Hmm Venture-Captain, Minnesota |
I think what happened to Bongo's party could also have been the result of a GM not hinting that it was time to vary the skill checks. If you use the same skills over and over, it is easy to tank the information gathering phase. And if you tank it, you never learn that you can't use teleportation magic...
It's also possible to forget the information you've gathered if you don't take notes or have a GM with handy-dandy player handouts to give you.
Nick, this was a terrific scenario. It was such a pleasure to run last week that this week, I volunteered to step in as a last minute additional GM to run it again this week at another store. Bret and I will get some mileage out of all the prep we did!
However, I think that because it has so many moving parts -- interesting mechanics, clues to keep track of, not to mention all the NPC personalities -- that it would be a very easy scenario for a GM to make mistakes in that will cost the party some of the information they desperately need.
Hmm
Leathert |
Question about Ivira's tactics on tier 4-5. The During Combat sections starts with "Ivira uses her alchemist’s fire to ignite the orange tent, then targets approaching PCs with her poisoned crossbow bolts". Then a bit later it says "Once at least one of the guards falls, she throws an alchemist’s fire at the orange tent before returning to combat".
So should she start with the fire as first action or only after a guard falls?
On tier 1-2 only the later tactic is given, so that seems more likely, but I'd like a confirmation.
Also concerning previous topics in this discussion: fires and not strictly RAW mechanics.
I'm not so much bored by fires, as much as annoyed by the inconsistencies in how they work. I'd love if there was an actual mechanic written into the rules about how putting them out works. This has been a problem at least since Season 0, where a scenario I ran recently said that "Actions dedicated to fighting the fire can slow it. As a standard action, a PC with a blanket, a waterskin, or another appropriate tool can extinguish one five-foot square. Alternatively, water or cold spells delay the entire timetable by one round per spell level (minimum one round)", "timetable" referring to a scenario-specific "when it's too late" thing. The first part about "standard action, one square goes out" seems kinda well, standard based on other scenarios I've ran, but the part about cold spells I've never seen again, even in other "timed" fires.
The "not strictly RAW" might not be a problem on lower levels where you can mostly handwave it by saying the characters just cannot figure it out. But I've been running a lot of Seeker-level content lately, and it's kinda difficult when you have characters with the skills to recognize magic of all conventional caster levels (up to 20) without having to roll and magic to boost this to mythic stuff if necessary. And one of them is a Dispel-specialist. And you just have to go "sorry, I have no idea if you can know what this effect even is, much less if this could be dispelled, it isn't based on any existing magic. So, my two cents: if you include unique effects (I mean sure, inventing new spells is a mechanic, so go for it), at least tell people how to deal with them mechanically. Like knowledge DCs to recognize what is going on if Detect Magic is used, etc.
Nick Wasko RPG Superstar Season 9 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think what happened to Bongo's party could also have been the result of a GM not hinting that it was time to vary the skill checks. If you use the same skills over and over, it is easy to tank the information gathering phase. And if you tank it, you never learn that you can't use teleportation magic...
GM error is always a possibility, but there's something to learn from every review. As an author, complaints about a frustrating game are just as valuable as praise for an excellent game or constructive criticism from a mixed game. In my later work, I want to make sure I keep using things that strike a cord with the audience and fix things that cause headaches. Threads like this are helpful for that, since players and GMs tell me what works and what doesn't.
If I can provide errata and clarify problematic language at the same time, so much the better.
Should she start with the fire as first action or only after a guard falls?
Correct, she only starts the fire after one guard falls. The campsite wouldn't be very helpful to the Consortium if they set everything on fire whenever a spooky jumped out of the sand, so they only burn the evidence if they think they're losing ground.
I'm not so much bored by fires, as much as annoyed by the inconsistencies in how they work. I'd love if there was an actual mechanic written into the rules about how putting them out works.
I agree. I did my best to design a timed fire that makes sense, but Lau already mentioned the problems with that approach. I'll do some more homework before implementing a mechanic like that again, and hopefully I'll cover more bases and make the GM's job easier.
