|
I'm prepping this session for Friday, and I'm wondering if something that's printed is correct...
Lau is correct about Kemendu's feats.
As for the boat, that depends on the boat itself. The most likely stats for a PC-used boat in this scenario is a swan boat feather token, which moves at a speed of 60 feet (12 squares) per round according to the CRB.
Getting a non-magical boat is less likely since page 16 says, "With Aspis agents on high alert, traveling through the harbor becomes too perilous." However, if the GM allows the PCs to commandeer or otherwise acquire a boat to travel upriver, it would have to be a keelboat, which can travel up to 1 mile per hour according to the CRB. Calculated down to the encounter map, 5,280 feet (1 mile) per 600 rounds (1 hour is 60 minutes, each of which is 10 rounds) comes out to 8.8 feet per round, or roughly 2 squares.
As for Kemendu's pursuit:
For the elven wizards in both high tier & low tier, the "before combat" section states that they cast Mage Armor & Shield. However, Mage Armor is not on their list of spells, and Shield is not reflected in the AC stat block. I assume for Mage Armor, they could use Arcane Bond to pull from their spellbooks. However, why isn't Shield in the AC line?
Another problem: Kemendu's Sandals of Quick Reaction do not confer a full-attack action, yet the product directs us to do that.
For the elven wizards in both high tier & low tier, the "before combat" section states that they cast Mage Armor & Shield. However, Mage Armor is not on their list of spells, and Shield is not reflected in the AC stat block. I assume for Mage Armor, they could use Arcane Bond to pull from their spellbooks. However, why isn't Shield in the AC line?
The wizards cast mage armor from the wand on the desk (see area A3 Treasure), which they can both use. If the combat begins somewhere other than A3, then they won't be able to cast mage armor (or probably any of their "before combat" spells, since any fight that starts with the overseers somewhere other than A3 implies the PCs initially approached them non-violently and got the jump on them). If the overseers are caught off-guard, the only action from their "before combat" section that they take before switching to their "during combat" tactics is for one of them to fire off a bird feather token to call for backup.
Though I wasn't involved in the final formatting of the encounter, I imagine shield and the other "before combat" spells aren't already factored into the stat blocks because of the considerable likelihood of the scenario stated above (i.e. the PCs get into the guildhouse non-violently and catch the overseers off-guard before they can cast all their buff spells). The overseers only cast the preparatory spells if they suspect foul play upfront (they see the PCs preparing for combat in A1 from the window in A3, they hear sounds of combat from A2, etc.).
Another problem: Kemendu's Sandals of Quick Reaction do not confer a full-attack action, yet the product directs us to do that.
The sandals of quick reaction rules say, "When the wearer acts during a surprise round, he can take a standard and a move action during the surprise round." By my understanding of the combat rules, a full-attack action can be used in place of a standard action and a move action in a combat round. This includes the surprise round if the character gets both a standard and a move action (in this case because of the sandals), as long as the character does not move more than a 5-foot step. If I'm wrong in my interpretation please let me know what errata I missed so I can avoid that mistake in the future.
I imagine shield and the other "before combat" spells aren't already factored into the stat blocks
That's wrong, then. The "during combat" sections are not factored in because they rely on actions in initiative that may or may not happen. However, the "before combat" sections are always factored in, as they are supposed to happen before the PCs can interfere. If something from that section is not factored in, then it's not supposed to be in the before combat section.
In any case, Mage Armor is factored in, and it's from the before combat section. So why Mage Armor but not Shield? It could at least be consistent. I'm wondering if, after you passed the content off to the team, they decided to kill the Shield bonus but missed the before combat section...?
The sandals of quick reaction rules say, "When the wearer acts during a surprise round, he can take a standard and a move action during the surprise round." By my understanding of the combat rules, a full-attack action can be used in place of a standard action and a move action
Not according to the forums, at least, but I'm posting on the forums and I'm an idiot, so who can say how valid those forum discussions are. Here are two. This discussion and this one specifically dedicated to the sandals.
