|
So if my lingo seems cryptic, it's because I'm trying to avoid spoilers. With all the buzz surrounding GenCon, I don't think a simple spoiler tag will suffice.
On page 5, last sentence of the page: "Make certain the group decides on one course of action before proceeding."
Why the group? It seems to me that one course of action for the whole group needlessly penalizes the group (frex: the bard with ranks in Disguise is going to be pissed if he's forced to use Stealth). Wouldn't it make more sense for each character to choose their own method?* Success or failure still affects the group normally, but they're more likely to succeed if they get to play to their strengths.
The only answer I can think of is that the scenario *wants* the group (or rather, individuals in the group) to accrue failures at the start of each Act, otherwise the uh... failure total might never reach the trigger point.
Thoughts?
|
|
I have one question on making sure I do something right, and pointing out one flaw:
Page 7. Does each person make the appropriate check depending on which undercover option? So if there is a 6 PC party and 4 miss they get 4 awareness points?
3B Lura Ichon uses her SLA to summon monsters for the onlookers. The description lists a fight in the tank while Lura Ichon has her Eidolon out. Since you cannot do both at the same time, won't this make this combat pretty easy since technically her Eidolon won't be out(also a summoner cannot have two summons with their SLA either)?
|
I would suggest that GMs familiarize themselves with the whole awareness point system as well as they can. I GMed the follow-up adventure and it was frustrating to have players say "the GM didn't know what they were so I didn't get any", especially since the difficulty of Azlant Ridge is entirely dependent on how players do in Part 1. I even had one friend of mine playing Bloodcove Disguise have their GM give them an awareness total of "negative five". It's unfair to have players do a good job in Part 1 only to have the GM for part 2 say, "I have to randomly roll your awareness point total because you don't have one" and then have all their difficulties increased.
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can offer you some author-perspective advice for Bloodcove Disguise, though I'm not a developer and anything Josh says will trump my advice.
Tom's question:
Tangible Question #1
Tangible Question #2
|
|
I would suggest that GMs familiarize themselves with the whole awareness point system as well as they can. I GMed the follow-up adventure and it was frustrating to have players say "the GM didn't know what they were so I didn't get any", especially since the difficulty of Azlant Ridge is entirely dependent on how players do in Part 1.
Some comments on the table I ran:
I was also wondering about the captured part. I cut them a break I guess since I had them sneak out alive but with no xp and minimal gold.
Mike
|
|
Qstor, you can find the answer to this one in the Guide to OP (it's remained unchanged since version 1 I believe). It's under the "Death" section:
In any scenario, so long as a PC played three of the encounters before dying and is brought back to life, he is awarded XP for that scenario. PCs who do not return to the realm of the living are awarded no XP for the scenario in which they died. Finally, note that a 1st-level PC can be returned to life in Pathfinder Society.
So a group fleeing the final encounter would not gain the treasure from the final encounter, but would receive full XP for the adventure.
Mike,
So long as they completed three encounters, they get the XP. This group actually talked to me on Sunday morning and I adjusted their sheets back to 1 XP. If you "fail" the scenario, but complete the three encounters, you get the XP, but of course lose out on gold and likely on PA.
|
Contributor
|
Most of the stat-related problems with encounter 4B stem from the fact that the adventure was written well before the Summoner class was finalized (though, if you check the Bestiary, many two-armed creatures are capable of two slam attacks per round, so it's not unfounded, and Bellu's damage, attack bonus, hit points, and AC are roughly balanced for her CR, even with the two attacks).
As for the eidolon resembling the summoner, Bellu is far from an exact copy of Lura; she's inhumanly tall, graceful, and fit and it should be readily obvious that she is not human; She's more like a caricature of Lura than a copy. If your GM is requiring any kind of skill check to tell the two apart, they're being a jerk.
|
It was pretty obvious that this was a summoner/eidolon combo (what with the glowing runes and all), it was the two slams for 2d6+10 each that was giving us a hard time. Nearly a TPK, and if I weren't running my healing-specialized cleric, more than on PC would have died. The party ranger lost his animal companion outright, and 3 party members went deep negative as it was.
|
It was pretty obvious that this was a summoner/eidolon combo (what with the glowing runes and all), it was the two slams for 2d6+10 each that was giving us a hard time. Nearly a TPK, and if I weren't running my healing-specialized cleric, more than on PC would have died. The party ranger lost his animal companion outright, and 3 party members went deep negative as it was.
