#5-02, The Wardstone Patrol, GM Discussion [Spoilers]

[Netopalis]

So, I have to say that, on my first read-through, I am very excited about this scenario. It seems extremely flavorful and really sets the tone for Season 5.

Unfortunately, I also see a scene set up for complete disaster. Does anybody else feel the same way about C1? The sidebar warns to softball it, but given its wording, I fear that many GMs will find themselves in a bind. Any thoughts?

[Lab_Rat]

There are some situations in which you CAN softball it and other in which you can't. My worry is the situation where everyone saves but a combat oriented player. What can we as GMs do then, other than let it play out and count the bodies?

[Netopalis]

I'm also greatly concerned about the Cheliax faction mission. There is no good reason for Cheliax PCs to do what they are expected to do. Am I alone in thinking that I wouldn't come up with this?

[John Compton]

My feeling is that most groups shouldn't have a problem with this. The required 3 consecutively failed save (granted, not at a low save DC) will keep many from going berserk. Furthermore, the PCs have one round of warning before the enraged victim attacks, after which the effect continues for 1d3 rounds. Grappling, disarming, and running are all respectable options.

It's dominate person lite, if not a rather limited version of confusion.

[John Compton]

Netopalis wrote:

I'm also greatly concerned about the Cheliax faction mission. There is no good reason for Cheliax PCs to do what they are expected to do. Am I alone in thinking that I wouldn't come up with this?

I believe I addressed this in another of your threads, but I'll reprint it.

The faction head letters that should be coming out on Monday will contain additional prompts with regards to faction goals. As these goals evolve, change, or are realized, the faction heads will send updates. It's a little early for me to toss out anything but an estimate, but I imagine we'll see a new letter from a given leader perhaps once every 3 months, meaning a letter will remain valid as an ongoing faction mission of sorts throughout that time.

And yes, faction head letters conclude with an out-of-character recommendation of which upcoming scenarios might be most relevant to a member of a given faction.

This is true for the Cheliax faction as well as for all other factions.

[Red-Assassin]

This looks great, I feel lucky to be running it at GenCon. Good Job Alex!

C1 looks fun!

[Lab_Rat]

Two of the faction missions have the PCs rolling diplomacy and shifting Sir Ilivan's attitude to friendly. What is his attitude at the start?

I also assume that we pull things like his Cha and sense motive from the sub-tier appropriate stats in the last encounter.

[Branding Opportunity]

Lab_Rat wrote:

Two of the faction missions have the PCs rolling diplomacy and shifting Sir Ilivan's attitude to friendly. What is his attitude at the start?

Hmm, that was my oversight. His beginning attitude is listed on pg. 7 in the "Playing Sir Ilivan" section: it's indifferent and resets to indifferent (not matter what the PCs manage to change it to in the meantime) during encounters A1, B1, and C1. This is all spelled out on pg. 7 as well.

Lab_Rat wrote:

I also assume that we pull things like his Cha and sense motive from the sub-tier appropriate stats in the last encounter.

His Cha is the same at either sub-tier: 10. The DCs listed on pg. 7 are for achieving "Empathy Points", which is a separate mechanic.

[Tony Lindman]

John Compton wrote:

The faction head letters that should be coming out on Monday will contain additional prompts with regards to faction goals. As these goals evolve, change, or are realized, the faction heads will send updates. It's a little early for me to toss out anything but an estimate, but I imagine we'll see a new letter from a given leader perhaps once every 3 months, meaning a letter will remain valid as an ongoing faction mission of sorts throughout that time.

And yes, faction head letters conclude with an out-of-character recommendation of which upcoming scenarios might be most relevant to a member of a given faction.

I figured I would print a copy of the letters to keep with the scenarios that correspond to them, and give them out for those who haven't read them (and for later down the line, when they will have forgotten them, or had new ones come up with different instructions).

[Tony Lindman]

On the note about the reward for the Vermlek encounter:

Quote:

If the PCs fail to defeat or bypass the Vermleks, reduce each PC’s gold earned as follows.

Which of these is the intended reading:

1. The PCs must engage the vermleks and defeat them to get the reward
2. The PCs must either engage and defeat the vermleks, or ignore them to get the reward.