(Assuming you agree that the sandals don't do what you intended, the next question is: do we nerf the encounter and follow the rules, or do we invoke "specific trumps general" and suggest that your specific text trumps the general rules and allows for this amazing full-round-on-a-surprise-round attack? Importantly: did you balance the fight around this initial onslaught? If so, then we might want to try to preserve that, unless the design team says no.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In any case, Mage Armor is factored in, and it's from the before combat section. So why Mage Armor but not Shield? It could at least be consistent. I'm wondering if, after you passed the content off to the team, they decided to kill the Shield bonus but missed the before combat section...?
Fair enough. In this case it looks like it may be an editing typo. I'd give discretion to the GM to make that call, since the encounter is fairly dynamic. The way I envisioned it, if the PCs come in with successful diplomacy and don't act suspicious, the overseers would presume the PCs are legitimate customers. That would stop them from casting any of the spells in the Before Combat section (why waste a buff for business as usual?), and if the PCs surprise-attacked then the overseers would jump right into defending themselves, sending the bird feather token off for backup and not wasting time casting buffs. If, however, the PCs came in guns blazing, the overseers would cast all their buff spells before engaging while the PCs fought the bouncers. Therefore, if the PCs play nice until they get the jump on the overseers, remove the +4 armor bonus from mage armor as well as see invisibility (both tiers) and mirror image (low tier)/displacement (high tier). If the PCs come in swinging, add the +4 bonus from shield to AC.
Not according to the forums, at least, but I'm posting on the forums and I'm an idiot, so who can say how valid those forum discussions are. Here are two. This discussion and this one specifically dedicated to the sandals.
(Assuming you agree that the sandals don't do what you intended, the next question is: do we nerf the encounter and follow the rules, or do we invoke "specific trumps general" and suggest that your specific text trumps the general rules and allows for this amazing full-round-on-a-surprise-round attack? Importantly: did you balance the fight around this initial onslaught? If so, then we might want to try to preserve that, unless the design team says no.)
Good catch, I'll keep that in mind going forward (unless someone from the development team issues clarification on the sandals of quick reaction that states a wearer can combine the move and standard action into a full-attack action in the surprise round).
I would stick with the rules and have the surprise action only be a single shot. Since Kemendu opens his gambit with a hushing arrow anyway, dedicating a surprise attack to neutralizing a spellcaster seems rational. The extra move action granted by the sandals could be used to move to a tactical position, or to "push" the charmed animal to attack the PCs if the PCs got enough delays to get the extra monster in the encounter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
dedicating a surprise attack to neutralizing a spellcaster seems rational
After just seeing your tricky full-round surprise attack disappear from the product, maybe this might be a consolation prize: if the hushed arrow attack works, it doesn't neutralize a spellcaster; it neutralizes all spellcasters nearby. The arrow is targeted to hit 1 person and that 1 person must fail the save, but if he/she fails it doesn't mean that person is silent -- it means the Silence spell is now emanating from them, like it or not, and it affects them and everyone within 20' of them. And none of the rest of the PCs get a saving throw, just as PCs don't get individual saving throws against Fog Cloud or similar emanation-like spells.
If the arrow works, it's just an environmental hazard that everyone must deal with.
(I suspect you the author know this, but mostly I'm mentioning this for the GMs. Lots of GMs get surprised by the Silence spell and feel it's "broken" for it to blanket an area without individual saves. cite, cite, cite)
We just lost the powerful opening salvo of the boss fight, so run that Silence effect by the books to get your full money's worth.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I ran this yesterday at the low tier, and my party did exceptionally well. We finished sooner than I thought we would, even with a fair amount of role playing.
Between them all, they had played most of the tied-in scenarios, so they were able to get the info they needed and walk right up to the Guild to get an audience with the overseers without needing to canvas the place. They were clever with their tactics, and rolled really high on their checks, so were able to completely negate any combat, and get all the evidence.
