#9-03 On the Border of War, GM Thread (SPOILERS)


GM Discussion

1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
4/5

The priestesses in the final battle are supposed to use counterspell, which is an integral aspect of their archetype. BUT, they are completely untrained in spellcraft. Is there something in their build that makes it unnecessary for them to make a spellcraft roll to identify the spell they are readied to counterspell? I'm not seeing anything like that.

When I ran this at Gen Con I assumed they had at least one rank in spellcraft, otherwise their tactics make no sense. Please help me understand what I was doing wrong.

4/5 ****

We nees to get Vic annoyed enough to fix the thread title for us.

Silver Crusade 4/5 5/55/55/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Pirate Rob wrote:
We nees to get Vic annoyed enough to fix the thread title for us.

And here I thought a conflict-averse landlord had hired the PFS to evict an aspect of Gorum who hasn't been paying rent on a basement apartment.

How disappointing!

4/5

Regardless of my spelling error, I think this is an important question for the final combat.

For the sake of making the question more searchable:

#9-03 On the Border of War, GM Thread (SPOILERS)

Silver Crusade 4/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I think we're poking more good-natured fun at Vic than we are at you, Mimo. Typos (and the like) happen. :)


There were so many ways for this class/archetype to get Spellcraft, that I was almost certain it was actually in the stat block somewhere, just hidden. For example:


  • A bard's versatile performance can give free skill checks of various types (but no such luck in this case).
  • Not having memorized the text for it, I thought maybe Improved Counterspell & Greater Counterspell might have conferred checks without needing Spellcraft (turns out, nope).
  • Lore Master -- 1 free check per day. Is that it? Nope, Lore Master can only give Knowledge checks.
  • Bardic Performance? Nope. Spirit Totem? Not even related at all.
  • But wait! This villain can cast spells! And the rules say that Dispel Magic can be used to counterspell without a Spellcraft check! Except... her 3rd level spells are Confusion, Haste, and Phantom Steed. Oops.

So many chances for this monster stat block to redeem itself, but nothing worked out.

For me, I get very uncomfortable messing with a stat block to try to force the tactics to work. Since the stat block can't do it, all I can do is examine the tactics line again:

Quote:
The seeress tries to use her spells and abilities to support and enhance Ismene and to counterspell the PCs’ spellcasting.

The part in bold still seems to apply and is useful, so I'm going to fall back to doing that, and I suspect that my villains will be dead before I'd ever need to implement the counterspelling.

4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've run this one 3 times already and definitely found time for the counterspell when I had a full table with two priestesses.

Perhaps the saddest thing is that these NPCs were copied from page 183 of the Villain Codex, which means someone made the mistake there and someone else then copied it into the scenario that should have been playtested, and still no one caught it.


The bandits (sellswords, level 8 fighters) are actually pretty good in this scenario. The stat block looks weak initially, but the module modifies the default sellsword stat block -- they remove some potions but in exchange they say you can add Bull's Strength to the stat block, and they lowered the bandit's AC but in exchange (maybe?) they say you should run 'em with Power Attack. With those changes, the attack line looks like this:


  • Melee POWER ATTACK +1 bastard sword +13/+8 (1d10+20/17–20)

I think it's the +20 to damage and the 17-20 crit range that impresses me. Even if these dudes only survive 2 rounds, that's 16 attacks the PCs have to endure (4 bad guys x 2 attacks per round X 2 rounds = 16). With 16 rolls you're pretty much guaranteed to see 17+ on the die a couple of times. That's 41 damage minimum for each of those crits.

If the party's front-line martial PC takes 2 crits, that's 82 points of damage. Even at level 9, that's a real fight.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

We had a pretty good time with them, but they couldn't handle the multiple channeled negative energy attacks from the cleric, nor the 35+AC eidolon blocking the way to the squishies. The big problem I had with this scenario was con noise level preventing most of the players from following the story. Reviewing afterwards, it looks fairly solid, but it just didn't come through at the table.

5/5 ** RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Playing this last Friday, we noticed that its pacing seemed uneven. We spent a couple of hours on the roleplaying, only heading off to the ruins after checking out all the leads in town.