As written it sounds like #2, but #1 makes more sense (why would they get a reward for choosing not to help the peasants?).

[Branding Opportunity]

It's not my wording, so I would wait for John et al. to chime in here to be certain, but I'm guessing you're right, Tony: #1 makes more sense.

[Tony Lindman]

Thanks, Alex. By the way, I really love the whole scenario. Having it be as much about Sir Ilivan's personal story as the patrol itself is a twist I haven't really seen before, and a nice change of pace.

[Branding Opportunity]

Thanks, Tony! I hadn't seen that before either (although PFS has certainly had it's share of memorable NPCs). Hopefully the "Empathy Points" mechanic is not too wonky and makes sense. It turns out it's hard to create a simple mechanic that covers the psychological situation that Sir Ilivan is dealing with in a way that the PCs can have an impact. Hopefully there's enough descriptive text to make him a memorable character.

I just noticed something that caused me to facepalm. I have Sir Ilivan feeding his potion of haste to his horse before combat. Of course, since it it's an "all allies within ..." spell, he can just drink it himself and have it affect both of them. Duh.

[Sulaco]

Clearly this wasn't an error but rather a subtle yet powerful insight into his character. Right? It's not a bug, it's an undocumented feature. ;)

[John Compton]

Tony Lindman wrote:

On the note about the reward for the Vermlek encounter:

Quote:

If the PCs fail to defeat or bypass the Vermleks, reduce each PC’s gold earned as follows.

Which of these is the intended reading:

1. The PCs must engage the vermleks and defeat them to get the reward
2. The PCs must either engage and defeat the vermleks, or ignore them to get the reward.

As written it sounds like #2, but #1 makes more sense (why would they get a reward for choosing not to help the peasants?).

It's #2. Following Sir Ilivan's recommendation helps push the PCs into a direct confrontation with him later, and neither method should be punishment. I imagine few will choose to avoid that fight, but I'm also content to see what comes of it over this weekend.

[Tony Lindman]

John Compton wrote:

Tony Lindman wrote:

On the note about the reward for the Vermlek encounter:

Quote:

If the PCs fail to defeat or bypass the Vermleks, reduce each PC’s gold earned as follows.

Which of these is the intended reading:

1. The PCs must engage the vermleks and defeat them to get the reward
2. The PCs must either engage and defeat the vermleks, or ignore them to get the reward.

As written it sounds like #2, but #1 makes more sense (why would they get a reward for choosing not to help the peasants?).

It's #2. Following Sir Ilivan's recommendation helps push the PCs into a direct confrontation with him later, and neither method should be punishment. I imagine few will choose to avoid that fight, but I'm also content to see what comes of it over this weekend.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm going to run this a couple of times over the next week and will let you know how it goes.

[Tony Lindman]

Another question: Since the demons here entered through the Worldwound instead of being summoned, is it intended for them to use their SLA summons? Especially in the vermlek encounter, I can see the challenge shooting up in a hurry if they roll well on the failure chance.

I can see this being one of the places where the GM can get a feel for the table and choose to use it or not to keep the challenge appropriate, but there is a fine line between RAW and allowed table variation here.

[Tony Lindman]

I just realized that the "Primary mission completed" box is gone from the online reporting tool, replaced by the ABCD. This scenario doesn't have instructions for those, do I just check "A" for mission completed? I would have expected something like "A if they rescue the crusaders, B if the try but fail, C if they don't try".

[Dust Raven]

I have no idea what to do with the ABCD section and will be ignoring it until there is further clarification. At first glance it appears it's for reporting is the primary and secondary missions were completed, but there are four boxes and whether or not the primary or secondary missions are completed can be tracked directly with prestige earned. At this point I'm assuming it's for marking which faction missions are completed, though there is no indication of which is which.

[John Compton]

Our prestige counts should give us a good indication of primary and secondary mission success in the future, but I would be interested in having the mission success checkbox there (didn't know it had disappeared).

The ABCD boxes are for noting whether other conditions happened in the scenario for long-term reporting/data-collecting purposes. #5-02 doesn't have such conditions, but -01 and -03 do. In #5-02, ignore these.

