nosig, I use the back side of the forest map for the final encounter. She did roll high, but I've found starting that far away results in a) dead halflings and b) a few javalin impaled characters. So the range is only 60/80 feet away. Not had any complaints.
I've also had the final encounter be down to one bard, out of bardic performance, and heading back into the cave with the minotaur squeezing in after him.
Matthew Morris wrote: nosig, I use the back side of the forest map for the final encounter. She did roll high, but I've found starting that far away results in a) dead halflings and b) a few javalin impaled characters. So the range is only 60/80 feet away. Not had any complaints.
I've also had the final encounter be down to one bard, out of bardic performance, and heading back into the cave with the minotaur squeezing in after him.
but... that means that we run it differently right?
I thought the reason for "run as written" as to reduce table variation... and if the scenario is to hard, we should leave that in reviews so that they (TPTB) get an accurate picture of what the difficulty of the scenarios are.
On a side note - I've actually not killed a PC in this yet... (nor have I lost a PC in a group I've played this with). But I've not gotten an Ax Crit (or seen one) in it yet either.
nosig wrote: Matthew Morris wrote: nosig, I use the back side of the forest map for the final encounter. She did roll high, but I've found starting that far away results in a) dead halflings and b) a few javalin impaled characters. So the range is only 60/80 feet away. Not had any complaints.
I've also had the final encounter be down to one bard, out of bardic performance, and heading back into the cave with the minotaur squeezing in after him.
but... that means that we run it differently right?
I thought the reason for "run as written" as to reduce table variation... and if the scenario is to hard, we should leave that in reviews so that they (TPTB) get an accurate picture of what the difficulty of the scenarios are.
On a side note - I've actually not killed a PC in this yet... (nor have I lost a PC in a group I've played this with). But I've not gotten an Ax Crit (or seen one) in it yet either. Huh. I believe there is allowance for using a different-but-similar map for scenarios given previously. Especially since some of us have really bad drawing skills...
And hand-drawing the map is likely to make it smaller, since most of us use a standard basic flip-map, 24x30, IIRC, as our normal mapping surface.
As to leaping/jumping during a move, I believe it is allowed, so it would probably work during a charge. Gets into some of the old, iconic, movies with swashbuckling-type moves.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
kinevon wrote: nosig wrote: Matthew Morris wrote: nosig, I use the back side of the forest map for the final encounter. She did roll high, but I've found starting that far away results in a) dead halflings and b) a few javalin impaled characters. So the range is only 60/80 feet away. Not had any complaints.
I've also had the final encounter be down to one bard, out of bardic performance, and heading back into the cave with the minotaur squeezing in after him.
but... that means that we run it differently right?
I thought the reason for "run as written" as to reduce table variation... and if the scenario is to hard, we should leave that in reviews so that they (TPTB) get an accurate picture of what the difficulty of the scenarios are.
On a side note - I've actually not killed a PC in this yet... (nor have I lost a PC in a group I've played this with). But I've not gotten an Ax Crit (or seen one) in it yet either. Huh. I believe there is allowance for using a different-but-similar map for scenarios given previously. Especially since some of us have really bad drawing skills...
And hand-drawing the map is likely to make it smaller, since most of us use a standard basic flip-map, 24x30, IIRC, as our normal mapping surface.
As to leaping/jumping during a move, I believe it is allowed, so it would probably work during a charge. Gets into some of the old, iconic, movies with swashbuckling-type moves. actually, my hand drawn map for this encounter is drawn on the 24x30 sheet of paper from one of the paper tablets from Office Max. The encounter map in the scenario is 24x30 squares ...
But even then the minotaur is 25' onto the map from the bottom, and the cave mouth is 25' on from the top, so we could shrink the map by 10 inches (five on each side) in both directions and still keep the same basic layout. With a 14 x 20 map... Still keeping the tunnel mouth, Log Bridge, the Stream, the Clearing around the cave mouth, the Trees, etc.
Consider any other scenario - if the judge decided to "modify the map" to the extent that this appears to be being changed... Encounter distances going from 120 feet, to 60 feet? Removing major terrain features like difficult going or streams that effect charge lanes... What would we say if this was done in (insert your favorite scenario here)?
It sounds like the changes being done in this encounter map are not produceing "different-but-similar" maps.
kinevon wrote: nosig wrote: Matthew Morris wrote: nosig, I use the back side of the forest map for the final encounter. She did roll high, but I've found starting that far away results in a) dead halflings and b) a few javalin impaled characters. So the range is only 60/80 feet away. Not had any complaints.
