Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha
|
I have been preping this adventure and I am really disappointed that a major NPC did not get any art work. Why no pictures of Ogthup?? But we get a new picture of Bjersig when there has been several of him provide in more recent adventures.
In C6, Card Games and Ball Games, under Cards it is listed that Ded Shurin is one of the players but under the DCs, it gives a modifier of Vera and no modifier for Ded. I will assume the modifier is intended for Ded as Vera is outside playing Hockey.
Overall, I have found this adventure to be fun and hope my players will enjoy it!
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Its only an evil act if you fight them at the end of the scenario. If you fight them in the beginning its not an infamy trigger (though it can cause you to miss the bulk of the scenario).
Im looking at the scenario and it calls it out as an infamy trigger that just ends the scenario.
EditAlso remember it triggers off of infamy and not being evil.
|
|
Ah yes, There's two references to Infamy
1) Page 9: "If the PCs killed any Russians and seem likely to win, then some of the soldiers slip away to warn the town. In this case, no one
leads the PCs back to town, and when the PCs eventually find it a day or so later, the town is abandoned, everyone having fled into the woods. At this point, the adventure concludes in failure and the PCs gain 1 Point of Infamy"
Just choosing to fight them here is not itself an infamy trigger. Choosing to not surrender would not incur infamy, but as the GM you'd need to give a warning before anyone kills a Russian soldier. Something like: "These appear to be the lawful authorities in this area, while you are free to defend yourselves, killing any of them would incur Infamy." when initiative is rolled.
2) Page 18&19: "If the PCs side with Chesjilawa and kill Semyon, then Zharchovsk returns to the way it was years ago: safe but unfree under the harsh rule of the winter witches. Chesjilawa keeps her promises and allows Pathfinders free range to work in Zharchovsk, but as word of the
PCs’ betrayal spreads, they gain 1 Point of Infamy.
In which case the appropriate time to give the infamy warning is back on page 16-18, when the party is debating their options.
Fighting them in the beginning is not always Infamy -- if you lose without killing any, if you win without killing any you're fine. Fighting them at the end, is always infamy, however.
Venture-Agent, California—Silicon Valley
|
That is a great point Gary, there seem to be a lot of inconsistencies in the stat blocks between high and low tier for the soldiers. It would be unlikely to fight them, but it can happen, and from the looks of it, the higher tier versions are only slightly harder. This is not reflective of being two levels higher. Applying the Elite template to the low tier versions would make them more challenging than the high tier versions.
Some major scaling issues:
Attack bonuses are the same in both tiers
Only 1 additional damage on both attacks in high tier
Additional fire damage for the bayonet goes from 1d6 to 2d6, while for the bow it goes from 2d4 to 2d6.
The persistent damage on a crit goes from 1d8 to 2d4.
They gain 41 HP in only two levels, but Semyon only gains 36 HP.
|
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
I ran this yesterday, people failed the scenario because they attacked the Russians, and I feel a bit bad about it. I should've mentioned this'd lead to Infamy, but I got caught up in the moment and forgot. Could anyone tell me if this judgment is fair or not?
Players encounter Russians. Flavour text says they speak with an accent. Player says, "I grab a scroll of Comprehend Languages and cast it!" I said this agitates the Russians and they aim their weapons at him and tell him to stop using magic. He then panics and goes invisible. I judge the Russians then attack, because a) he disobeyed an order and b) he just turned invisible, which is clearly hostile. I say several times during the fight that if they surrender everything will be taken care of (I mean, I kept the tone a little grim, because hey), but they didn't even attempt to make a Diplomacy check. They knocked out the leader, then a bit later healed him and asked if he wanted to surrender. I said no, because in the Russians' mind, the PCs are the enemy. They then killed the leader and the rest fled.
Maybe I should've let them surrender for the flow of the game, but it just didn't feel right. As I said, the players didn't even attempt to talk to them, though one player did jump the gun a little. I feel bad for failing them, but I think I gave them enough warnings (I reminded them once or twice the Venture-Captain said this was a peace mission, for instance), they just misinterpreted the lot. They immediately thought the Russians were the bad guys they were supposed to fight.
Also, two things:
- The first few skill checks to go through the pass, that seems entirely optional if everyone's wearing appropriate clothes. Is that right? All it does is speed up the travel, but there's no penalty for failing, other than more cold damage to people dumb enough not to wear clothes the Venture-Captain specifically suggest you wear.
- What exactly does the boon do? You can either take the Baba Yaga patron (option a) and all the benefits associated with it, or reject it (option b) and get some of the benefits. Why would you reject it? Just RP?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say that was a little harsh from the GM side.
I can understand why the Russians in the scenario would be suspicious of magic (their antagonist is a witch after all), but nothing in the scenario says magic casting triggers combat/demands. It sounds like you also skipped all the built-in perception, crafting, and warfare lore checks meant to help clue the PCs in to the danger level and oddities. Plus the built=in diplomacy checks.
If I were at the table, I'd definitely feel I was rail-roaded into failing after reviewing the scenario.
|
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
They did notice the other guards, but they failed their Crafting and Warfare checks, sadly enough. And yeah, while the Diplomacy checks were supposed to happen, the one guy jumped into action immediately. He wanted to just speak their language, but after getting the guns trained at him, he went into panic.