[Sin of Asmodeus]

Im disappointed that clerics of Asmodeus have NO chance of completing the faction mission for Cheliax in this mod.
Overall being blocked from that, ruined the entire mod. Clerics can detect as evil gg no boon for you.

[Netopalis]

A neutral cleric of an evil deity detects as neutral.

[Kyrie Ebonblade]

Netopalis wrote:

A neutral cleric of an evil deity detects as neutral.

Nope..

PRD wrote:

Aura (Ex): A cleric of a chaotic, evil, good, or lawful deity has a particularly powerful aura corresponding to the deity's alignment (see the detect evil spell for details).

I was curious about it as I had a LN ORACLE of Asmodeus in my group running through. He didn't ping.. but since he was a DIABOLIST with an Imp companion.. IT did.

So yeah, he didn't get to go in.

[Krash4031]

So i am a bit of a noob GM, forgive me if this is a stupid question. If player outside the SC, Sczarni, and Cheliax factions still get the respective boons if tjey complete the required prereqs? I assume no, but want to be sure.

[Zach W.]

Krash4031 wrote:

So i am a bit of a noob GM, forgive me if this is a stupid question. If player outside the SC, Sczarni, and Cheliax factions still get the respective boons if tjey complete the required prereqs? I assume no, but want to be sure.

Correct, they do not get it. It seems the new scenarios are providing special boons to various factions who have missions more relevant to the one your on. I really like this mechanic as it helps to tie your characters further into the campaign (plus provides some interesting new things to do).

I do have another question though.

spoiler:

After the whole Illiven charges into the demons at the end, gets mobed, and pulled down, the scenario tells you that you should push the PC's to rescue the crusaders, that hes a goner. Then the very next session its talking about fighting him. How does he get out of that situation? Are the PC's supposed to split up to rescue him AND the crusaders?

[John Compton]

Zach W. wrote:

Krash4031 wrote:

So i am a bit of a noob GM, forgive me if this is a stupid question. If player outside the SC, Sczarni, and Cheliax factions still get the respective boons if tjey complete the required prereqs? I assume no, but want to be sure.

Correct, they do not get it. It seems the new scenarios are providing special boons to various factions who have missions more relevant to the one your on. I really like this mechanic as it helps to tie your characters further into the campaign (plus provides some interesting new things to do).

I do have another question though.

** spoiler omitted **

Zach, the final two encounters are an either/or setup. You only run D1 if the PCs earned enough Empathy Points and D2 only if they did not.

[Netopalis]

I liked this scenario a lot and ran it twice at GenCon. Unfortunately, I had a lot of blowback from my second table of it.

I was running for a group of 7, two of whom were playing extremely abrasive characters. By the end, they had only earned one empathy point, and had seriously insulted Ilivan. They even made fun of the fact that he had killed his comrades while possessed in front of everybody in Fort Portolomaeus. They got really, really angry when they got the bad ending, too. It was quite frustrating, to me. I firmly believe that actions should have consequences in PFS, and if you act like a dick, then you should have to reap what you sow. I love that this scenario does that. Do be prepared for some backlash, though.

The swarm in this scenario seems to be a problem. Both of my tables had serious issues with it.

Also, I am wondering what happens if the party succeeds in getting the empathy point regarding the commoners, decides not to go into the Worldwound, but then earns the empathy point in rageweed. Any thoughts?

[Zach W.]

John Compton wrote:

Zach W. wrote:

Krash4031 wrote:

So i am a bit of a noob GM, forgive me if this is a stupid question. If player outside the SC, Sczarni, and Cheliax factions still get the respective boons if tjey complete the required prereqs? I assume no, but want to be sure.

Correct, they do not get it. It seems the new scenarios are providing special boons to various factions who have missions more relevant to the one your on. I really like this mechanic as it helps to tie your characters further into the campaign (plus provides some interesting new things to do).

I do have another question though.

** spoiler omitted **

Zach, the final two encounters are an either/or setup. You only run D1 if the PCs earned enough Empathy Points and D2 only if they did not.

AHA! thanks a lot for that! I was reading through it and just couldn't figure it out.