The "not strictly RAW" might not be a problem on lower levels where you can mostly handwave it by saying the characters just cannot figure it out.
This line of thinking may be why Paizo tends to test-run new PFS authors on 1-5 scenarios. Things get exponentially more complicated at higher levels, and writers need to account for several more factors when designing high CR encounters. This one was tough because theoretically Guldis was preparing for high-level thieves, but the scenario needed to be accessible to a low-level party. My goal was to set it up so that a well-informed, well-prepared party at lower levels could do much better than a CR-appropriate party going in blind.
Nick Wasko RPG Superstar Season 9 |
Well, I love how accessible you're being. If you live near the midwest, you should consider coming to SkålCon! We love hosting scenario authors!
I greatly appreciate the offer, but I'm out in Connecticut so a midwest trip would be a bit of a commute.
Hmm Venture-Captain, Minnesota |
BretI Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis |
On the penalty for repeating skill checks, is it for any time a skill check is repeated or only for when you use the same skill twice in a row?
Example:
The Crimson Rouge (yes, that is the way I'm spelling it) decides to go in all sneaky-like.
Day 1: Acrobatics.
Day 2: Stealth. Fails, gets a complication, Stealth again at the higher DC.
Day 3: Acrobatics.
Is it intended that the Day three check would take the modifier for repeated use of the same skill?
The first time I ran it, I was so focused on the skill portion that I hadn't done everything I like to do for the combat portions. My notes are being updated for that.
BretI Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis |
"Any time after the first that a skill is used at the location" is how I interpreted it. Which means the second player to attempt the skill at the same location will immediately face the increased difficulty.
I went back and re-read it. A fresh reading is evidently what I needed.
Once per day, each PC can attempt a skill or ability check associated with her chosen method of reconnaissance. The DC of each check starts at ## (## in Subtier 4–5), but increases by # each time a PC attempts to use a skill or ability that she has used before in that location. A PC who succeeds at her check earns one success for that day at that PC’s facility.
Numbers removed to protect people accidentally running into it via search.
The description is always talking about an individual PC. The DC increase kicks in when that individual repeats a skill.
On the other hand, there is no reset. If you use the same skill on the third day as you did the first, the DC is higher.
Hmm Venture-Captain, Minnesota |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, I finally submitted our google docs to PFS Prep. I hope that others find what Bret and I put together helpful.
So, between Bret and myself, we've now run this four times, and each group was very different. For some groups, the skill section is trivial, but the Aspis battle is horrible. For other groups, it's reversed.
The group that I ran through yesterday had some hilarious moments. They made it through the skill section with some difficulty, but got most of what they really needed for the heist. They knocked out the mage, dropped both guards with a sleep spell, and then nearly TPKed to one of the dogs.
My party called it the "demon dog." They could not hit the thing, and it saved against all their spells and brought two of them down with crits before they finally exterminated it with extreme prejudice.
Then they got into the transport, and my barbarian fighter guy got fed up with the altar and grabbed a glowing vial. "Alright, Altar! It's you and me, buddy! We're gonna fight, mano a furniture-o!"
I'd represented the altar with a paper rectangle that I could move around the room. When he finally smashed it, I tore the piece of paper into pieces and then dropped them into the room. "Yeah, that's what's left of it."
My whole party laughed.
After that, he got really annoyed when the Aspis tried to fire the tent. "Hey, eliminatin' furniture is my job. What gives?!"
Ascalaphus Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden |
Alexander Geuze wrote:"Any time after the first that a skill is used at the location" is how I interpreted it. Which means the second player to attempt the skill at the same location will immediately face the increased difficulty.I went back and re-read it. A fresh reading is evidently what I needed.
Quote:Once per day, each PC can attempt a skill or ability check associated with her chosen method of reconnaissance. The DC of each check starts at ## (## in Subtier 4–5), but increases by # each time a PC attempts to use a skill or ability that she has used before in that location. A PC who succeeds at her check earns one success for that day at that PC’s facility.Numbers removed to protect people accidentally running into it via search.
The description is always talking about an individual PC. The DC increase kicks in when that individual repeats a skill.