Yup I remember that Fight very well, I went up first round while they where still flat footed got my sneak attack off then when the eidolon went he slammed me and knocked me to 0 first hit. I looked up dumb founded, surprised as hell because I was playing down a sub-tier for this Scenario!
|
The issue is not "telling them apart." The issue is that the nature of an Eidolon is (post-playtest) always readily apparent. The module doesn't play it this way, allowing the GM to imply it's a spellcaster-warrior fight rather than one against a Summoner and Eidolon (which seriously changes the tactics used.)
Box text aside; if she is a summoner and it is an Eidolon, they can always be seen as something different than just a spell caster/warrior combo. This same exact phrase is present in the playtest as well.
The eidolon also bears a glowing rune that is identical to a rune that appears on the summoner's forehead as long as the eidolon is summoned.
If the GM is running a Summoner/Eidolon pair without reading the class, regardless of how it's presented, there is a whole other issue that has arisen. If the GM is presenting this, module or not, for something it isn't and not even allowing checks for individuals to realize the pair is off...that's an issue of the GM, not the module writing.
As for the balance of the encounter, that's a whole other question.
Criticisms of the "plausibility" of this scenario aside, the boxed text for that encounter states quite clearly:
"Near the central tank stands a well-dressed and wellrounded
woman with raven hair. Towering over her, at seven
feet tall, stands her idealized, amazonian reflection. Both
women bear a curious glowing rune on their foreheads."
I would allow anyone a Knowledge (arcana) check at that point to know that they are a summoner/eidolon combo. The language for the GM in that encounter about her eidolon being her "doppleganger" or "reflection" is probably pouring on the prose a bit thick and I'd make sure, as a GM, to note that while they look similar, it's clear that one is simply a taller, much more perfect version of the other and that they are clearly two distinctly different entities (and then I'll toss in a Knowledge [arcana] roll).
As for the eidolons stats, I'll go over them again (I was developing in a sea of summer convention stuff) and see if she can't be altered, especially at the low tier, to not be so deadly.
|
|
This one single encounter has produced more comments (at least at GenCon this year) about how unbalanced and overpowered the Summoner class is. And that's from people on both sides of the DM's screen. I'm kinda glad to hear that it was in error.
Yikes! Our party made the Arcana checks to identify the Summoner and know how their power works, thus we knew that taking out Lura unsummoned the Eidolon by the final APG rules (the GM did not know this, so we showed him). This made the fight much easier, as our Barbarian beat them both on initiative, so they couldn't do much but Magic Fang the Eidolon while we made our way through the crowd. Two slams with two arms sounds brutal!
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
On behalf of my GM, I have a question concerning awarding Prestige Awards for a certain Taldor Faction Mission.
Anyways, so I see the corporate espionage mission, and my character sees a perfect opportunity to get back at Jacquo. He approaches the merchant company and tells them straight out that agents of Taldor asked him to steal shipping documents. Then, he proposes that the company give him fake documents to bring back to Jacquo, so that the next time the two meet at the negotiation table, the merchant company has the advantage. The company agrees, and writes up the documentation for my character.
The problem is pretty obvious: did my character succeed in the mission? Technically speaking, my character did what was asked of him: he brought back shipping documents for Taldor to use in negotiations. However, the documents are false, so Taldor does not get any benefits from the mission.
Now, personally, I don't even mind if I don't get Prestige Awards from the mission: I did what I did, fully aware that I might not be awarded for it, and our table thouroughly enjoyed the description of my actions. My GM asked me to post this, though, to get a second opinion on the situation.
|
Contributor
|
I have a more setting-based question about this scenario. While doing some prep work, I looked up other sources of information about Bloodcove. Since the site features pretty heavily in "River into Darkness", I took a look at the info there. What I found is that the Bloodcove map from "River into Darkness" is not the same as the one from the scenario.