[Sulaco]

Netopalis wrote:

Also, I am wondering what happens if the party succeeds in getting the empathy point regarding the commoners, decides not to go into the Worldwound, but then earns the empathy point in rageweed. Any thoughts?

My reading of "If the PCs have gathered fewer than 2 Empathy Points or decided not to rescue the soldiers..." (emphasis mine) that either of those would lead to the "bad" ending. The party needn't have both and the former condition doesn't negate the latter.

[Netopalis]

Sulaco wrote:

Netopalis wrote:

Also, I am wondering what happens if the party succeeds in getting the empathy point regarding the commoners, decides not to go into the Worldwound, but then earns the empathy point in rageweed. Any thoughts?

My reading of "If the PCs have gathered fewer than 2 Empathy Points or decided not to rescue the soldiers..." (emphasis mine) that either of those would lead to the "bad" ending. The party needn't have both and the former condition doesn't negate the latter.

Ah, missed that alternate condition. Thanks.

[Tony Lindman]

Ran this on Sunday for a group of 6 with an APL in the middle, so by the new rules they played up. They nearly wiped in the first encounter, as the terrain hindered them badly and it took them a long time to close with the casters, who were mopping them up. They ultimately made it and rescued two of the victims, but it was close - one rogue was unconscious and the barbarian had 1 hit point left. It was during this scene that they realized that the only healer was the bard ...

They really played the rageweed encounter well. As I gave each of them their emotional state, they got into it and responded in character with no metagaming. (At one point I said to female PC #1, "Did you hear what [female PC #2] said to you? What a b****!". The player of PC #2, who had made her save and wasn't affected, just nodded and said, "I am, it's true.") The two who made their initial saves did a great job at trying to keep the rest from exploding, subdued the one who failed all her saves, and even managed to console Ilivan and get the empathy point.

The final encounter lasted 3 rounds. Where terrain hindered them in the first encounter, it helped them here. The Cavalier declared a challenge, and two spirited ride-by charges later, BBEG is down. Meanwhile the rogues catch up to the schir after only two crusaders died, and he fell pretty quickly.

They all enjoyed it, despite the frustration in the water. I ended up not using the summon abilities of the demons (it seemed like it would just make the first encounter over-the-top, and the second they never got a chance), but I'd still like to know if we are intended to use it.

I expect to run this at least once at two more locations over the next few weeks, so we'll see how other people do.

[Chris Mortika]

For the rageweed encounter, I let the players help with the paranoia.

For example, if PC #6 were affected, I would explain "you're hearing the others in the party all talk about you, plotting behind your back." I'd then ask the other players what PC #6 was hearing. So Players 1 - 5 would volunteer in-character hostile thoughts about PC #6.

"She doesn't carry weapons; she can't be a real warrior. What's she doing out here, anyway?"
"If I kill her here, Lord Shax will reward me greatly."
"She turned on Sir Illvan immediately when he couselled us to keep out of the Worldwound. She must have wanted to lead us into the Worldwound pretty badly."
"Stupid Humans. Think they know everything."
"My husband had a pet monkey once, who looked just like her. I hated that monkey."

Then the same thing for any other character who failed his or her save. Getting those messages in the other players voices added a lot.

[Kintrik]

Tony Lindman wrote:

Ran this on Sunday for a group of 6 with an APL in the middle, so by the new rules they played up. They nearly wiped in the first encounter..

Did you remember to apply the 4 player adjustment, it isn't just playing higher tier. It is the scaled down higher tier and the player not in tier level get Out-of-tier gold.

[Tony Lindman]

Kintrik wrote:

Tony Lindman wrote:

Ran this on Sunday for a group of 6 with an APL in the middle, so by the new rules they played up. They nearly wiped in the first encounter..

Did you remember to apply the 4 player adjustment, it isn't just playing higher tier. It is the scaled down higher tier and the player not in tier level get Out-of-tier gold.

Yep, I remembered it just in time. I placed the figures on the table, got the combat started, and then on their turn caught my mistake. Good thing, too. :)

[Lab_Rat]

This was an absolute blast to run at GenCon. My second time running it was my best table of the week.