At our lodge, we've always treated casting magic as not done in polite society, and I think I portrayed these guys as clearly on edge. Casting spells without explaining what you're doing is rude, if not outright dangerous, especially when you're being interrogated.
|
They did notice the other guards, but they failed their Crafting and Warfare checks, sadly enough. And yeah, while the Diplomacy checks were supposed to happen, the one guy jumped into action immediately. He wanted to just speak their language, but after getting the guns trained at him, he went into panic.
At our lodge, we've always treated casting magic as not done in polite society, and I think I portrayed these guys as clearly on edge. Casting spells without explaining what you're doing is rude, if not outright dangerous, especially when you're being interrogated.
Attacking the Russians (or alarming them into attacking) doesn't fail the mission.
*Killing* them is what fails the mission. Non-lethal is an option that exists. (GMs even have the option to let NPCs go to dying at 0 HPO instead of straight to dead. I might have considered that here.)
But yeah, magic is flashy and visible. Casting magic while trying to convince a guard that you are not allied with witches is likely to be counterproductive.
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
I can see how the scenario went downhill, but yes, that seems a bit harsh from an outside point of view. From the PC's perspective, casting comprehend language is completely reasonable thing to do when faced with foreign people who they do not understand. From the NPC point of view, PC's casting spells seeming hostile is also reasonable.
However, I would have probably told the PC's that the NPCs seem extremely agitated at the spellcasting, and asked for a diplomacy check to calm them down/explain what they were doing, and then sewn that back onto the expected track of the adventure.
Likewise, when they knocked down the leader and asked him if he wanted to surrender, you could have asked for a diplo check then and there and get back on track. You might have asked if any of the PCs had their wayfinders out and described how they impress/calm down the npcs a bit (representing the +1 for diplo checks that the wayfinders give) and thus give a nudge to the players that these npcs might actually become -friendly- for pathfinders. Or you could have had the leader surrender (to buy time) for the additional troops that were hinted at to arrive (and thus give them time to actually get to the diplomacy checks).
It sounds like you played the npcs how one would assume they might act, but it also sounds like there were several opportunities where you could have gotten the PCs back on tracks by just asking for the diplomacy check when they were interacting with the npcs.
If you did tell them that killing the leader will result in infamy (remember that the GM -must- warn players if their actions are going to cause infamy) and they still killed them, then that's on them. The threat of infamy should have been enough of a hint to tell them that they are about to go wildly off tracks.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
What exactly does the boon do? You can either take the Baba Yaga patron (option a) and all the benefits associated with it, or reject it (option b) and get some of the benefits. Why would you reject it? Just RP?
For the boon, your witch takes the first option if they want that specific patron AND the lessons. If they want just the lessons but they want to take another patron, they can select the other option. The options are there just to highlight that you can have the lessons without being tied to that specific patron.
|
The group I regularly GM for has 3 Animal Companions (2 Dogs, flavored as hairless Goblin Dogs, and 1 Bird), and a Spellslime Ooze Familiar.
All 4 creatures actively participate in combat (the Ooze has Spell Delivery).
How would you handle Severe Cold for them? That's potentially 36d6 damage (or, improbably, 50d6 with 3 Crit Failures while navigating).
If it were just the Dogs, I'd probably rule that they could wear Winter Clothing, but I can't imagine such a thing for either the Bird or the Ooze.
How have other GMs handled this?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know 1e had stuff like Companion Cold Weather Outfits but these things aren't in 2e yet.
With no way for the PCs to indemnify their companions against environmental effects such as severe cold, it doesn't seem fair to punish them. I've handwaved it for now and allowed the PCs flavor in a doggy sweater for suspension od disbelief, etc.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In hindsight, I don't recommend anyone scheduling this for a while. Or possibly ever again, depending on how things continue in Eastern Europe.
I was the only one at the table familiar with the events from Reign of Winter, and even then, I never actually played through it, so I don't know exactly how Russians arrived on Golarion. And since the Scenario never explains it, it was really hard to keep the players engaged and the game on track.
To quote one of my players, they complained it was "interjecting reality into their fantasy". Semyon's art didn't help. And the whole Ukrainian dance scene just ended up being a quick series of dice rolls to avoid the political tangent. Same for the negotiations at the end.
When I tried to point out that this Adventure was written before the current conflict, I was corrected and informed that Russia actually invaded Ukraine in 2014. Ironically 1 year after the date mentioned in the Scenario, 4713, which again, I'm not sure what that references.
So if you're reading this and still plan on scheduling this game, I highly recommend posting some sort of disclaimer about the themes involved. The blurb does mention Russians, but seeing as none of my players noticed that ahead of time, it's probably worthy of additional notice.
"Bjersig offers to loan PCs some 'Snowshoes of the Long Trek' (Pathfinder Society Guide 88), though he notes that he expects them back after the mission."
Just to get the interpretation on this correctly, does this refer to offering one pair of snowshoes, or enough for the party? I am leaning towards the former (since everyone having it would negate the terrain of the last encounter), but the with the wording I could see it either way.