Centaurs, Ogres, and Monks, Oh My!

Huzzah!

Oh, i am happy about the scaling.

It'll be interesting to see how the feedback goes.

Hmm

I like the newer system, but did want some clarification.

Example-I have four player at my table. however, they fall in the 10-11 point total.

Am I right, that even though I have 4 players in front of me. I use low tier with the five player adjustment.

Other than that, definitely makes determining sub tier a lot easier.

So this brings a question to my mind. Should Quest 2: Unforgiving Fire have the Faction (Envoy's Alliance) tag? It seems like it should based on the description given here.

ZARTA

Was VERY happy to see Zarta back in some official capacity - was hard to keep it to myself! I have a Seeker whose entire raison d'etre is to have her executed for treason, it'd be a shame to lose my motivation! ;)

Gah, that half-orc is reminding me of someone. I want to say Al Pacino, but that's not quite it.

Do the flames on that centaur make him run faster?

The red hair does

When will they be available? Loving the sound of Quest 2

Looking forward to all of these.

Thank you for working so closely with GMs and Players to fine-tune the system. Your efforts are appreciated.

When will they be available? Loving the sound of Quest 2

New organized play quests and scenarios are scheduled for release September 25.

So this brings a question to my mind. Should Quest 2: Unforgiving Fire have the Faction (Envoy's Alliance) tag? It seems like it should based on the description given here.

I reached out and had the blog updated to what it should have said originally, which is "Though this quest does not have specific ties to the Envoy’s Alliance faction, PCs representing that group may find that their goals and interests are uniquely suited to unlocking everything that this quest has to offer!"

We're unlikely to faction tag a quest because it would be giving 1/2 a reputation point, which isn't really something we're trying to do.

*scratches head*

Why half? Wouldn't it give 1?

YAY ZARTA!

Yay Centaur!

Ya-

Instead, Chelish leadership seeks a different resolution to their troubles: a state-sponsored bounty for the first group of explorers to chart a safe trade route from their vassal state Isger to the nation of Molthune in the north, creating a new passage that can bring economic prosperity to both nations.

Not about to let the Pathfinders be outdone in the finding of new paths, Calisro Benarry, leader of the Horizon Hunters faction of the Society, called for the most intrepid explorers to take up the challenge and chart this new route.

Well I know who not to work for going forward.

So, one thing with the new challenge system, is that I think there are cases where a GM/table should be able to play up or play down with a DC level bump.

For example, my first time running PFS1A we had 5 level 1's and a level 4. *As written*, this is a tier 3-4 party due to 16 challenge points, but only barely. Even with the PC level bump, they had *no* chance. It took minor miracles for them to run and not take PC deaths.

Now, I think that part of what made that particular situation harder was that since the quests have one big encounter, it was a very difficult level 6 encounter. Even a smart party using tactics would have had maybe a 5% chance of success. And I knew they were toast going in, but the only was to have them play down a tier was have someone drop out.

What I compare this to is when there were Tier 1-5 games in PF1, and the AL was 3. There was a choice to be made. I don't see why on borderline cases there is not one now.

That being said, it was a fun and memorable game, and I am loving the new system.

YAY ZARTA!

Yay Centaur!

Ya-

blog wrote:

Instead, Chelish leadership seeks a different resolution to their troubles: a state-sponsored bounty for the first group of explorers to chart a safe trade route from their vassal state Isger to the nation of Molthune in the north, creating a new passage that can bring economic prosperity to both nations.

Not about to let the Pathfinders be outdone in the finding of new paths, Calisro Benarry, leader of the Horizon Hunters faction of the Society, called for the most intrepid explorers to take up the challenge and chart this new route.

Well I know who not to work for going forward.

Yea, this was really headscratcher, especially in light of all ambiguity around the alignment of the Church of Asmodeous being removed from this edition. Definitely not a good look for Calisro "Leeroy!" Benarry.