The best part was playing Sir Ilivan the entire time. If he was within ear shot of the players character I was GMing as him. It's not often you are given an entire page of background info on a NPC. Use it. The scenario is about his story and his coping with his past, not about the combats with the demons.

Also, I saw a lot of GM's cutting the optional encounter with 2+ hours to spare. Please don't do this. If you do, you are left with only 2 combat encounters and potentially one more short one. Everyone I talked to about the scenario felt a little robbed after hearing that a combat was cut, especially if the GM did not play up the NPC / PC interactions. Run the swarms. Put pressure on them. If they can't beat the swarm they can just run away.

[Finlanderboy]

Awww I missed the rat swarms.

I sat my axebeak with a group of 4th level pregens. The pregens should have fire or acid. Plus I had burning hands. We need hours early, not sure why he stopped it.

It was a fun scenario. My complaint is that at the end this guy leading us around just runs into a horde of demons to die? Seemed forced to me. If I knew this was coming though I would prep the players for it with fluff about his back story. Spending so much time on a character the players deserve to know about them.

As a DM when I find an interestign final villian I have them interact or find out about him well before the end so they develop emotional attachments.

I did not read the scenario, but I had no idea about empathy points while playing.

[Tony Lindman]

My players had done the right things to learn about his background (including getting the story about him killing his squad, and noticing that he was suffering from PTSD); when after the final fight I said they could see him challenge the lead demon and charged in to his death, there was a chorus of "awwwwww!" with sad eyes around the table.

[Lab_Rat]

It really does depend upon the table. If they care enough to interact with the npc then there is a lot to learn. If they just think he is an ass and ignore him, them they don't get much until the end when he goes on his diatribe, blames the pcs, tries to kill them to hide his shame.

Either way the GM should try to fit in the back plot even if it is just at the end.

[Branding Opportunity]

I think Lab_Rat has a great idea: bring in his backstory to help explain his behavior, even if the PCs don't make the requisite saves. You could have the PCs make other checks at the Fort to ask questions, or get into a conversation with another crusader. If they don't do any of this, you can have a crusader explain things at the end of the scenario when they get back to Nerosyan.

[Dust Raven]

I ran this on Saturday and loved it! The first fight with the "farmers" the PCs completely ignored Ilivan, then spent the entire fight running into combat, then running away when half a dozen drethces suddenly appeared, then running back in (after the paladin died when he was the only one that didn't run).

Once at Fort P, the PCs had a well role-played heated argument with Ilivan concerning rescuing the cavalrymen. Naturally the PCs won out. The encounter with the ragweed was fantastic, with only one PCs failing all the saves and going nuts while Ilivan sat curled up in a ball by his horse. It was a bit disturbing only a single PC opted to use nonlethal damage, but fortunately there was a cleric with Calm Emotions prepared.

With 2 empathy points after pulling Ilivan out of his catatonia (and sympathizing with him about this past), the group almost cheered when he charged off to take on the oncoming host of demons while the PCs rescued the cavalrymen.

Before the fight, someone said "wouldn't it suck if they started coup de gracing them all instead of fighting?" and I giggled. Then a wand of haste spoiled all my fun.

I'm looking forward to running this again in hopes of seeing how much diversity there is in the end. I'm extremely impressed at how many ways this could end with the PCs still "winning".

[Totenpfuhl]

What map is used in the final encounter? It isn't listed in the scenario. At least I can't find it.

[Branding Opportunity]

Totenpfuhl wrote:

What map is used in the final encounter? It isn't listed in the scenario. At least I can't find it.

Both encounters D1 and D2 use the same map: the Battlefield Flip-map published by Paizo.

[Totenpfuhl]

Alex Greenshields wrote:

Totenpfuhl wrote:

What map is used in the final encounter? It isn't listed in the scenario. At least I can't find it.

Both encounters D1 and D2 use the same map: the Battlefield Flip-map published by Paizo.

Thank you very much. I knew it existed since I played it at Gen Con and I need it for running it this Sunday.

[Cascade]

Thomas Graham wrote:

Netopalis wrote:

A neutral cleric of an evil deity detects as neutral.