Does it have much bearing on the scenario if we use the map from "River into Darkness"? In my opinion that description of the place is more interesting. If it is acceptable to use the alternate map, are there any recommendations for where too put the various sites?
|
Awareness and Taking 10-
I have a group playing through this in pbp format so it is ongoing. They chose to disguise themselves as merchants and are maintaining their cover throughout the city based on Diplomacy checks. We have 6 players at Tier 1-2 so the DC is still 12, but number of awareness points to trigger events has increased. There are no players of the Qadiran faction which is the only faction mission that potentially adds awareness points.
After their first encounter (Rulkep's Tonics) they asked about taking 10 on the awareness checks and additionally since they are in an alchemist's shop buying perfume/cologne (PFCS p 213) which will grant +2 Diplomacy competence bonuses for 10 gp. (The dwarf, gnome, and elf would need more expensive perfume which I doubt they will buy.)
If they use perfume and take 10 we have:
Alchemist: 16
Bard: 17+2 = 19
Cleric: 10
Fighter: 11+2 = 13
Sorcerer (Fey): 19
Sorcerer (Elemental): 13+2 = 15
Only the cleric fails and every time they move he will have 5 people potentially aiding him, so it is virtually impossible for them to accumulate any awareness points through movement around the city.
Here's a breakdown of what I'm relatively sure will be their awareness total at the end of the adventure including unavoidable points based on their anticipated actions/outcomes:
Movement: 0
Scevola: 1 pt (getting him to put the caravan back together)
Movement: 0
House Cartahegn: -1 pt (merchant disguise)
Movement: 1 (Before they realized they could take 10)
Rulkep's Tonics: 0
Movement: 0
Sanguine Pit 1 pt (killing Lura)
Movement: 0
Optional Encounter: 0
Xeanja: 0
So- this group is likely to go through the entire scenario with a grand total of 2 awareness points for the entire group.
My questions:
1)Are you allowed to take 10 on the awareness checks? I don't see anything saying no, so I assume the answer is yes.
2)Is that a problem in this case? I have seen that the next adventure's difficulty is linked to their awareness total from part one but I haven't picked up part 2 yet. The same group will be playing part 2 together.
|
|
Are you allowed to take 10...
I would rule no in this case. The reason being that awareness is essentially an opposed situation, even though the opposed "roll" is static. The PC's are trying to hide (think stealth, sleight of hand, etc) their actions vs. others observing them. Without this, a core part of the scenario is lost. Most groups are likely to have at least one "spokeman" with a decent to great diplomacy modifier. What's the fun in ignoring all the risk? Without the challenge, does the reward have much value? This might be a little extreme, but why not allow players to "take 10" on attack roles? The defenders are essentially "taking 10" on their AC. Just my 2cp
|
|
Thanks for the advice. I basically feel the same way. Maintaining a disguise in a city run by your enemies is far from the rote task and skill through practiced ease that taking 10 represents. They are an unusually skilled group, but their rolls are going to reflect that. Taking away the threat entirely really does rob them of part of the adventure.
|
Venture-Captain, Arizona—Tucson
|
When I've run this, I've emphasized the serpent brooches often worn by Aspis agents (previously mentioned in The Third Riddle). The distinctive heraldry has also appeared on cloaks and belt pouches: The more ornate the badge, the higher in rank the wearer. This repeated mention of the serpent design has helped alert the party to their foes' activity.
The Bloodcove Disguise doesn't clearly point out what clues the party gets that their luck is running out and the Aspis Consortium has grown suspicious. I gave my PCs Perception and Sense Motive checks to notice the gradually increasing level of alertness, with more Aspis out on the streets, Aspis Consortium leaders asking questions about "some new group" with garbled descriptions of the party, and so forth.
|
|
How many sets of awareness rolls do you make the party make? In the "official" awareness section it refers to it being once for each "act". Informally elsewhere it says moving from "location to location" and they will do this within acts.
I assume it only refers to the first three acts - so three sets of rolls.