To pick up the pace, I'd suggest that as soon as the players have spoken to enough NPCs to potentially delay the conflict (or have failed in their initial efforts), they get the word that a sketchy group of mercenaries was heading over to the ruins "to see if there's any loot left after all these years". That should increase the Pathfinders' sense of urgency, motivating them to hurry to the ruins. (Yes, that undermines the "we're collecting taxes" bit, but would any PCs you've ever seen actually fall for that?)

Afterward, when the party returns to town, the nobles may be closer to open conflict. I'd describe the signs of imminent violence, with faction supporters heavily armed and staying in groups, innocent townsfolk staying off the streets or frantically packing their valuables to leave town, and merchants' shelves empty as people hoard food and supplies. The boatman that transported the Pathfinders may want to renegotiate up the cost of passage home as townsfolk demand his help escaping the potential war zone. This will emphasize the importance of the party's peacemaking efforts, since they will see how their failure could devastate the area.


Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
We had a pretty good time with them, but they couldn't handle the multiple channeled negative energy attacks from the cleric

This won't help Steven as his game is already over, but for anyone else reading this, the bandits have Improved Iron Will, which gives each of them 1 reroll per day on a Will save. Since channeling negative energy gives the targets a Will save, the bandits should have been oddly good at withstanding it. They'd still fall eventually, but maybe a round or two later than the PCs would expect.

These bandits should be weirdly good at passing Will saves.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

It still took three to four rounds, including the round they began fleeing, of course.


I just ran high tier and the plant fight (C3, "the moss garden") is UGH. Look at this list of all the things that happen, some automatically as you hear/view/move:


  • Yellow mold, 2 "trapped" boxed areas on map, 10' burst, 1d3 CON damage.
  • Lampad's Insane Beauty aura, 30' radius, confusion.
  • Lampad's Poison Spore Cloud, 15' radius, 1d2 CON damage + fatigue.
  • Lampad's Weep, 30' radius, shaken.
  • Psychepore's Psychotic Musk, auto-hits any PC damaging the psychepore with slashing or piercing weapons, 1d3 WIS damage + confusion.

That's bonkers. There should be so much confusion and CON damage from this fight. The effects keep going for many rounds if PCs don't save, so PCs could take a LOT of CON damage as the battle rages! I did some of that but I couldn't keep up with all these status effects. I'm sure something slipped through the cracks.

Question about the "Weep" ability: how does a bard's countersong affect it? Weep is a standard action, not ongoing (although if you fail, you have an ongoing "shaken" condition). Can countersong offset this shaken condition after the ability is done and people are already shaken?

Also, the players had a question that would be easy to answer in a home game, but not sure for PFS: is the lampad's impossible beauty ability a charm effect? The scenario text says nothing about it being a charm, but the idea is that this monster is so beautiful that everyone is mind-boggled.

2/5

outshyn wrote:


Psychepore's Psychotic Musk, auto-hits any PC damaging the psychepore with slashing or piercing weapons, 1d3 WIS damage + confusion.

It looks to me that the spores simply expose them to the Psychepore's poison, with a Fort save as normal. That is a lot of effects going on though.


Hmm. You're right, good call. That makes it a little better.

However, I also forgot Pathfinder's weird poison-stacking rules, which add 2 to the DC every time you are re-exposed, if you're under the effects already. So if you have failed a save and next round you hit the psychepore and get re-exposed, your DC goes up, from DC 18 to DC 20. AND the poison then lasts longer too.

(Actually, I just re-read the poison rules and it looks like a poison's initial saves are not stacked -- it's when you have recurring saves that you add up the number of active poisonings in your system, and that affects the DC.)

Lantern Lodge Customer Service Manager

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pirate Rob wrote:
We nees to get Vic annoyed enough to fix the thread title for us.

I'll do it and you don't even have to annoy me ;)

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

It's already boarded in my head as the old spelling.

But for people searching for the thread, this is helpful.

Scarab Sages 4/5

GMed this low-tier today. Everything went well, but there were a couple of parts where I wasn't sure if I missed something. No one ever gives the PCs the list of people they can talk to, right? Or a list of places they might visit? Is it just assumed that they will try to gather information, and then you present them with one of the NPCs to talk to?