On the other hand, there is no reset. If you use the same skill on the third day as you did the first, the DC is higher.
This is how I read it as well, though you have to look pretty close to notice that subtlety.
And I want to reiterate the importance of the GM hinting at players that they need to vary their skills; it's all too easy for a player to think "hey, this is hard, I should stick to my best skill only". IMO if a task is getting harder, someone trying that task tends to notice that - that tricks that previously worked aren't enough anymore etc.
Hmm Venture-Captain, Minnesota |
Ascalaphus Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden |
Here is how my hint went:
"This is an infiltration mission. If you do the same thing over and over, you're more likely to get noticed and everything will get harder for you. It's probably a good idea to vary your approach."
Sounds perfect. Doesn't give away too much but gets the point across.
Leathert |
My reasoning was that you're not very believable in your role if you're only capable of doing part of what's expected from you. So you catch more attention, or at least you have to be really good at what you're doing to let it work. Though this doesn't really apply if you go by the sneaky route. So maybe it's like "you're not likely to find out everything if you don't vary your approach" as well.
Ascalaphus Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden |
I think the main thing is that as a GM in these kinds of adventures (i.e. adventures with a "minigame"), you always have to make a decision on how much of the mechanics to reveal to the players. Revealing too much tends to ruin the mystery by exposing the scaffolding behind the scenery, but revealing too little just has the players poking around blind in the dark with no actual meaningful choices to make because they have no idea what they're doing.
For example, revealing to the players that something is a DC 15 acrobatics check to pass is probably bad, because some PCs will know not to try and others will know they can't fail. But saying "the acrobatics check is easier than the sense motive check" can be fine, because it means every player has to weigh whether he's so much better at sense motive that he'll go with that anyway.
This is why chase cards that the players see shouldn't list DC numbers. Just a color coding for harder/easier/same-ish.
Nick Wasko RPG Superstar Season 9 |
See that didn't make a lot of sense. If i bluffed my way into middle management on monday on tuesday i should be doing even LESS work, not getting my hands dirty fixing things
The idea was that PCs who keep doing the same thing risk making the same mistakes, so it becomes easier for Guldis' employees to smell a rat. If you Bluff into middle management, the next day other managers are going to fact-check your credentials and find holes in your story. You can avoid getting caught by telling bigger, more grandiose lies (i.e. a tougher Bluff check on subsequent rolls) or by varying your approach to cover more ground (e.g. using a Linguistics check to forge paperwork that validates your initial story).
Amanda Plageman |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wanted to check back in after running this.
It was a blast! I had fun, the players had fun, even the occasional passersby that observed for a few minutes enjoyed it!
One of my players said, "This is literally the first time that my rogue has gotten to do roguey stuff in a scenario!".
Very very cool, can't wait to run it again.
A couple of points, if I may?
1. It ran long. This isn't necessarily a problem, since a lot of Season 7 has run long, so I've come to expect it. If I had had to stuff it into a more restrictive timeslot (like a con), I think some of the appeal might be diminished.
2. I wonder if you intended the final encounter to have this possibility?
That's what ended up happening with my group. They got the clues, but didn't mention it during the debrief, which short-circuited the final encounter.
Now, I have no complaints about that. I've been a long-time advocate for 'PCs shouldn't get both PP all the time'.
I just wondered if you did it on purpose?
Nick Wasko RPG Superstar Season 9 |
A couple of points, if I may?
1. It ran long. This isn't necessarily a problem, since a lot of Season 7 has run long, so I've come to expect it. If I had had to stuff it into a more restrictive timeslot (like a con), I think some of the appeal might be diminished.
2. I wonder if you intended the final encounter to have this possibility?
I just wondered if you did it on purpose?
That was an intended possibility, yes. If the PCs didn't pay attention or did a catastrophically poor job during the reconnaissance encounter, there is a realistic possibility that they will not think to pursue the final encounter. That being said:
After the heist, the PCs debrief with Ziralia, who asks detailed questions about how they gathered information and planned their operation. She also asks if the PCs noticed anything suspicious during their reconnaissance. If the PCs mention any clues they found suggesting another group was infiltrating the Emir’s facilities, Ziralia’s expression darkens. She informs the PCs that the agents she hired to monitor the heist spotted another team lurking around the convoy’s route.