Ungala found them, so they didn't get any delays there. They also made all their checks on the tablet, and the asura, so made sure to get oils of bless weapon before heading out to kill it (and with a barbarian doing 2D6 + 14 after buffs, it didn't stand much chance, even with the blur and mirror image, especially once the images were gone and the barbarian successfully crit).
They immediately presented Erwyn with all the evidence addressing his concerns even before making a sense motive check to know what they were, and with results in the 30s, they easily won him over. That entire section only took about 10 minutes in real time as he pretty much just sat there and blinked while they overwhelmed him with what they had found. He said, "Well then," and decided he needed to go have a talk with his son.
They chose to leave via boat, and sadly (for me) they won initiative on Kemendu. Glitterdust really messes with an archer, especially when I roll a natural 1 on his save. He missed with his hushed arrow on the miss chance, and then failed against hideous laughter twice in succession, so I just called it. By the time he would have come back into the fight, they would have been far enough ahead that he couldn't catch up with them. I never even got to use his feats or favored enemy to show them what he was capable of. :( They did decide though that leaving him alive was the best possible outcome for them, because now he has failed to fulfill a contract. They're really hoping that they see him again in the future, so they can rub it in his face... :)
So... just to verify... the "Dance of Disaster" that the adhukait uses (which allows for a 10' move between each attack) still provokes AOO, right? I don't see anything in the listing which suggests that the 10' move is treated like a 5' step or something. So the creature can move a ton, but if it does, it may provoke a ton of attacks. Yeah?
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
So... just to verify... the "Dance of Disaster" that the adhukait uses (which allows for a 10' move between each attack) still provokes AOO, right? I don't see anything in the listing which suggests that the 10' move is treated like a 5' step or something. So the creature can move a ton, but if it does, it may provoke a ton of attacks. Yeah?
Yes, it would rely on it's DR and regeneration to get away with that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cool! An easy question. I got this, guys.
They do this a LOT. In most of the modules of the later seasons, you'll find that they use the "specific trumps general" rule a ton. So they take a generic bad guy stat block -- say, a wyvern, or the battle mage. They put the full generic stat block in the back of the product. Then they add a list of modifications right on the page where the encounter occurs. Those specific modifications are the "specific trumps general" rule in action. The specific changes win.
So page 9 tells you the fight will be using the generic battle mage stat block, but doesn't list the whole thing there. Instead, it lists out the unique changed aspects of the battle mage. Then you turn to the back to get the other parts of the stat block that were unchanged.
That means not only do they have Slow, but according to the "During Combat" section, they use that & Web, right away.
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Appalachia
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please never ever format an adventure this way again where you have ONE STAT BLOCK separated over THREE DIFFERENT PAGES, that was truly awful.
For the guild house I would have much preferred having the statblocks together rather than spread out, especially since your jungle wizards have a different spell loadout than their generic statblock.
Other than that, I will just warn that this adventure can end in 3 hour or end in 6 depending on how things shake out at the guild house - I think thats really cool but with no optional encounter to slide off the docket in case things go south, that went really long.
My group INSISTED on taking an 8 hour break AFTER botching the infiltration pretty badly and took on the hardest possible version of the final encounter which was straight BRUTAL, but in a way I strongly approve of. This is made even better by the fact that many of their mistakes were roleplaying ones rather than poor dice ones which is the way I think that system was intended to work.
Really cool content - though the structure of the Harvacus Diplomacy encounter is pretty unrealistically rigid
Just wish it hadnt been formatted so badly or that when they would do things like list a "hushing arrow" that they would include a DC.
|
TPKed three and a pregen in low tier. Two paladins (one seelah), a fighter, and a caster druid decided to just raid the guild house and grab whatever looked good. Only managed one success with Erwyn, then cleaned up the asura fight handily. Unfortunately, a lack of ranged options on the boat had them hiding in an obscuring mist after the wind walll was subverted, then the AC picked them off while their dice ran cold. 0pp, about half gold, and a kindness of 5pp body recovery as ransom from Consortium prison.
