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 Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Society Scenario #3-22: The Rats of Round Mountain—Part II: Pagoda of the Rat (PFRPG) PDF

***( )( ) (based on 10 ratings)

Our Price: $3.99

Add to Cart
Facebook Twitter Email

A Pathfinder Society Scenario designed for Levels 7–11.

In the hollow center of Round Mountain, the Pathfinder Society's crack team of special agents must navigate the so-called Pagoda of the Rat, where the influential ratfolk of the region hold court. Can they break up negotiations between the ratfolk and the sinister Aspis Consortium, or will the risks taken to reach this point have been in vain? The future of the Pathfinder Society's viability in the region lies in the PCs' hands.

"Pagoda of the Rat" is the second and final scenario in the two-part The Rats of Round Mountain campaign arc. The story begins in Pathfinder Society Scenario #3–20: The Rats of Round Mountain—Part I: The Sundered Path. Both chapters are intended to be played in order and consecutively; PCs who do will receive a special reward at the arc's conclusion.

Written by Russ Taylor.

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

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


See Also:

Product Reviews (10)
1 to 5 of 10 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Average product rating:

***( )( ) (based on 10 ratings)

Sign in to create or edit a product review.

****( )

*( )( )( )( )

Played this at high tier.

After the first part this was rather disappointing. It is basically a slew of all too easy encounters that led to an overpowered final villain.

I expected a bit more from it.

Good Scenario

****( )

This scenario has a very sand boxy feel, with you investigating what exactly is going on and who you have to deal with to secure the mission objectives. The combats are good, although the final one has some minor issues in how you initiate/ how you reach the area. These issues are the main reason I detract 1 star.

I may be biased as I played this with my wild speech druid who is forever in tiger form. In "Rats of Round Mountain" how could this be anything but awesome? I will say that part 1 is better though.

Why bother

*( )( )( )( )

Finally got to play this module, at high tier. The second encounter does not feel like it's appropriately balanced. We had a group of experienced players and a good mix of skills/classes but were shown all corners of the room. I cannot judge the lower tier gameplay, but at higher tier it would save time by just letting all players spend PA/cash for a resurrection, fill in the chronicle and not waste hours.

Worst Module Ever

*( )( )( )( )

It takes a lot to qualify for the title of Worst Module ever, but since I have been playing organized play scenarios since the early days of Living City, I feel qualified in making that assessment.

1. Yet another trite module with monsters which can see in the dark and casting darkness. It was new and challenging once, but after a half dozen occurrences, the editors should be sending these encounters to be rewritten. It's so bad that my barbarian/oracle of battle/rage prophet has used a 3rd level spell slot for Daylight.

2. This is the first organized play scenario where I got absolutely no XP going back 20 over years to living city days. Why? Because we spent four hours on the second encounter (see #1). This is utterly assinine. We only saw two encounters out of the whole module. That's certainly a waste of player, author and editor time.

3. People play PFS to have fun. Beating your head against the table for hours due to a poorly designed encounter is not fun. To make matters worse, we were forced to play up due to the arbitrary PFS rules.

4. We had two PCs die (not mine) and the judge ruled that they were consumed by the rakshasa several levels above and were unrecoverable. If we'd waited a day, maybe, but not a 10 minute withdrawl to heal and buff up before returning.

I haven't read the module and I suspect that I would have enjoyed it far more with another judge, but due to the PFS rules I can not play it again even though I have only seen a fraction of the module. The Pathfinder Society needs to come up with a method of rating judges, because a poor judge makes a good module bad and a bad module worse.

1 to 5 of 10 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >> Gift Certificates
On Sale and Clearance!

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.