The prompt for Ziralia's debriefing was intended to maximize the PCs' likelihood of bringing forth evidence of foul play.
Lau mentioned the secondary success condition earlier in this thread, and if I could revise the scenario I would restructure it as a "3/5 possibilities" setup. That way, even PCs who miss the final encounter could potentially earn the secondary success by doing exceptionally well early on (minimum amount of information gathered, not killing any guards or animals while raiding the convoy, leaving a replacement elixir in place of the stolen one, etc). I'll keep that in mind for any scenarios I may write in the future.
The fact that your session ran long despite skipping the final encounter is further evidence that I need to be more careful with timing in my future work. I've made a note of that moving forward.
Glad to hear it went well overall!
GreySector RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree. I did my best to design a timed fire that makes sense, but Lau already mentioned the problems with that approach. I'll do some more homework before implementing a mechanic like that again, and hopefully I'll cover more bases and make the GM's job easier.
FYI there are pretty detailed fire rules on pp. 59-60 of Council of Thieves #6 The Twice-Damned Prince.
Amanda Plageman |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That being said:7-21: The Sun Orchid Scheme - page 18 wrote:After the heist, the PCs debrief with Ziralia, who asks detailed questions about how they gathered information and planned their operation. She also asks if the PCs noticed anything suspicious during their reconnaissance.The prompt for Ziralia's debriefing was intended to maximize the PCs' likelihood of bringing forth evidence of foul play.
Yeah, the hint was definitely there. Honestly, I really liked having the 2nd PP hinge on the player's attention to detail. I'd love to see more like that!
The fact that your session ran long despite skipping the final encounter is further evidence that I need to be more careful with timing in my future work. I've made a note of...
In this case, the fact that I had a highly RP-oriented group was probably a factor, time-wise. I'm a sucker for good RP. :-)
Like I said, a lot of Season 7 has run long, so I kinda expected it. Outside of tight con spacing, I don't mind. Maybe designating an encounter as optional would help with run time? Though in Sun Orchid, I'm not sure that would have worked. Pretty much everything that was in there was well-plotted and needed to be there....
Again, great work!
Arp Upramis |
Hi,
I will GM this scenario tomorrow, and I have a question. On page 5, the answer to 'Are we stealing the real sun orchid elixir ?' states:
If you successfully locate and steal the mock elixir, however, you may keep it.
Again on page 18, the description of the elixir solar vigor states:
If the PCs successfully steal the dummy elixir, they may keep it as a reward for completing their assignment.
But on the chronicle sheet, it seems that PCs need to spend 1000gp in order to get the elixir of solar vigor. So, do they get it for free ?
Thanks in advance.
Nick Wasko RPG Superstar Season 9 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will GM this scenario tomorrow, and I have a question. On page 5, the answer to 'Are we stealing the real sun orchid elixir ?' states:
Quote:If you successfully locate and steal the mock elixir, however, you may keep it.Again on page 18, the description of the elixir solar vigor states:
Quote:If the PCs successfully steal the dummy elixir, they may keep it as a reward for completing their assignment.But on the chronicle sheet, it seems that PCs need to spend 1000gp in order to get the elixir of solar vigor. So, do they get it for free ?
Thanks in advance.
If the PCs find and steal the elixir of solar vigor, they get one dose that they may use for free until the end of that scenario. In other words, the PCs can drink the elixir in the Aspis camp encounter at no additional cost.
If they wish to procure the elixir for use in a different scenario, it must be purchased like normal gear off the chronicle sheet.
Muser |
Nick Wasko wrote:I agree. I did my best to design a timed fire that makes sense, but Lau already mentioned the problems with that approach. I'll do some more homework before implementing a mechanic like that again, and hopefully I'll cover more bases and make the GM's job easier.FYI there are pretty detailed fire rules on pp. 59-60 of Council of Thieves #6 The Twice-Damned Prince.