The group today went looking for Orlovsky and Surtavo, because they came up in the knowledge checks. Ultimately, I gave them the list of places they could visit. They immediately wanted to go to the Apothecary after speaking with Surtavo, to see about finding a cure for the plague. They did ultimately visit all of the locations, but Idhrenniel in particular in the market felt a little random. Why this particular person out of all of the people in the market?

They had someone who had played Horn of Aroden with the character they used for this scenario, so talking to Lander was more natural. Otherwise, he might seem a little random also. They originally went to the tavern planning to ask about Tarn after I had them encounter her outside the Church of Abadar, so it would have been easy enough to have Lander be the one to speak up about her.

The other place that I wasn't completely sure what to do was with the haunt. They set it off and saw the vision, and they heard the boots on the wall, but they just kept looking for a secret door. The question came up about whether or not Knowledge Religion could tell them what they needed to do to put the spirit to rest. They left a lot of the cataloging until after the final fight, so when it became clear they were going to get enough points to succeed anyway, I let them go ahead and make a roll to figure it out.

I did end up catching the one society legal Triaxian in the haunt. He made his save, though, so I didn't suffocate an auction boon character.

The final fight could have caused them trouble, but I rolled terribly for initiative, and both Ismene and Tarn/the Mad Seeress went last. They made a knowledge roll to figure out Ismene was at least part red dragon, so the party cleric got a communal resist energy up before the breath weapon. That made a huge difference in the fight, as the 42 points from the breath weapon would have dropped the (fully healed) cleric, and nearly dropped one of the other characters (the Triaxian had moved out of the main part of the group, so he wasn't in danger from that one).

Strangely, none of the characters in the group had Knowledge: Local. I had planned to give them two rolls for identifying Ismene. Arcana for dragon, and local for cyclops. They made the arcana roll by a lot, but I gave them everything except the Flash of Insight ability. She never had a chance to use that, anyway, since they never cast anything on her except her being caught in a prayer.

Part of the tactics for the final fight confused me. I may have run it slightly wrong. The Mad Seeress has in her tactics that she begins her Raging Song before combat, but that would mean she is singing as the PCs approach, and throughout Ismene's monologue and the roleplaying part of the encounter. I had he start singing on round 1 of the combat, which meant she never got haste going, because she had someone in her face in round 2. Instead I had her step back and try confusion on 4/6ths of the group, but everyone made their saves.

Ismene did drop the cleric. Ismene doesn't have Spellcraft either (at low tier), so she didn't know that the cleric had cast resist energy, which is why I stuck to the tactic of having her use her breath weapon on round 1. But after using it and seeing that it didn't damage anyone, she got upset at the cleric. She ended up dropping the cleric on round 2 after diving and biting, and then with an AoO when the cleric got confused about where to stand to avoid an AoO and didn't cast defensively. At that point Ismene only had about 8 hit points left anyway, so the fight was almost over. Top of round 3 she was taken into negatives which would have triggered her ferocity, but she was knocked unconscious from non-lethal damage from a hit from a Merciful Glaive. In retrospect, part of the group might have been positioned to allow her to Cleave/Great Cleave three people. I can't remember if there was a space between them or if they were all adjacent. Overall, though, with the breath weapon being a dud, and her only getting it once a day (the right call for low-tier for sure), the party wasn't in too serious of danger.

The party was smart enough not to side with anyone in the civil conflict, so they encountered the bandits on the road. That ended up being a pretty tough fight, even with the Grizzled Mercenary stat block instead of the Sellswords. There was a near critical from a power attacking halberd, which would have been rough at 3d10+27.


Ferious Thune wrote:
No one ever gives the PCs the list of people they can talk to, right? Or a list of places they might visit?

The opening read-aloud text from Venture-Captain Alvar Hadrias gives the PCs info on House Surtova, House Orlovsky, and the Hartsfall Keep. So for free without trying, they should know to ask in town about those 3 things.

Ferious Thune wrote:
Is it just assumed that they will try to gather information, and then you present them with one of the NPCs to talk to?