Nope..

PRD wrote:

Aura (Ex): A cleric of a chaotic, evil, good, or lawful deity has a particularly powerful aura corresponding to the deity's alignment (see the detect evil spell for details).

I was curious about it as I had a LN ORACLE of Asmodeus in my group running through. He didn't ping.. but since he was a DIABOLIST with an Imp companion.. IT did.

So yeah, he didn't get to go in.

I actually rolled very poorly and when I didn't get any info, I had another memeber do some scouting for me. Simply explaining that Cheliax has fought demons for so long, we'd like tactics and examples of defenses that the crusaders use...got lots of party observations.

[Lab_Rat]

For those who played the Chelaxian Faction or GM'd a table with a Chelaxian faction player: I find the faction mission to be a little bit of a stretch from the season goal. The season goal is to "Secure important artifacts and sources of power to establish order in the Inner Sea region and strengthen the faction's power base." Where as the faction mission is to learn about both sides tactics so that Cheliax can extend the war and take advantage. How did you transition from the season goal stated in the email to the actual faction mission in the scenario?

[Branding Opportunity]

Lab_Rat wrote:

For those who played the Chelaxian Faction or GM'd a table with a Chelaxian faction player: I find the faction mission to be a little bit of a stretch from the season goal. The season goal is to "Secure important artifacts and sources of power to establish order in the Inner Sea region and strengthen the faction's power base." Where as the faction mission is to learn about both sides tactics so that Cheliax can extend the war and take advantage. How did you transition from the season goal stated in the email to the actual faction mission in the scenario?

This is a place where the newness of the current "faction missions" shows. The leap from the stated faction goal to the one presented in the scenario is indeed significant. When I ran it, I simply told the players (as the GM, not in character) what they had to do. If you'd like to RP this, you could state that they have received correspondence from the Paracountess, much like faction missions from seasons past.

I think that the faction objectives for the season should be more fully detailed than the single sentence presented in the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play. Perhaps they should be lengthened as new objectives are discovered or clarified during season 5 and posted online?

[Tony Lindman]

Alex Greenshields wrote:

I think that the faction objectives for the season should be more fully detailed than the single sentence presented in the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play. Perhaps they should be lengthened as new objectives are discovered or clarified during season 5 and posted online?

Look at the full letters posted in the "Faction Talk" forums. The emails we were sent included a link to there. Zarta's letter includes the following tidbits:

Quote:

Once we know the weaknesses of each side, I can pull strings to ensure that the conflict lasts long enough for us to accomplish what we must.

Quote:

In the meantime, learn what you can about the crusaders’ foibles and their fortifications’ flaws. Our plans cannot come to fruition without that.

I actually printed out the letters from the three faction heads and gave them to the players before the game.

[Mistwalker]

I did the same. That is, printed and passed out the letters from the faction heads to all of the players, even those who did not have a faction mission in the scenario.

Once the adventure was over, the Chelaxian in the group agreed that they had missed the boat, even with a few hints from me.

It was similar for the sczarni faction members, even with being told that their escort was once a smuggler, who wasn't ashamed to admit or talk about it, and who still had contacts there, they didn't bother to talk to him at all. They too agreed that they had missed the boat.

Personally, I like the way the new faction missions are being done. Players are having to step up their game a bit, take a bit more interest in the setting.

I also like that either the whole table get's 2 PP, or they all get 1 PP (barring TPKs).

[Branding Opportunity]

Tony Lindman wrote:

Look at the full letters posted in the "Faction Talk" forums. The emails we were sent included a link to there. Zarta's letter includes the following tidbits:

Quote:

Once we know the weaknesses of each side, I can pull strings to ensure that the conflict lasts long enough for us to accomplish what we must.

Quote:

In the meantime, learn what you can about the crusaders’ foibles and their fortifications’ flaws. Our plans cannot come to fruition without that.

I actually printed out the letters from the three faction heads and gave them to the players before the game.

I had forgotten about those letters in the "Faction Talk" forums. Thanks for reminding me!

[Lab_Rat]

I completely forgot about them. The faction letter makes it much clearer. I will have to remember to have those letters on hand for players.