Just to be the bearer of bad news, but there's more than enough homework to go around. Much like my academic history there are several different takes on, uh, burnination:
#6-07: Valley of Veiled Flame
#3-18: The Gods' Market Gamble
#3-05: Tide of Twilight
I'm sure I've forgot some. There are so many!
Ascalaphus Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden |
Michael Eshleman wrote:Nick Wasko wrote:I agree. I did my best to design a timed fire that makes sense, but Lau already mentioned the problems with that approach. I'll do some more homework before implementing a mechanic like that again, and hopefully I'll cover more bases and make the GM's job easier.FYI there are pretty detailed fire rules on pp. 59-60 of Council of Thieves #6 The Twice-Damned Prince.Just to be the bearer of bad news, but there's more than enough homework to go around. Much like my academic history there are several different takes on, uh, burnination:
#6-07: Valley of Veiled Flame
#3-18: The Gods' Market Gamble
#3-05: Tide of TwilightI'm sure I've forgot some. There are so many!
There's Tide of Morning as well.
The common thread is: whenever you see a fire, you put it out, because most of the time it's related to the secondary success condition.
Hmm Venture-Captain, Minnesota |
Ascalaphus Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden |
CanisDirus |
I had a player at my table of this last week want to use a wand of Create Water to help put out the fire. Since the tent is described as oil-soaked, I reasoned that the water wouldn't put out the fire automatically, so I asked the player to roll 1d6 and add the result to his Survival check to put it out - an idea inspired by the ACG, in fact. I could have given a flat bonus as per the CRB due to the good idea, but when I mentioned that out loud, my players really liked it.
GreySector RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8 |
Michael Eshleman wrote:Nick Wasko wrote:I agree. I did my best to design a timed fire that makes sense, but Lau already mentioned the problems with that approach. I'll do some more homework before implementing a mechanic like that again, and hopefully I'll cover more bases and make the GM's job easier.FYI there are pretty detailed fire rules on pp. 59-60 of Council of Thieves #6 The Twice-Damned Prince.Just to be the bearer of bad news, but there's more than enough homework to go around. Much like my academic history there are several different takes on, uh, burnination:
#6-07: Valley of Veiled Flame
#3-18: The Gods' Market Gamble
#3-05: Tide of TwilightI'm sure I've forgot some. There are so many!
I didn't mean to offer a comprehensive list of fire subsystems, I just meant to point out one that was in a published product (AP volume) instead of a scenario.
Fromper |
Played this over the weekend and had a blast. I'm glad I got a chance to play it, since I'm going to be GMing it 4 times at GenCon.
The down side is that this seems VERY likely to go long if you play up the RP of the investigation at all, so running it at a convention could be tough. We went long when I played it, and the GM sort of hand waved some of the combat at the end to wrap us up. I'll have to prep carefully and keep things moving when I run it.
As for those worried about low skill characters in the investigation, my group had a level 1 fighter and my level 2 cleric, and we both contributed. The fighter had a harder time of it, but he managed to use Climb to get a bird's eye view of what they were building to get some information that way.
My cleric has diplomacy and sense motive trained, which worked well for me. One of the other PC's gave me a perception bonus that I used one day on top of my good wisdom, so I succeeded all 3 days with those different skills.
I even hit a 25 the last day with a good roll, which let us walk right up to the convoy and start our surprise round where we wanted. The enemies never got a chance to act, between the surprise round, some of us beating the enemies in initiative, and telling the dogs to calm down and not fight. Some of my teammates were doing lethal damage, though, so I was glad I prepped Stabilize, to keep the guards I'd made friends with from dying.
About the Endure Elements not working against the heat trap, I actually thought of that as soon as I heard about it. I just assumed it would be more heat than the spell could handle, and suggested spending some of our group money on Resist Energy scrolls, since I figured it would be full fire damage, not just non-lethal heat stroke.