The module says, "Encourage the PCs to explore the town. If the PCs ask locals in the street for information, have the locals point the PCs to one or more of the people below." So I took it as a town exploration mini-game. I actually drew out a double-wide map (as big as 2 of Paizo's folding maps) that showed the northern half of the town, which is where the merchants, businesses, church, and political buildings are. The southern half is all common homes, so I didn't have room or need for that. Then I filled the map with minis for relevant NPCs, and had the PCs move through town. Some went into the local inn to get rooms (and met Lander), some went to the stables (and met Sylvanna), some went to the market, etc.

(Don't forget that the VC gave them horses, and it never says that he takes them back -- indeed, he rides on to the king, so he is in no position to take them back. This is an easy way to at least get the PCs to the stables to meet Sylvanna.)

Ferious Thune wrote:
The question came up about whether or not Knowledge Religion could tell them what they needed to do to put the spirit to rest.

Haunts have no rules for that, at least not that I could find. The only rule in the books about how to figure out what a haunt needs is this: "PCs may attempt communication with haunts to discover the actions necessary to bring final rest. The GM may elect to treat all neutralized haunts (those reduced to 0 hp) as CR 1 rapping spirits while they reset. Using this option, haunts retain enough ectoplasmic fortitude to linger in the area, where they attempt to convey their needs to the living. While these knockings are still potentially frightening, communication with these feeble spirits can be established by working out a series of codes (such as one rap for “yes” and two for “no”) or by calling out words, numbers, and letters for selection by the spirits."

If I were going to give any kind of check to determine how to end a haunt, I suspect I'd probably make it a raw Intelligence check. This is 100% about being smart and knowing what the haunt needs.

Ferious Thune wrote:
The Mad Seeress has in her tactics that she begins her Raging Song before combat, but that would mean she is singing as the PCs approach, and throughout Ismene's monologue and the roleplaying part of the encounter.

Well... I always take things like that to be module/author cheats. That is, the module dictates that something happens, even if by the rules it cannot normally happen, and the module text wins in such cases. It's the author deliberately cheating to get an effect. So for me I'd treat it more like "the moment things appear to be going hostile, they sing and initiate combat." Sort of like a surprise round action, but actually it's just cheating, because the module says so.

So the effect should be running on round 0, but doesn't have to be running for many rounds prior as the PCs chat with the villains. It's possible to explain by saying things like, "They have a temporary module-dictated special ability to start a song in a surprise round even when there is no surprise round." (Because that's literally what's actually the case.) I'm not sure if other GMs will like that approach, but it's what I was trained to do.

Scarab Sages 4/5

Thanks. Those are helpful notes on getting the PCs in touch with the NPCs. I’m running this again next month for Aethercon, so I’m hoping to have a better handle on things before then.

What you suggest for the raging song makes sense. It’s a little problematic, because I had players wanting to fire off spells right as combat started as well. So if I’m going to tel them there’s no surprise round, then it seems a little unfair to allow the villains to have a surprise round.

It’s also not so much that she would be burning rounds of raging song. She has plenty. It’s more that the OCs should hear he singing well in advance, and it may prompt them to start combat before talking to Ismene. They can’t diplomacize her anyway, but it’s an interesting bit of roleplaying.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

Seems like the writer messed up there. There's a social contract about these scenes: players let the villain monologue and do some plot exposition, but on the other hand the bad guys don't take advantage the players' willingness to wait and listen.

Silver Crusade

Lau Bannenberg wrote:
Seems like the writer messed up there. There's a social contract about these scenes: players let the villain monologue and do some plot exposition, but on the other hand the bad guys don't take advantage the players' willingness to wait and listen.

Assuming I’m reading this right (since I don’t have the scenario) the Villian monologues as a way to distract the PCs so they or their allies can do something?

That doesn’t sound like messing up to me. And I’m not sure how I feel about an apparent social contract that villians can’t do anything else while monologuing. Or that PCs have to let the Villian finish their monologue.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Lau Bannenberg wrote:
Seems like the writer messed up there. There's a social contract about these scenes: players let the villain monologue and do some plot exposition, but on the other hand the bad guys don't take advantage the players' willingness to wait and listen.
Assuming I’m reading this right (since I don’t have the scenario) the Villian monologues as a way to distract the PCs so they or their allies can do something?