I've also had the final encounter be down to one bard, out of bardic performance, and heading back into the cave with the minotaur squeezing in after him.
but... that means that we run it differently right?
I thought the reason for "run as written" as to reduce table variation... and if the scenario is to hard, we should leave that in reviews so that they (TPTB) get an accurate picture of what the difficulty of the scenarios are.
On a side note - I've actually not killed a PC in this yet... (nor have I lost a PC in a group I've played this with). But I've not gotten an Ax Crit (or seen one) in it yet either. Huh. I believe there is allowance for using a different-but-similar map for scenarios given previously. Especially since some of us have really bad drawing skills...
And hand-drawing the map is likely to make it smaller, since most of us use a standard basic flip-map, 24x30, IIRC, as our normal mapping surface.
As to leaping/jumping during a move, I believe it is allowed, so it would probably work during a charge. Gets into some of the old, iconic, movies with swashbuckling-type moves. actually, on the jumpng during a charge I was wrong on this....
from the PRD:
Charge
Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. Charging, however, carries tight restrictions on how you can move.
Movement During a Charge: You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent. If you move a distance equal to your speed or less, you can also draw a weapon during a charge attack if your base attack bonus is at least +1.
You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge. If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge. Helpless creatures don't stop a charge.
the stream would be an obstacle -
but this protects the non-melee PCs from being charged by the Minotaur also... so it sort of works both ways.
Hi all:
I just ran The Confirmation as my first time GMing in ~20 years, and it seems like my players maybe enjoyed the experience enough to want me to run more for them. Yaay me! :-)
One question that came up, and that I didn't feel competent to address, has to do with faction cards. Does the History and Future of Humanity count as a named text for the Dark Archive faction card? My gut says no, but I told the player I would double-check online. I haven't come across any obvious answers with google and forum searches, so I thought I'd ask here.
Thanks!
--t
Topher Hughes wrote: One question that came up, and that I didn't feel competent to address, has to do with faction cards. Does the History and Future of Humanity count as a named text for the Dark Archive faction card? My gut says no, but I told the player I would double-check online. I haven't come across any obvious answers with google and forum searches, so I thought I'd ask here. It's a named text. There might be some question whether the PCs are able to recover enough of it to count, but for only 1/3 of a goal I'd allow it.
Starglim wrote: Topher Hughes wrote: One question that came up, and that I didn't feel competent to address, has to do with faction cards. Does the History and Future of Humanity count as a named text for the Dark Archive faction card? My gut says no, but I told the player I would double-check online. I haven't come across any obvious answers with google and forum searches, so I thought I'd ask here. It's a named text. There might be some question whether the PCs are able to recover enough of it to count, but for only 1/3 of a goal I'd allow it. while I tend to agree with you, I could also see the view that only a COPY is recovered, not the actual named text. To recover that would take cutting the stones out of the walls or something like that. This looks like it would be YMMV...
IMHO: For me as a judge, if a player ASKED and went to the trouble to DO something about it (like take rubbings of the carvings - including the ones they could not make out), I would consider the task done.
Thanks Starglim and nosig for the advice!
So, I finally dug up this scenario and played it with some friends that I'm trying to get into PFS. Just one question, is Uori's wand supposed to be included on the Chronicle sheet?
By the by, the minotaur went down with a crit at the end. From what I've read, that seems to happen a lot!
Sorry for thread necro, but I wanted to get this into the thread in case any new GMs are running this module.
nosig wrote: kinevon wrote: As to leaping/jumping during a move, I believe it is allowed, so it would probably work during a charge. actually, on the jumpng during a charge I was wrong on this....
from the PRD:
[i]Charge
Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. Charging, however, carries tight restrictions on how you can move. For what it's worth, JJ commented in a rules question that the 3.5 text that allows jumping charges is OK in Pathfinder. That commentary is here. I realize some will be angry to see that link and will say it doesn't prove anything, but to me seeing that 3.5 allowed it AND JJ intended Pathfinder to allow it means it's RAI for me. So I'd allow jumping charges.
aboyd wrote: Sorry for thread necro, but I wanted to get this into the thread in case any new GMs are running this module.
nosig wrote: kinevon wrote: As to leaping/jumping during a move, I believe it is allowed, so it would probably work during a charge. actually, on the jumpng during a charge I was wrong on this....
from the PRD:
[i]Charge
Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. Charging, however, carries tight restrictions on how you can move. For what it's worth, JJ commented in a rules question that the 3.5 text that allows jumping charges is OK in Pathfinder. That commentary is here. I realize some will be angry to see that link and will say it doesn't prove anything, but to me seeing that 3.5 allowed it AND JJ intended Pathfinder to allow it means it's RAI for me. So I'd allow jumping charges.
a lot of times 3.5 text differs from PFS text... a lot of 3.5 differs from 3.0.
