Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Adventure Card Game Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Pathfinder Adventures Pathfinder Campaign Setting Pathfinder Player Companion Pathfinder Accessories Pathfinder Miniatures Pathfinder Fiction Pathfinder® Society™ Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Compatible Products Pathfinder Apparel & Gifts Pathfinder Licensed Products
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Pathfinder Society Scenario #3-19: The Icebound Outpost (PFRPG) PDF

***( )( ) (based on 16 ratings)

Our Price: $3.99

Add to Cart
Facebook Twitter Email

A Pathfinder Society Scenario designed for levels 1–5.

The Pathfinder Society discovers an Aspis Consortium base in an ancient Vudran temple now encased in a glacier and sends the PCs to infiltrate it and investigate the extent of the rival organization's regional operations. Can the PCs get in the well-guarded Aspis outpost and escape with their lives and the information the Society seeks?

Written by Jeff Erwin.

This scenario is designed for play in Pathfinder Society Organized Play, but can easily be adapted for use with any world. This scenario is compliant with the Open Game License (OGL) and is suitable for use with the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game.

Product Availability


Fulfilled immediately. Will be added to your My Downloads Page immediately upon purchase of PDF.

Are there errors or omissions in this product information? Got corrections? Let us know at webmaster@paizo.com.

PZOPSS0319E


See Also:

Product Reviews (16)
1 to 5 of 16 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Average product rating:

***( )( ) (based on 16 ratings)

Sign in to create or edit a product review.

Why did we want this tapestry again?

*( )( )( )( )

Boring dungeon crawl. Yet another scenario in which your goal is to rout out Aspis agents in the Hao Jin Tapestry. If it was so easy to get into, why did we even need the tapestry? No RP. Combat is ridiculously easy. There's no really good reason for enemies to stand in their assigned area rather than swarming the party the minute combat breaks out. Expect it to run about 2 hours.


Fast, fun and easy to run

****( )

Our society group ran three tables of this scenario. Very little preparation time. The combat was well balanced for all three tables, with a few close calls along the way.

With only five areas to explore in the outpost, the scenario is overtly simplified and centered mostly around combat. We started late and finished early.

Perfect for a new GM to Pathfinder to run, as the scenario is not complicated in game mechanics. More experienced GMs will feel the adventure unfinished, could have included more areas to explore and expanded upon the intrigue and mystery of the monkey god temple. Alas, no monkeys or ice creatures to be found.


GM Perspective - Meh

***( )( )

While this is not a horrible scenario, this also isn't a great scenario. It is, quite simply, one long running combat. While the environment is neat and I would love more information, not a lot was given. Yes, the big question of "What are these guys doing here?" arises, but as part of the metastory for this season, and all will be revealed.

If you like combat, you will like this.


Average combat mission.

***( )( )

Pro:
-Great use of archetypes and classes.
-Great cartography.
-Great flavorful adventure locale.

Cons:
-No roleplaying whatsoever.
-Nothing but combat.
-Falls into the same trap as a lot of other Tapestry missions, which is, go into the temple/tomb, kill all Aspis, get out. It gets very samey and shows a lack of imagination with what Pathfinder rules can do.

This is a good, yet brief, adventure for combat obsessed players.


Great For Novices, But Noticeably Light

***( )( )

Ran Tier 1 for five players, four of whom were playing their first or second PFS game, two of whom had played Temple of Empyreal Enlightenment.
This scenario had a lot of what I appreciate in a game for novice players. The action was player-directed, but only after establishing boundaries. The scenario called out that action (specifically noise) in certain rooms influenced the creatures in adjacent rooms. As a GM, I am expected to run the scenario as written, so I appreciated when the scenario makes contentions for that kind of logic.
The encounters were a bit on the easy side, which I appreciated because so many of my players were new and they did not have a dedicated healer in the party, nor an opportunity for the druid to rest and memorize CLW. One of the PCs was unconscious by the end of three of the encounters, and two more were unconscious by the end of the final encounter, so any greater difficulty and these new players might have had a much more disappointing experience. I appreciated that the NPCs were virtually all equipped with potions of CLW, which were basically the only reason the players were able to complete the scenario.
The scenario reads like a series of encounters, but there are enough hooks within those encounters that lead to a lot of roleplaying and deduction. Most of the questions the players had for the captured villains and rescued slaves were accounted for in the scenario.
The faction missions were clear and easily accomplished. Too often I’ve had new players latch onto faction missions as the aspect of PFS that excites them most only to have that excitement squashed when they fail their faction mission not through poor tactics or not paying attention but because the skill checks required were unusual or trained only skills with nearly impossible DCs. I accept that faction mission success should not be a foregone conclusion, but I wish it was easier for new players. This scenario’s faction missions were largely binary and plot adjacent, so the players each got to ask questions that befuddled their party mates and had moments in the spotlight.
My major complaint is that the scenario felt like only the first part of the story. It was a metaplot-heavy scenario that engaged the players, but also left them disappointed that they could not follow-up on the Round Mountain bread crumbs until at least 7th level, which will take them years at the pace my area levels at.
Earlier I brought up the Temple of Empyreal Enlightenment. Both players that had played in that scenario brought up how similar the two scenarios are in setup and somewhat in delivery. They are both low-level single map, exploration-based Season 3 scenarios within the Hao-Jin Tapestry. They play out very differently, but not without a fair bit of “been there, done that” feeling.
Overall, the players had fun, I had fun. Everyone wanted more, but in a good and bad way. This is a great model for how to balance and outline scenarios for novice players, but it could have some variety to conclude the adventure.


1 to 5 of 16 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Honor the Hold!,

Armored,

Wrapping Up the Mummy's Mask,

Year of the Sky Key Q&A,

Pathfinder Battles Preview: Iconics Rise Again!,


©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.