Please never ever format an adventure this way again where you have ONE STAT BLOCK separated over THREE DIFFERENT PAGES, that was truly awful.May I direct you to PFSPrep?
This is a great resource, thanks for posting this. I apologize for the disjointed layout here, I changed the wizards’ spell selections with the intention of making a more dynamic encounter but didn’t appreciate how it would look relative to the provided stat blocks in the back. I’ll keep this layout caveat in mind before fiddling with a pregenerated caster’s spells in The future.
I ran into a bit of issues on how much to give away about special mechanics like the ones in talking with the wizards (where only bluff works, and it gets more difficult as time get on), and then different mechanics talking to the druid. (Where the table commented that Bluff/Intim. was a bit odd for the part about his son, which I struggled to straighten out.)
Yeah, the specific skills in the negotiation encounter are a tad arbitrary. That was more for mechanical balance than anything else, to make sure a party with a maxed-out Diplomacy character doesn’t just blow through everything and a party with a maxed-out Intimidate character can still contribute. I picked what I considered the most logical skills for each of Erwyn’s Objections while evenly distributing each talking skill among the options (for his son, Bluff would entail exaggerating the threats his sons faces from the Consortium while Intimidate would suggest directly implying his son would be hurt). Bluff is the only option for the guild house infiltration because the whole encounter requires lying through the players’ teeth (they can’t be real customers).
Other than that, I will just warn that this adventure can end in 3 hour or end in 6 depending on how things shake out at the guild house - I think thats really cool but with no optional encounter to slide off the docket in case things go south, that went really long.
Good point. I had trouble making any of these encounters optional given the narrative requirements, but I’ll try to make my timelines more flexible next time.
My group INSISTED on taking an 8 hour break AFTER botching the infiltration pretty badly and took on the hardest possible version of the final encounter which was straight BRUTAL, but in a way I strongly approve of. This is made even better by the fact that many of their mistakes were roleplaying ones rather than poor dice ones which is the way I think that system was intended to work.
I usually hate TPKs, but in this case I’m kind of glad to hear some folks found the final encounter difficult. Based on my playtest I was worried it was going to be a cakewalk. The fact that (at least a couple) GMs thought the increased difficulty was appropriate is all the better, since I was trying to maintain the Aspis reputation for being deadly on their home turf.
|
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Appalachia
|
Please never ever format an adventure this way again where you have ONE STAT BLOCK separated over THREE DIFFERENT PAGES, that was truly awful.May I direct you to PFSPrep?This is a great resource, thanks for posting this. I apologize for the disjointed layout here, I changed the wizards’ spell selections with the intention of making a more dynamic encounter but didn’t appreciate how it would look relative to the provided stat blocks in the back. I’ll keep this layout caveat in mind before fiddling with a pregenerated caster’s spells in The future.
While the spellcaster was bad it was a kind of bad I have gotten accustomed to and have a set of go-to answers for, but Kemendu's statblock in tier 3-4 is what I was actually referring to.
I have no idea what possessed the editing team to think the way that was laid out was even close to acceptable!
The scaling for encounter B comments about the dismissal of any summonings. Okay. But... that implies there have BEEN summonings, and Evrishu's combat tactics don't say anything about that. When might that be happening? Perhaps if drops to 10/20 hit points or less?
Also, in the finding Ungala section, it says that each time they retry the check (to figure out the powers) earns one delay, but the Tracking Delays handout only has one square for it. Does this mean they only get one chance to retry, or no matter how many tries it's only one delay, or is there a maximum (like for if they stick around after the overseers raised the alarm)?
