Is there a written requirement to spread out the damage? Obviously not.
Yes, some of us are angry and upset by the outcome of our adventure.
Arguing amongst ourselves and insulting each other isn't going to fix this adventure.
This adventure still needs a "Bone Keep" style disclaimer about how dangerous and deadly it is. Players 9th level and below will die.
The paragraph of box text just before the first encounter is misleading and should be rewritten.
Start with those minor issues first.
Andrew, the writer was most certainly malicious in his intent. -2 for being good aligned. -2 for being an elemental. -2 for being a caster. How was that not malicious? And time is a factor. A Save that targets an arcane pc's weakest SAVE. Skill checks to make with 4 or 5 negative levels. Show me the not malicious intent toward mage/sorcerer/bards.
In The paragraph of box text just before the first encounter, the players are told to "disable the device" and that one of the Sages would help them. This seems deliberately misleading, as "disable the device " means send in the rogue, not make a dc 30ish knowledge arcana or religion.
1) No more Grand Master Torch.
3) A Wanted Poster.
4) No more technology.
I played PORT GODLESS at MegaCon, and I had a great time. Our group was well balanced, and our judge allowed for some planning and improvisation. It was the fun I had at this table that encouraged me to continue playing Pathfinder, especially after the utter crapfest that was the first part of EYES OF THE TEN.
Golarion is a fantasy world in which there are nations where slavery is legal. It would be assumed that these nations have slave markets. If a PFS character, say a native of Cheliax, would want to buy a slave, and bring said slave with them on adventures, how would I mark said expenditure on said player's chronicle?
On the reverse side, if an Andoran character with the caravan vanity wishes to purchase slaves in Cheliax with the purpose of repatriation to a hopefully better existence, the same problem arises.
This is strictly for role-playing flavor.
During the "Rise of the Runelord" series for PFS, there are several brands and an ioun stone that the PCs can acquire that give in game benefits, all for the cost of performing an evil act and taking on a taint of evil. Several PCs have taken these items, paid a paltry 2 prestige points for an atonement for performing a "blatantly EVIL act", and are enjoying extra feats or benefits to their saves with no other in game penalty.
I feel that the PCs shoulf suffer from willfully performing their evil acts. PCs should just feel "off" and suffer a -5 penalty to Charisma based checks, or be denied temple services until the big 8 prestige atonement is paid. PCs should take damage from positive energy.
There are no role-playing penalties for performing these evil acts. PCs deserve more than just an "evil aura".
I have both run and played this adventure, and I have a question about 1 of the items in the chronicle.
The Ocher Rhomboid Ioun Stone. It is an evil cursed item that gives you a free feat. Activating this item is an evil act that shifts your alignment 1 step toward evil, unless you receive an atonement spell. The item is cursed and cannot be removed without a remove curse spell.
Some players are interpreting this as free feat, atonement,spell for 2 Prestige, and all is forgiven. Stick the thing in your wayfinder and forget about it.
I feel that the use of this item is evil. Your character suffers from doing a blatantly evil act. Free feat, alignment shift. Atonement should remove the feat.
This item need a little clarification.
It is a long & drawn out combo. Weapon focus (sap), dazzling display, shatter defenses, enforcer, bludgeoner, sap master, and sap adept. With a cruel weapon. The player hits the victim, intimidates the victim for free, and sickens the victim with the cruel weapon. The victim is now sufferring from -4 to most everything.
The player also has a sipping jacket into which he likes to feed potions of invisibility.
The player also believes that being sickened negates uncanny dodge.
If ANYONE can link in an OFFICIAL RULING on these subjects, it would be greatly appreciated.
Getting back to the original post, in 1e and 2e, the sapper had to hit their victim on their unprotected head. If the victim was wearing a helmet, or had a real tough skull, horns, and etc., then the victim couldn't be sapped.
In 3.5, if a creature had a +1 natural armor bonus, the creature would not take non-lethal damage from certain weapons-see whip.
There is a particularly nasty sap mastery combo, especially when used in conjunction with a cruel weapon. If the damage is all non-leathal, how much natural armor would a creature need to avoid taking any kind of damage? Also, would wearing a helmet negate sap damage? That useful helmet would negate sap damage in previous incarnations of this game.