario" metrics to measure here to be sure we'll get it right every time.

I agree with you to a point, but I don't feel it's fair to assume that every author can know every possible way a scenario can be played, especially when once considers the always intangible and varied GM play styles. Even in a game where a full diplomacy group blows through a scenario, I'd ask some of the same questions that were asked above: did the GM do the diplomacy amidst roleplay or were there skill check dice rolls and nothing else? In the case of the archers, did all of the archers just relent or did one relent to diplomacy and the rest wonder what their buddy was doing and attack anyway? There are so many different ways to solve a scenario that I'm not sure the low word-count of a $4 product could cover them.

I appreciate the notion of expecting 4 hours of play and getting 1.5--that sucks. In an OP environment, though, I think you just have to know that sometimes your scenario will be short, sometimes it will run long and unfinished, and sometimes it'll be spot on. There are too many "outside the scenario" metrics to measure here to be sure we'll get it right every time.

In our game specifically we roleplayed a little bit. We had a table of six with four of the PCs having zero diplomacy skills, and that's apart from character concepts whose first option wouldn't be to talk it out. One player had a good charisma modifier and the last PC was built for diplomacy. As it turned out he did 99% of the talking. He and the DM roleplayed the archer encounter for a couple minutes. Only one archer spoke, no one attacked. The DM asked for a diplomacy roll. He made the DC and all archers relented. The guard then called main NPC to the gate. He roleplayed that for a couple minutes. Another diplomacy roll was asked, he made it again. We were allowed to enter. Scenario over. The last 15 or so minutes was spent to accomplish missions which I commented on earlier.

I can support that sort of scenario resolution so long as the rest of the players were supportive of talking their way through it. Many players are chomping on the bit to roll some dice and beat down their opponents. If they don't get this outlet in PFS, they might look somewhere else for it. However, I think Rene is a veteran GM and knows what he's doing. My comments aren't intended for him so much as for other GMs who might take this example and run with it.
"Yeah, you heard me right, I'm gonna diplomacize the hellwasp swarm. I do speak infernal you know..."
Occasionally role-playing out a scenario can be a nice change of pace, but most players are looking for the visceral hack-n-slash experience. I'm inclined to do more role-play with my players when they have a poorly balanced table or characters that are not optimized. But if there’s a single player who’s a Type A personality and needs to be the center of attention at the table, it’s tricky for the GM to satisfy everyone. I GMed a Core Special once where a high diplomacy bard talked his way past nearly every encounter. He was very clever and not just rolling a skill check. But the other players felt bored and useless (but reluctant to ruin what was going to be a bloodless victory).

I guess the other problem with using diplomacy in PFS is the scenarios are written with the expectation that the players kill everything and loot it. Without killing the bandits and taking their stuff, how will the PCs ever get any gold out of the scenario, let alone hit the cap? I’ve run into this same problem in other scenarios, like #24 for instance, where the PCs can actually avoid some fights by being smart. When they realized they were going to come way short on the gold end, suddenly they changed their minds and instigated a fight to get some loot. As a GM I suppose you can decide there was a reward paid by the Thakur for resolving the bandit problem that would replace the amount of loot they came up short on. You might not want to advertise that until Josh has plugged his ears and started his “La-la-la-la-la” litany though :)

Our group just finished going thru Assault on the Kingdom of the Impossible. Pretty darn good overall.

We did encounter a hiccup on the Osirion Mission.

So while I thought I had completed both missions successfully, I had only completed one.
The wording in the mission statement did not (in my case) give sufficient direction for the implied result.

Our group did discuss this result briefly (ie to award 1 or 2 prestige points for the Osirion Faction) due to time constraints we didn't come to a conclusion.

Having typed this up though, I think I will chalk this up to a lesson learned and make sure I read the missions for stated and implied tasks in the future. I'll let our GM know so he can process the paperwork.

P.17 at the top says that

P.17 at the top says that ** spoiler omitted **
But I can't see where it actually says that they do and how much it should be for.

Page 9, second column, first paragraph, +10 to stealth check

Preston Poulter wrote:

P.17 at the top says that ** spoiler omitted **
But I can't see where it actually says that they do and how much it should be for.

? Page 17 is the success conditions for Faction missions

Page 9, second column, first paragraph, +10 to stealth check

I guess depending on how the group approaches the scenario, it could be called "Negotiations in the Kingdom of the Impossible" but I chose to focus a little on the word "assault", which worked well for the group of blood thirsty Pathfinders that ran through the adventure. Between the twisted gnome sorcerer from Cheliax and the oddly aggresive druid from Andoran, they met every challenge with force. The adventure took almost 3.5 hours and was quite enjoyable.

What are the odds that any given Taldor PC will have either Knowledge(engineering), Perform (dance) or ranks in Craft to be able to make any of the skill checks needed for this mod? It seems like these missions were specifically Bard-related.

Also, for the Disable Device check for the Osirions, since there isn't any written penalty for failure, could the party Rogues keep trying until they get it? I house-ruled it that the two party rogues could only roll once, since it was supposed to be the difficult faction mission.

As far as the Taldor Missions are concerned
Perform and Craft can be used untrained, and the mission can be completed by acquiring the services of an expert.

The Taldor PCs in the party I ran completed the statue mission by taking the entire statue. I ran the scenario at tier 1-2 where taking the statue is much more of an option than in tier 4-5.

The Qadiran negotiation ended up being the most entertaining as the PC talked the price down of the item down to 80 gold before realized he did not have 80 gold. After an attempt to barter weapons from earlier in the module increased the cost to 100 gold, the Qadiran agreed to a short-term loan with a Chelaxian PC for a future favor.