Ran this scenario today. Low tier Kemendu delivered the first character I've killed in what has to be decades. Of course, the party killed him in the next round - amusingly enough, Kemendu died from an attack by the single eagle SNA II-summoned by the character he'd just killed.
The scaling for encounter B comments about the dismissal of any summonings. Okay. But... that implies there have BEEN summonings, and Evrishu's combat tactics don't say anything about that. When might that be happening? Perhaps if drops to 10/20 hit points or less?
Good catch. I originally had Evrishu summon before combat in the high tier (just after casting its buffs), but it looks like that got taken out of the final draft. I didn't want Evrishu to be too deadly at the low tier, so I never specified when it would summon for a level 3-4 party. That being said, if the PCs are doing well, having it summon when it's brought below half its hp (or when it teleports away to recover, if the PCs didn't lock it down and overcome its regeneration) should work.
Also, in the finding Ungala section, it says that each time they retry the check (to figure out the powers) earns one delay, but the Tracking Delays handout only has one square for it. Does this mean they only get one chance to retry, or no matter how many tries it's only one delay, or is there a maximum (like for if they stick around after the overseers raised the alarm)?
The PCs always find Ungala eventually (the story would grind to a halt if the PCs continued to fail their checks to track her down), its just a matter of how quickly they accomplish it. Succeeding on the Diplomacy, Knowledge (local), or Survival check at the start of that section indicates the PCs find her expediently, earning no delays. Failing this check indicates the PCs find Ungala eventually, but waste valuable time while doing so, earning them one delay.
Ran this scenario today. Low tier Kemendu delivered the first character I've killed in what has to be decades. Of course, the party killed him in the next round - amusingly enough, Kemendu died from an attack by the single eagle SNA II-summoned by the character he'd just killed.
I have to admit I'm a little surprised Kemendu has been so deadly according to player reports. In my playtest the PCs steamrolled the final encounter, so I was worried he wouldn't be an adequate final challenge.
The PCs always find Ungala eventually (the story would grind to a halt if the PCs continued to fail their checks to track her down), its just a matter of how quickly they accomplish it. Succeeding on the Diplomacy, Knowledge (local), or Survival check at the start of that section indicates the PCs find her expediently, earning no delays. Failing this check indicates the PCs find Ungala eventually, but waste valuable time while doing so, earning them one delay.
No, no, I got that. I'm talking about the other part. Here, let me quote the relevant sentence. It's the paragraph starting "If the PCs show Handout #2" on page 13, just after the listed DCs for the skill checks. (I'm trying to avoid spoiling it completely.)
"The PCs may retry this check, but each attempt earns one delay."
The delay tracking sheet for this aspect only has one box, while the text implies that they can retry ad infinitum. That's why I wanted to know which way it worked -- if they could retry over and over again and it only counted as one, if they only got one retry, or if each retry counted as a delay, and, if so, if there was a limit like if they stayed beyond the overseers raising the alarm.
In this case, it was a moot point. The skald (the one mentioned below, who was also the target of Kemendu's first attack, which he saved against) is a skill monkey and easily made the relevant check.
I have to admit I'm a little surprised Kemendu has been so deadly according to player reports. In my playtest the PCs steamrolled the final encounter, so I was worried he wouldn't be an adequate final challenge.
We did too, when we played it. In this case, it was a set of 'lucky' rolls. The one who died was a half-orc (and therefore counts as human with regards to Favorite Enemy). He took three shots, the last being the crit -- but the crit alone would have put him down, if not down dead dead. Longbow crits are nasty things. 88 total points of damage would have put down my 6th level Bloodraging character, much less a 4th level Hunter.
No, the one that my group stomped was Evrishu. Then again, they had teleporting blocked and ALL of them had good weapons. Heck, it never got to the point where its attacks and AC dropped even by -1. They didn't even start chanting until Evrishu made the first attack... on the cleric, who "happened" to be on the opposite side of the party from the skald doing the chanting. (Well, and most of them won on the initiative scale too.)