I'm sure I'll come in here with more comments and questions when I get a chance to download and read it. I really like this one so far, though.
jhallum |
Played this at a local game day yesterday with my Investigator (Empiricist), who is a skill monkey machine. I had no idea what i was getting into, and it was a blast. It's nice to see the Intrigue Rules get play, it's giving me ideas for the home game.
There were five of us at the table, and between myself and a Bard, we pretty much learned everything there was to learn, though we had huge problems with the fights (our three combat characters couldn't make a save, or not take damage). With no cleric, we had multiple characters drop over the course of the game.
Thankfully, when we targetted the big bad at the oasis and took her down (with one down unconscious, and the other in the negatives), we were able to trigger the end of the encounter, and still save the docs.
I totally enjoyed it, I'd be happy to run it someday.
HoloGnome |
Ran this at a CON over the weekend - had a great time. Finished in 4 hrs., but did have to move it along. Lots of hilarious RP at the table. Also, I made use of the super-awesome handouts! They saved me some prep time and kept the players focused! Thx!
Nice adventure with lots of room for creativity and a great experience for the players!
Hmm Venture-Captain, Minnesota |
Dennis Muldoon Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
first time running this and want to make sure I have something right: there's no explicit DC listed for spotting the switches in D2 and D4 in the transport to disable the heat trap. Should I use the DC20 perception (tier 1) listed on the trap itself? The trap also lists a disable device DC20. Is this necessary for the PCs to flip each switch to turn off the heat, or once they've spotted the switches can they just pull them? Thanks!
Also, Hmm, thank you so much for those docs, those made my prep so much faster.
Nick Wasko RPG Superstar Season 9 |
first time running this and want to make sure I have something right: there's no explicit DC listed for spotting the switches in D2 and D4 in the transport to disable the heat trap. Should I use the DC20 perception (tier 1) listed on the trap itself? The trap also lists a disable device DC20. Is this necessary for the PCs to flip each switch to turn off the heat, or once they've spotted the switches can they just pull them? Thanks!
Correct, use the trap's DC. Usually you have to be near a trap in order to disable it, but this trap affects the entire convoy and can only be disabled from two locations (i.e. the switches). For Tier 1-2, the PCs must make a DC 20 Perception check to find a switch, then a DC 20 Disable Device check to activate it.
Dennis Muldoon Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East |
Dennis Muldoon wrote:first time running this and want to make sure I have something right: there's no explicit DC listed for spotting the switches in D2 and D4 in the transport to disable the heat trap. Should I use the DC20 perception (tier 1) listed on the trap itself? The trap also lists a disable device DC20. Is this necessary for the PCs to flip each switch to turn off the heat, or once they've spotted the switches can they just pull them? Thanks!Correct, use the trap's DC. Usually you have to be near a trap in order to disable it, but this trap affects the entire convoy and can only be disabled from two locations (i.e. the switches). For Tier 1-2, the PCs must make a DC 20 Perception check to find a switch, then a DC 20 Disable Device check to activate it.
Great, thank you!
Ascalaphus Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nicholas, I want to thank you. I ran the scenario last wednesday and it's been very long since I liked running a scenario so much as this. I put in quite some work to prep, but afterwards it ran sooooo smoothly. And my players all had a great time.
We ran on low tier with a a party of four: L1 wayang rogue, L1 vishkanya daring champion (of the seal), L2 ratfolk cavalier and L3 human arcanist. They did very nicely on the infiltration phase. I think at least on low tier the 4-player adjustment may have been a bit too generous; they didn't fail a single check while using different abilities every time (fitting with the day's theme). Which is a bit of a shame because the complications are actually entertaining to run into now and then. I think requiring fewer successes would have been enough of an adjustment on its own, at least on low tier. For a 6-player playing up I suppose the lower DCs would be the better adjustment.
I used a couple of complications for very awkwardly approached interactions with supervisors, like doing the exact opposite of what you're supposed to. They handled those well too so they ended up with all the clues.
With one mage replaced by a PC, one guard gone due to 4 player adjustment and the Handle Animal commands to handle the dogs, the fight was over very quickly, and without casualties. With complete knowledge of the trap, that wasn't a problem either.
Now there's several solutions for the party;
1) Tough it out.