It seems perverse to give them awareness for acts 4 and 5 though that would be technically correct. Does anyone else play this differently?
|
|
This is a little lame of me, but in the mod it map on page 15 says it uses the GameMastery Map Pack: Cities, but the actual product is called GameMastery Map Pack: City
|
|
This is a little lame of me, but in the mod it map on page 15 says it uses the GameMastery Map Pack: Cities, but the actual product is called GameMastery Map Pack: City
Lame.
|
|
This is a little lame of me, but in the mod it map on page 15 says it uses the GameMastery Map Pack: Cities, but the actual product is called GameMastery Map Pack: CityLame.
Called it!
|
|
You know after all the fuss above about the eidolon in this encounter breaking the rules I was expecting to find something egregious when I got around to looking at it. As far as I see there is no rules problem with the build of the eidolon in this encounter and I wanted to put this here for other GMs who will read this in preparation for this scenario.
1) In order to take slam twice, an eidolon does need two sets of limbs. A biped eidolon comes with two sets of limbs for free (arms and legs). There is no problem here.
2) Improved Damage applies to one form of natural attack. If you choose slam it will modify all of the creatures slams, not just one. Likewise if you chose claws, you wouldn't have to buy improved damage 4 times to apply it to all 4 claws of a panther type eidolon. There is no problem here.
Here is a breakdown of the eidolon pool and expenditure by tier. They are all legal.
Tier 1-2: 5 points
Slam (x2) - 2 pts
Resistance - 1 pt
Skilled (x2) - 2 pts
Tier 3-4: 8 points
Slam (x2) - 2 pts
Resistance - 1 pt
Skilled (x2) - 2 pts
Improved Damage - 1 pt
Ability Increase - 2 pts
Tier 6-7: 11 points
Slam (x2) - 2 pts
Resistance (x2) (fire, cold) - 2 pts
Skilled (x2) - 2 pts
Improved Damage - 1 pt
Ability Increase - 2 pts
Energy Attacks - 2 pts
Lura having haste as a third level spell is off though. It should be second level as people mentioned above. When other GMs run this are you ignoring that and leaving it as 3rd level in order to run it as written? If I were to change it to make it correct with the rules, it would be easy to drop blur (the only new spell she gains at 2nd level for this tier) and sub in haste there. The third level slot could be displacement to keep the same idea as blur, albeit improved. I'm assuming that isn't kosher to rearrange even to fix something which is an obvious mistake, but there it is.
Also at Tier 6-7 Bellu knows stoneskin, but has no 250 gp of diamond dust for it. I assume that was intentional to keep GMs from using it during the encounter?
|
|
There is also the possibility that this scenario has been updated with corrections somewhere along the way and any errors complained about above have been corrected within the scenario. I only picked it up around Christmas so don't have an older copy to compare. Seem unlikely that they would have left the haste thing in though if that were the case.
|
|
Regarding the part of the chronicle for if you are captured by the Consortium:
Does this only come into effect if the player is KOed, but not actually killed?
If you give the player this 'boon' instead of the other, is the -1 COn permanent, or can it be fixed by Restoration?
If a character actually dies, and you give them this boon, since theyve effectively been Raised, do they come back with -1 Con from the torturing, and the -2 from the Raise Dead, for a -3 total?
|
|
The torture does not cause your death, only a loss of 1 point of CON. Why would both need to be addressed. If you are killed, then you would not be captures and tortured. Just decide on the availability of the body being recoverable for the raise and done.
If, however, you died prior to torture, were raised (assuming no Restoration), and then captured, the CON loss is from two different sources so they should stack, -3 to CON.
|
|
The torture does not cause your death, only a loss of 1 point of CON. Why would both need to be addressed. If you are killed, then you would not be captures and tortured. Just decide on the availability of the body being recoverable for the raise and done.
If, however, you died prior to torture, were raised (assuming no Restoration), and then captured, the CON loss is from two different sources so they should stack, -3 to CON.
That gets me an answer for my third question, but not the other two.
The first one I figured out on my own. I hadnt finished reading the scenario before asking it, but I've got it now.
Question two was that if the are captured and tortured (or killed, Raised, and tortured) is the -1 Con that they get from that 'boon' a permanent, no way of getting that 1 Con back penalty? Or can they have Restoration cast on them for PA/gold to get it back, like the -2 Con you get from dying and being Raised?
|
|
Permanent is just a game term to distinguish between a temporary ability loss (damage, which comes back with rest), and permanent (drain, does not heal naturally).