I don't think so:

Scenario wrote:

Obsessed with the prophecy of the Second Dragon,

Ismene briefly engages in dialogue with the PCs if they
ask about it or the Firespeakers. She also reveals her part
in sowing discord among the two noble houses, but she
soon cuts the conversation short, eager to sacrifice them.
Below are potential questions the PCs might ask along with
Ismene’s responses to them.

It sounds like she's just a villain that can't resist the temptation to talk with the PCs and explain what the hell the scenario was about.

Rysky wrote:
That doesn’t sound like messing up to me. And I’m not sure how I feel about an apparent social contract that villians can’t do anything else while monologuing. Or that PCs have to let the Villian finish their monologue.

The thing with villain monologues is that it's a way for writers to give the players some insight into the story, give the villain's perspective, make the villain more memorable. You don't want to teach players that they should ignore that and cut it short because otherwise they'll be at a tactical disadvantage. You don't want to teach the players that they should murderhobo people without showing any interest in why the villain was doing what she did, because you'll be punished if you pause and listen.

So the "social contract" is basically, that players don't get punished tactically for showing an interest in the plot, and that players don't try to gain advantage by ignoring the villain's speech.

Silver Crusade

Yes, the monologues serve as explaining motivations and offering lore insights and it would be irksome if every PC resorted to murder first rather than letting them talk every single time, but conversely I do not think PCs should feel like they always have to let the NPC monologue and indulge them. It would depend on the NPC and situation.

As for the example from this scenario I don't see how it is breaking the social contract you bring up, the NPC will answer a couple of questions and then attack.

Scarab Sages 4/5

The issue is more that the tactics have one of the villains (the sidekick) starting a buff before combat that is really something that should start in combat. Having Raging Song going throughout the PCs approach and the roleplaying with the main villain (it's more than just a monologue) is as awkward as a witch cackling through the whole thing.

I mean, the most RAW way to run it is that the PCs will clearly hear it as they approach. They can then buff extensively, or wait it out until the Mad Seeress runs out of rounds of Raging Song (If they figure out that's what it is). My fear was that they'd buff with rounds/level things like haste, so they wouldn't want to sit through a conversation after that, and a fun part of the scenario would get skipped.

Silver Crusade

Okay, so that's a bit different than what Lau was going over with me. Having a very audible and constant combat buff going on when someone else wants to talk is a big red flag to PCs so from that alone they would probably skip talking, or if they identify the ability talk as much as they could if they have buffs that will outlast it.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

Yeah, I was talking about the Raging Son that Ferious Thune already mentioned upthread, that's the game breaker in this scenario.

Silver Crusade

*nods*

Raging Song is something that is definitely noticeable.

Silver Crusade 4/5 5/55/55/5 RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8

According to p. 50 of the Inner Sea World Guide, Noleski's proper title is "King-Regent", while he is referred to in this scenario simply as "King".

Given House Surtova's fear of eventual retaliation from a returned house Rogarvia and the tenuous political situation in Brevoy vis-à-vis Issia and Rostland, I would think the Venture-Captain at least would use his proper title.

Scarab Sages 4/5 5/5 **

Raging Song's description says it is used by Skalds trained in oration, so wouldn't a monologue count?

Scarab Sages 4/5 5/5 **

Also, is there anything preventing the PC's from just pressing on to the keep, ignoring the RP and diplomacy and just finishing the mission. Sure you lose out on one Prestige, but it just makes a TON of sense. The time limit is just not onerous when the keep is a few hours travel away.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

Stuart Tindall wrote:
Raging Song's description says it is used by Skalds trained in oration, so wouldn't a monologue count?

It's not the skald talking with the PCs.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

Stuart Tindall wrote:
Also, is there anything preventing the PC's from just pressing on to the keep, ignoring the RP and diplomacy and just finishing the mission. Sure you lose out on one Prestige, but it just makes a TON of sense. The time limit is just not onerous when the keep is a few hours travel away.

Probably nothing physically preventing them from doing so, but the mission briefing has enough hints in it that you ought probably to check out the town.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I was able to fairly well suggest to the party that their investigation would be jeopardized if they just went straight to the ruin and didn't stop in town at all. It required getting them to talk to one of the locals first, but I was able to be pretty heavy handed with the interaction highlighting the boiling tensions.