(IMHO) I'm not sure how I feel about this part... I know it would really bug me if my girl were to toss out Caltrops or a pit to hide behind (because of this rule) and then had the monster charge her - because "seeing that 3.5 allowed it AND JJ intended Pathfinder to allow it"... But I always sort of hate it when the rules change in the middle of the game... The rule does clearly say, "You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). "
I would note that the PFS staff response to FAQ on that was... "Staff response: no reply required. ", and now we are unable to mark it as FAQ anymore.
nosig wrote: I'm not sure how I feel about this part... I know it would really bug me if my girl were to toss out Caltrops or a pit to hide behind (because of this rule) and then had the monster charge her - because "seeing that 3.5 allowed it AND JJ intended Pathfinder to allow it"... But I always sort of hate it when the rules change in the middle of the game... The rule does clearly say, "You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). " Yes, but if you jump over it, it clearly didn't hinder you, and that seems to be unchanged through the editions.
Kyle Baird wrote: Jacob Dotter wrote: I just noticed something with Uori.
He is a level 4 Oracle with a +5 BAB. It should be +3. Gillmen don't have any racial hit dice, so their BAB can't be higher than their class level.
There were some weird things going on with the stat block generator at the time of turnover, especially with BAB and skill ranks. Thanks for catching this! I'm going to assume that this old comment also explains the problem with Uori's perception. In his stat block under skills, he has nothing listed for Perception, so he hasn't put any ranks in it. Therefore, as far as I can figure, he's at +1 from wisdom, and -4 from being deaf, for a total of -3. However, at the top of the stat block, under "Senses" it has "Perception +1."
Is that just because the -4 to perception only applies to *opposed* checks? And so the normal "1" is listed, and special cases change it? Or is the -4 penalty supposed to be across the board? Pretty much anything the PCs do to get his attention will be an opposed check, anyway, right? For the most part, he's going to be doing checks at a -3 if I understand it correctly.
The mural + diorama room always feels super disconnected. The group deciphers a few parables, and gets hints on how to solve a riddle they have not seen yet. Then they meet and interact with an NPC that is not connected to the riddle, and then they come around to the diorama city that is a riddle that needs to be solved with the clues they didn't understand from two distractions ago.
I'm thinking about blending the two rooms together more: describe the parable room but before they translate them mention that they see the npc in the next room. That way they can interact with him, (because my players never check out the environment while there is a npc to chat up) and then inspect the diorama and them back track and decipher the parables. Ideally this will allow them to unravel the riddle without hand-holding.
(I'm hoping to run this for all new players soon.)
I'm prepping this to run next month and had a few questions:
1. Any change on the status of Uori's wand for the purpose of the Chronicle Sheet? Am I committing a crime against the Society if I pencil it onto the bottom of the loot list?
2. Is the DC to use Diplomacy on Uori initially DC 20? I got Indifferent to Friendly DC = 15 + Cha modifier, which for Uori is +5. Seems a steep challenge for a group who probably don't have more than +5 modifiers on average to their Diplomacy checks, though I'd assume that's why the cloak grants a +8 modifier.
3. I've not run this as a player. When I gain the benefits of the Chronicle sheet, do I gain only the items listed for my players, or the full list of potential items for the scenario?
JDLPF wrote: I'm prepping this to run next month and had a few questions:
1. Any change on the status of Uori's wand for the purpose of the Chronicle Sheet? Am I committing a crime against the Society if I pencil it onto the bottom of the loot list?
Sorry, but adding your own items to the chronicle list is really not allowed. Even when it makes sense.
JDLPF wrote: 2. Is the DC to use Diplomacy on Uori initially DC 20? I got Indifferent to Friendly DC = 15 + Cha modifier, which for Uori is +5. Seems a steep challenge for a group who probably don't have more than +5 modifiers on average to their Diplomacy checks Let them fail, and then make it a point to teach them about Aid Another. They'll do better next time.
Or, teach them beforehand, preferably well before the game starts. You want them to choose it as an option. You do not want to push them toward it right at the moment they're considering the Diplomacy check. That's too obvious, like a big neon sign saying, "YOU SHOULD DO THIS."
3: as a GM, you gain every item. Your players only get what they find.
Recent threads in GM Discussion
|
