Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game


Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

3-13 Quest for Perfection: Defenders of Nesting Swallow *Spoilers*

Pathfinder Society GM Discussion

Grand Lodge

So last night I gave this scenario to some GMs to lead. Having only skimmed this scenario and having gotten to play it, let me give you a piece of advice:


It can be incredibly tempting, especially for new GMs, to see baddies losing, and just decide to skip to the next wave of baddies and not give the players time to rest.

Our group had the added fun of no DPR charcter (except a Rogue I guess), and so we had to just slog through enemies painfully. We ended up coup-de-graceing the Owlbear while trying to fend off the final boss at the same time. And despite getting 16 Defense Points we still fought more enemies than we should have...

Overall, just be careful with this scenario, and understand that the point of Wave Encounters is more for the thematic elements it creates, rather than trying to overwhelm the party with the final boss plus the midboss plus random enemies from the last three encounters all still attacking.

In the end the GM just called the scenario for us when it was just the final boss and 2 henchmen (he should have had none, but whatever), and none of us had gone to even half our HP, but we had to basically spend about 10 rounds to kill the boss with no real damage output.

I blame this on the poor structuring of the scenario, which doesn't make it clear enough to GMs that mushing all the encounters together is a bad idea.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

It's clearly spelled out in the scenario at which round each wave is supposed to arrive on the scene. I've run it twice, and determining timing was never an issue. If the GM chose not to follow the guideline in the scenario, it's not the scenario's fault.

That said, if you are taking a long time to take care of one wave, yes you may start to get overrun, as the waves do not "wait" for you to finish off the previous wave and reset. So, the GM in your case may have actually followed the scenario's guidelines, and you were just killing the waves slower than that.

However, it's impossible to tell from the sidelines here with the description given which situation is actually the case.

Dark Archive ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
zean wrote:
I blame this on the poor structuring of the scenario, which doesn't make it clear enough to GMs that mushing all the encounters together is a bad idea.

So let me get this straight. Your GM ran this cold, and sent several encounters worth of enemies at a party at the same time, despite the scenario explicitly giving timing in rounds between each wave; despite this, you think it's the scenario's fault you guys had a bad time?

The scenario shouldn't have to make it clear that changing the encounters is a bad idea. Changing the encounters is always a bad idea.

Grand Lodge

What I'm saying is that it's an easy mistake to make. While it is true the scenario says there is time to rest between the 3 first waves, then the Owlbear, then the final boss, it's easy, due to the structuring of the scenario, for a GM to see that the players are near the tail-end of one encounter, and start the next one, especially if the players have taken no damage.

I'm just trying to point out that yes, sometimes you gotta be more explicit in saying that the timing is important. It's an easy mistake to make given the scenario's structure (I mean, why WOULDN'T the army just send all its bad guys at once to take down the town?), and I think that there could have been a nice little box that points out how much stupidly harder it gets when fighting an Owlbear and Level 7 Cavalier and 4 Rogues all at the same time.

Dark Archive ****

This is under the Creature's section. It tells you exactly what the party is facing.

Wave 1: Five tengu bandits charge the barricade. Their orders are to simply attack and attempt to overwhelm the defenders. This is a feint by Kwankhonu to test the opposition; he expects this first assault to fail. This group begins on round 1 and reaches the barricade by round 3.
Wave 2: Appearing on round 6 and reaching the barricade on round 8, this group consists of another four bandits, plus two lieutenants, called speakers of murder, trained in directing troops in combat.
Wave 3: The third wave begins on round 11 and arrives at the PCs’ position on round 13. This group is composed of four tengu bandits.

After this is mention of deducting enemies based on Defence Points.

I don't know how this could be more explicit. Your GM made a mistake. It's not the end of the world, but it certainly is not the scenario's fault that your GM didn't read the part that says the timing of the waves explicitly.

Grand Lodge

I'm not talking about the first 3 waves (those were meh), I'm talking about sending the Owlbear and Cavalier final boss while those waves are still going.

Dark Archive ****

Development: Once the final wave has been killed or has fled, give the PCs a few rounds to heal or recast any protective spells that have waned. From their position, they can see the situation is similar in the rest of the village; both of the other barricades are in even worse shape than the one the PCs held, and some of the villagers lie dead at their posts, but all the other tengus have been likewise repelled. If the PCs are in exceptionally bad shape, allow them more time to recover, possibly even postponing the next encounter till the morning if they need to fully rest. On the other hand, if they’re in good shape and inclined to immediately leave their position to reinforce the other villagers or any equivalent action, proceed directly to the next encounter.

Once again, it is not the scenario's fault that your GM didn't read the scenario.

Shadow Lodge **

This discussion should be in this thread.


It's not the scenarios fault that the GM didn't run it properly.

Considering you had no DPS, took "no damage", and still finished it, I'm sure there's lots of things your GM missed. Like half of the abilities on each NPC. And that still isn't the scenarios fault.


This one is hard to judge as a DM. Run the wave too close and it can kill the party and too far apart, or with too many players, and it is no fun at all.

My group had a hard time with wave 2, but had no trouble with the later waves.

There are also contradictions in the mod, as it tells you when the waves come in objective time, and also says to give the players several rounds to recover....which is more time than normal groups will take to dispatch the waves.

Grand Lodge *

Played this scenerio the one thing that kept running through my head during the training phase was "I'll Make a Man Out of You" from Mulan

Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder Society® / Pathfinder Society GM Discussion / 3-13 Quest for Perfection: Defenders of Nesting Swallow *Spoilers* All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©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.