Scarab Sages 5/5 5/5 *** Venture-Captain, Netherlands

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lau Bannenberg wrote:
Stuart Tindall wrote:
Also, is there anything preventing the PC's from just pressing on to the keep, ignoring the RP and diplomacy and just finishing the mission. Sure you lose out on one Prestige, but it just makes a TON of sense. The time limit is just not onerous when the keep is a few hours travel away.
Probably nothing physically preventing them from doing so, but the mission briefing has enough hints in it that you ought probably to check out the town.

I'm planning to describe it as the seeres prostrating herself before the cyclops and singing her praises.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lau Bannenberg wrote:
the mission briefing has enough hints in it that you ought probably to check out the town.

Yeah, it has a huge hint. VC Alvar almost flat-out states it. Here is his comment when asked about what they have time to do:

Venture Captain briefing wrote:
Try to delay these hostilities to buy time for your exploration. I recommend spending a day at Zmeyka, and then another day at Hartsfall; two at the most.

So the "delay hostilities" thing is him asking the PCs to smooth things over with the nobles -- so you'd have to at least get into town and talk to them to succeed at that request. Then he says he expects the team to spend a day in town before going to the keep.

So, yeah. The VC is pretty blunt about this. The mission isn't one of those "what should we do" things. It's clear, or at least seems that way to me. I guess if the PCs never ask the VC questions about the mission, they could miss this text, though.

Silver Crusade 4/5

I'm not buying it. When I played this, we went to town because the V-C told us to, but then we weren't really sure what the point was. After it was all over, I really felt like the part in town was a waste of time, from a mission perspective (though our group had fun role playing the interactions). We could have accomplished the same things just going to Hartsfall Keep first, and playing "Look what we found" with the nobles when we got back to town afterwards.

But now that I've read and GMed it, I know that if we had done that, we would have lost a prestige point for not following the overly contrived plot, despite accomplishing both the exploration of the keep and preventing the war. And I still don't understand why.

If the Pathfinder Society's priority is to go explore the keep before war breaks out and it's destroyed, then they should have just said to skip the town and go explore the keep. Assuming a single day exploration, there's plenty of time for it before the war might start. If their priority is to prevent a war, then that should have been given as the main mission. Instead, it's presented as some sort of combo-mission which comes off as forced and overly contrived.

All the hints you get in town about things you'll find at the keep really remind me of the complaints about many of the old early season faction missions. "Look our for any folk remedies that might help with this plague, though there's no reason to expect you'll find that at the keep" really reminded me of some of those faction missions where your faction leader would say "If you happen to find something like this, which I have no reason to believe is there, but keep a look out for it anyway, bring it back to me."

And why was the Firespeaker Accords there? Why didn't they destroy the evidence like any smart villain would have done?

This adventure had a lot of good stuff in it. Some of the NPC interactions in town were fun to play. The keep exploration was fun. I just don't like the way it was combined. The different plot elements didn't go together properly, and the whole thing felt really forced.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

The Society's goal is the explore it in case it is destroyed and if possible prevent it from being destroyed so it can be further studied.

If you don't learn what you need to do beforehand, you're likely to miss out.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

When I played it I was expecting it to be in the middle of a troop standoff or something - if a bunch of heavily armed Pathfinders just march in it would set things off. So it was a bit weird that the nobles seemed quite uninterested in the keep when we tried to ask permission to explore.

I think it could be fixed easily enough if you slightly rephrase the mission briefing to say that the PCs are there for the initial survey, and if the region is stabilized, that the follow-up researchers can move in. You know, the guys in tweed who don't have HD to write home about.

Another reason why going to town first made sense to us was because the VC knew almost nothing about the place he was sending us, so we hoped to get some intel in town about possible hazards we might face.

You could still argue that all is not lost if you go to the fort first and town second, but at least now you've made going to town first the obvious thing to do.


Fromper wrote:
I'm not buying it. When I played this, we went to town because the V-C told us to, but then we weren't really sure what the point was. After it was all over, I really felt like the part in town was a waste of time, from a mission perspective (though our group had fun role playing the interactions). We could have accomplished the same things just going to Hartsfall Keep first, and playing "Look what we found" with the nobles when we got back to town afterwards.