2) Do something clever with allies opening doors so the rogues can race in and hope they roll 1 on the 1d4 rounds it takes to try a Disable Device check.
3) Trigger the trap, exit the transport and wait for it to wind down, costing time.
None of these really sounds like it was really intended. Is it possible you didn't account for the time needed to get to the trap switches, and for the 1d4/2d4 rounds to try a check? Because two rounds to succeed at two DC 20/25 checks sounds much more like a reasonable challenge than what strict RAW would require.
Also, how do the normal crew of the transport ever use this thing?
The rogue decided to do a circuit of the transport to check for traps, and that also opened up the hidden room. When I explained it afterwards they saw the link to the clue and liked it.
They used invisibility on the rogue and a minor image of a thief with a glowing vial to distract the altar, and so easily got out the real dummy elixir. Then they got out.
During the infiltration phase they'd already been picking up clues that the Aspis were involved so when Ziralia asked them to go to the oasis that all made good sense.
The fight at the oasis was a fun fight. The goons had enough AC at low tier to put up a fight without being too deadly, the true strike blue whinnis gave the arcanist a good fright but luckily he made his second save. After Ivira lit up the tent the rogue ran in and snagged the ledgers.
All in all I managed to convey the entire story and every scene bridged into the next one in a very natural way. And we finished neatly in about 3.5 hours without any rushing.
Nick Wasko RPG Superstar Season 9 |
Nicholas, I want to thank you. I ran the scenario last wednesday and it's been very long since I liked running a scenario so much as this. I put in quite some work to prep, but afterwards it ran sooooo smoothly. And my players all had a great time.
Glad you enjoyed it! It's a treat to hear positive feedback on my work.
The normal crew knows where the switches are and how to turn them off, so they wouldn't require the whole Disable Device song and dance to turn off the trap.
BretI Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis |
Alright, I've run this three times now. I really enjoy the scenario, but I'm thinking that the minions on the last fight are a bit too difficult to hit at Tier 1-2.
The boss is about the right power, but many characters have a lot of trouble hitting the minions in this battle. Very few things are as frustrating as not hitting.
Have other people found this to be a problem?
Ascalaphus Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, I've run this three times now. I really enjoy the scenario, but I'm thinking that the minions on the last fight are a bit too difficult to hit at Tier 1-2.
The boss is about the right power, but many characters have a lot of trouble hitting the minions in this battle. Very few things are as frustrating as not hitting.
Have other people found this to be a problem?
I actually found that to be a good thing. I think good enemies should always be 1-2 but never 3 of the following:
- hard to hit/damage/affect with spells- accurate in their attacks/high DCs on their abilities
- hitting hard with their attacks/spells/abilities
These goons are hard to hit but in turn they don't hit very hard or accurately either. They make up plausible goons for the boss and give her time to fire a few shots, without being likely to kill any PCs out of the blue. It may take the PCs a few rounds to figure out what approach to take to actually hurt them (flank, grab, touch...), but because they're not so deadly, the PCs do have that time.
Gary Bush Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha |
I have a question about the Elixir of Solar Vigor. I have being my prep for this weekend and then on to GenCon.
First I have played this once and we had a pretty good group that succeeded pretty easily.
However, reading the scenario I get the impress that if the PCs don't actually find the Elixir (maybe only the honey) then the GM should cross off the Elixir from the chronicle.
Am I understanding that correctly?
Thank you.
(I did read through the thread and didn't see an answer to my specific question.)
KingOfAnything Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha |
Nick Wasko RPG Superstar Season 9 |
Reading the scenario I get the impress that if the PCs don't actually find the Elixir (maybe only the honey) then the GM should cross off the Elixir from the chronicle.
Am I understanding that correctly?
You are correct, a group that fails to find the "real" fake elixir (i.e. the elixir of solar vigor) crosses it off their chronicle sheet. Keeping the elixir is only a reward for people who find the secret compartment during the heist.
However, PCs who fail to find the real elixir but manage to steal the glamered honey still complete the primary mission objective, even though they don't get the item on their chronicles.