Just like death being a "permanent" condition, the character is eligible to pay to have the CON loss restored following all the standard rules in the CRB.
|
|
I played BTD1 all the way back in February, and my character underwent a rather serious problem. (warning, this is long)
The problem is what came next - our DM did what he could to save us from what was likely to become a TPK, and improvised surrender conditions. What was offered was for them to leave and never return, except for me (who had racked up some additional awareness points by making an extra split-party trip). My punishment was going to be torture, Aspis Consortium style, the one listed on the chronicle sheet.
This was pretty bad, but it hadn't occurred to me until just today now that I've had a look at the book that the torture wasn't supposed to happen there at all. The torture only happens in Act 4. There's actually specific defeat conditions if you lose to Luna, which say Senzer's killed for his involvement, and your awareness points shoot through the roof if she's still alive.
The DM did his best to explain to me how he came up with the solution of trying to not to kill off the whole party in the surrender, and the logic is that because of the higher awareness points I had racked up, she knew I was a Pathfinder (but not really the rest of the party) and wasn't happy about my dealings with Senzer, and now didn't want me in Bloodcove - so she was going to hand me over. If she can take one of the PCs into slavery, she gets money for that and can scare off the Pathfinders.
This doesn't really make sense to me when you take into account the scenario's as-written defeat conditions, which are quite specific about what happens should you lose in the pit. If it wasn't quite as harsh a penalty, I probably wouldn't care, but 1 permanent point of con loss is a huge deal for something that wasn't meant to happen at that point of the scenario at all.
To summarise, with a few extras:
- the extra split-party trip involved talking to Senzer again to get some additional information we forgot to get the first time; we didn't all need to go see him, so only I went, and probably failed some secret rolls, hence extra awareness points
- defeat conditions for the encounter were specific in the book (and are pretty light, on the whole - it leads into Act 4)
- defeat conditions were changed to prevent a TPK, based on the character's awareness level
- the grease spell which started the downward spiral of the encounter required a secret perception check to notice (which was rolled, and failed); the way grease was used was contrary to the tactics listed: it was cast on the exit at the docks while she was invisible, and from there it became a bad string of hitting while I was prone and unable to get back up due to taking too much damage from AoO's
- the DM assumed that this would be a TPK (on refusing surrender), death to the character which didn't feel particularly fair based on what happened in combat and how the other party members didn't co-operate according to the plan, and the lesser evil would be 1 permanent point of con drain.
- it's been mentioned before that this is a good hook into Devil We Know, and that given her character, handing over the character is probably something she'd do - but the changed defeat condition and the incredibly significant 'negative-boon' is a huge sting for something that wasn't intended in the first place.
- most importantly - I think the DM actually did a decent job of trying to save us from a TPK, and by having my character take the tortured option instead seemed like a reasonable deal - as long as that was what in the scenario. But given all of the above, I feel like my already not-optimised character has been cheated here.
Can I get a second opinion - was all of this legit? I'm happy to provide more information about it if there's still any questions.
|
|
I played BTD1 all the way back in February, and my character underwent a rather serious problem. (warning, this is long)
** spoiler omitted **...
Although what your GM did was incorrect (the group gains awareness, not individuals), your GM also told you that gaining 4 awareness was enough to have all trade in Bloodcove shut down, the mission failed, and the Act 4 thugs arrive. I would say the Aspis Consortium would actually show up at the bar (GMs discretion but since Luna is a AC Captain, I think she would also be aware at that point), so I don't think your party would be able to beat both Luna and the thugs in Act 4.
Everyone in the party would be captured and tortured, so imo your GM was probably saving the entire party from failing, being tortured (losing 1 Con), and sent back to Absalom. I think this was actually a case of a GM being nice (although it probably doesn't feel that way to you). Personally, I would have torched you all. :)
Imo, I would just pay the 4 PA to get the Con penalty removed (Restoration spell), and move on. You were going to get the "Tortured by the Consortium" condition whether it happenned as an individual or as a group. The only thing your GM did wrong was being too nice to the rest of the party.