For what it's worth, the scenario does attach a game mechanic to this issue. Here is the text about it:

scenario 9-03, page 5 wrote:
If PCs take over 2 days starting from their arrival at Zmeyka, the hostilities reach a boiling point and the area is overrun in battle. The conflict forces the PCs to retreat, bringing an immediate end to their investigations at Hartsfall Keep. If the PCs are able to improve both Berislav and Sylvanna’s attitudes to indifferent, they have three days. If they improve both of their attitudes to friendly, they have four days.

In addition, at the end, Lander arrives at the keep and basically forces them to flee if they haven't earned extra days -- the PCs will never get to earn a Secondary Success condition because everything goes to war. And that doesn't seem awful or forced -- to me, that's the natural fallout of not doing the crowd work. The PCs never calmed anyone, even after being asked. So, nobody is calm. And now Pathfinders are poking around a contested keep and ownership is in dispute and people are on edge, with soldiers in town and at the ready. That's pretty much expected to go badly.

Basically the VC says, "buy yourselves time to explore," and the game even puts some allotment of days to it, buying the PCs more time (or not, depending upon their diplomatic skills). Avoiding that diplomatic session entirely should mean you didn't buy time. You flee with whatever loot you have as the GM narrates war all around you in some "the armies are so massive that you can't participate meaningfully and better run for your lives" kind of way, and that's it.

You'd also have some baubles (like the copper carving) that would have no context for you. You wouldn't know what to do with these things or who was looking for them, so you couldn't use them to make these influential nobles happy or peaceful. That would be accurate to the real world too, if we had this situation in reality. If we were sent to meet a general and clear out his old military base, and instead we just went to the base directly, we obviously would have no idea that the general wanted us to make sure to fetch some personal item of his that he left there. He was willing to tell us. He wanted to tell us. He expected us to show up and ask. But we didn't, even after being told to do so. Thus we'd completely miss the mark, and that makes sense.

Bypassing information gathering -- especially when the Pathfinder Society motto includes exploring and cooperating -- seems like a bad idea, and it's logical to lose Prestige when you don't do your full exploring and cooperating.

Lau Bannenberg wrote:
So it was a bit weird that the nobles seemed quite uninterested in the keep when we tried to ask permission to explore.

Hmm. Weird. Both Lander and Sylvanna have text about them being interested. They each want the copper carving, and ask the PCs to retrieve it. However, this is hidden behind a Diplomacy check, so I guess if you don't hit the DC, they wouldn't say much about the keep. Maybe the idea is that they're so preoccupied with the impending war that they can't focus on the keep unless you persuade it out of them.

Scarab Sages 4/5

I did spot the 2 day time crunch when I ran it. The group almost decided to go to the Keep first, then changed their minds and went to town. Realistically, though, exploring the Keep isn’t going to take more than a day unless the party decides to rest. Which isn’t likely. So it’s doubtful that the mission is going to be cut short if they go to the Keep first. It might have been good to have the DCs to improve Berislav and Sylvanna’s attitudes increase if the party goes to the ruins first, as there would be more time for hostilities to build.

I like the idea of adding something in the mission briefing about trying to secure the long term safety of the site.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

outshyn wrote:
Lau Bannenberg wrote:
So it was a bit weird that the nobles seemed quite uninterested in the keep when we tried to ask permission to explore.
Hmm. Weird. Both Lander and Sylvanna have text about them being interested. They each want the copper carving, and ask the PCs to retrieve it. However, this is hidden behind a Diplomacy check, so I guess if you don't hit the DC, they wouldn't say much about the keep. Maybe the idea is that they're so preoccupied with the impending war that they can't focus on the keep unless you persuade it out of them.

Oh, they had stuff to say and of course we diplomized that out of them. But we were expecting to need permission to explore the keep, both armies laying claim to the territory and worrying about spies, that sort of thing.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

Ferious Thune wrote:
I like the idea of adding something in the mission briefing about trying to secure the long term safety of the site.

I generally consider the PCs to be the vanguard of the Society - battle-trained and capable of snap investigations into places that could collapse any minute. Their job is to make sure the most important assets are secured. If possible, the boring months-long archaeological digging is left to NPCs.

Silver Crusade 4/5

Ferious Thune wrote:
I did spot the 2 day time crunch when I ran it. The group almost decided to go to the Keep first, then changed their minds and went to town. Realistically, though, exploring the Keep isn’t going to take more than a day unless the party decides to rest. Which isn’t likely. So it’s doubtful that the mission is going to be cut short if they go to the Keep first.

Exactly. And they could have returned to the town with the stuff they found and asked the locals "Any idea whose copper eagle this is? Anyone need a book on local herbal remedies?"

While technically, the adventure provides just enough motivation to force the PCs to play along, it just doesn't stand up to detailed scrutiny. The whole thing seems contrived and forced. And both when I played it and when I GMed it, we ended up with the same questions from players of "Why are we going to town first? Who should we talk to? Why?"

When I GMed it, the group completely missed talking to the hunter in the marketplace, because I didn't see any reason to force that conversation on them. And they didn't roll well enough to find out about the plague from Belislav, so they never had a reason to visit the apothicary. When they found the book of herbal remedies, they had no idea what it was for. I just assumed they showed it around town when setting up a meeting with the nobles to discuss the other stuff they found and make peace, so that's when they found out what it was good for.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Honestly, walking into a ruin that may be overrun by a war while you're there is not the brightest of ideas. Much like walking into a tomb of horrors without doing any research on what it is...

Scarab Sages 4/5

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
... not the brightest of ideas.

I mean, we are talking about Pathfinders here. Bright isn't always the first word that comes to mind.

Silver Crusade 4/5

Then why didn't the Society send a team to investigate the keep years ago? It's not like it's a recently discovered secret location. It's been there, ready and waiting for Pathfinders to explore it, for years.

As I said, the whole plot felt very contrived and forced. Yes, all PFS scenarios are on something of a railroad, plot wise. But they're usually pretty good at hiding it, and sometimes in giving the players some true freedom to decide what to do and in what order. In this one, they tried to make it seem like the players could do whatever they wanted, but stuff that wouldn't be the most obvious or natural ideas were forced on the players for the sake of keeping the plot on the predefined rails.

The rails on this railroad were showing in a way that seemed more obvious and jarring than in most PFS scenarios, and I wasn't the only one locally who thought so.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Fromper wrote:
Then why didn't the Society send a team to investigate the keep years ago?

Opportunity costs and the fact that it wasn't endangered years ago.

3/5 **** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro

Fromper wrote:

Then why didn't the Society send a team to investigate the keep years ago? It's not like it's a recently discovered secret location. It's been there, ready and waiting for Pathfinders to explore it, for years.

Well remember at one point the Society was bankrupt and resources were stretched ridiculously thin.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East

We weren't able to secure a GM for our table tonight, so I ended up running with about a half hour's notice. We took a bit longer, but I think we still had fun.

A 5th fighter, two 8th level casters, and Kyra averages 7, so played down with no adjustments. So the casters made all the combat into cakewalks.

For asking around town, I told them their information on the way there told them about the 3 houses in town. They started with the surtova, then went to Lander. Lander recommended they talk to Grandt, as he knew a lot about the local situation. On the way to Grandt they were accosted by Tarn. Grandt added in that the elf might be a useful person to talk to about the area around the keep itself. Then they went to Sylvanna then finished off with Elf.

Crazy bit was one of the casters knew enough about how legends go (and the game of thrones parallels) that from the first person we talked to, he started asking about rumors of the 'return of the dragon' and getting shocked responses. So when Tarn showed up with her rants, he was super excited. He was also a Blue Dragon Bloodline Sorcerer. Later he wanted to chat with Ismene for a bit, but the rest of the party started the fight. He managed to bluff himself around to re-position himself.

The problem I had was the art for Ismene doesn't match the box-text personality for her. The art has her happy-excited to meet people, maybe give them a hug. Reminds me of a nicer version of Mike from Monsters Inc. The box text is all ranty and evil and it just doesn't match.

1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / GM Discussion / #9-03 On the Border of War, GM Thread (SPOILERS) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.