Only if you don't think like a former pirate. If the Society is there FIRST then they get first crack at any discoveries along the way plus gains the ability to conceal Society interests along the route while getting paid by Cheliax(and possibly Druma) to do this. Nothing quite like getting paid twice for something you were already going to do, right?

YAY ZARTA!

Yay Centaur!

Ya-

blog wrote:

Instead, Chelish leadership seeks a different resolution to their troubles: a state-sponsored bounty for the first group of explorers to chart a safe trade route from their vassal state Isger to the nation of Molthune in the north, creating a new passage that can bring economic prosperity to both nations.

Not about to let the Pathfinders be outdone in the finding of new paths, Calisro Benarry, leader of the Horizon Hunters faction of the Society, called for the most intrepid explorers to take up the challenge and chart this new route.

Well I know who not to work for going forward.

Calisro likes being number one, and helping out Isger isn't inherently a bad thing; they take the brunt of a lot of Cheliax's decisions despite not having much say in what they're put through.

If you're concerned about her backing Cheliax-sponsored events, you'll probably find Calisro's next call to arms a lot more palatable come November.

*scratches head*

Why half? Wouldn't it give 1?

I think faction tags give an extra 50% or something.

Calisro likes being number one, and helping out Isger isn't inherently a bad thing; they take the brunt of a lot of Cheliax's decisions despite not having much say in what they're put through.

If you're concerned about her backing Cheliax-sponsored events, you'll probably find Calisro's next call to arms a lot more palatable come November.

You're being very careful not to say that helping Isger is a good thing either. ;)

Michael Sayre wrote:

Calisro likes being number one, and helping out Isger isn't inherently a bad thing; they take the brunt of a lot of Cheliax's decisions despite not having much say in what they're put through.

If you're concerned about her backing Cheliax-sponsored events, you'll probably find Calisro's next call to arms a lot more palatable come November.

You're being very careful not to say that helping Isger is a good thing either. ;)

Calisro isn't exactly good either ;)

Rysky wrote:

YAY ZARTA!

Yay Centaur!

Ya-

blog wrote:

Instead, Chelish leadership seeks a different resolution to their troubles: a state-sponsored bounty for the first group of explorers to chart a safe trade route from their vassal state Isger to the nation of Molthune in the north, creating a new passage that can bring economic prosperity to both nations.

Not about to let the Pathfinders be outdone in the finding of new paths, Calisro Benarry, leader of the Horizon Hunters faction of the Society, called for the most intrepid explorers to take up the challenge and chart this new route.

Well I know who not to work for going forward.

Calisro likes being number one, and helping out Isger isn't inherently a bad thing; they take the brunt of a lot of Cheliax's decisions despite not having much say in what they're put through.

If you're concerned about her backing Cheliax-sponsored events, you'll probably find Calisro's next call to arms a lot more palatable come November.

I’d rather just help Isger instead, rather than helping Cheliax and hoping it benefits Isger.

I’d rather just help Isger instead, rather than helping Cheliax and hoping it benefits Isger.

Unfortunately, Isger is still entirely reliant on Cheliax and quite likely couldn't fund an undertaking like this if they wanted to (which they most assuredly do; Isger hasn't caught a break in the last century). As long as Isger is a vassal state of Cheliax, anything that helps them out (and doesn't directly involve removing Cheliax's control) is going to benefit Cheliax.

(Personally I'm not a fan of doing anything that benefits Cheliax either, but the Pathfinders are a neutral organization with numerous Chelish alumni and this is exactly the kind of thing the Horizon Hunters should be doing.)

Rysky wrote:

I’d rather just help Isger instead, rather than helping Cheliax and hoping it benefits Isger.

Unfortunately, Isger is still entirely reliant on Cheliax and quite likely couldn't fund an undertaking like this if they wanted to (which they most assuredly do; Isger hasn't caught a break in the last century). As long as Isger is a vassal state of Cheliax, anything that helps them out (and doesn't directly involve removing Cheliax's control) is going to benefit Cheliax.

(Personally I'm not a fan of doing anything that benefits Cheliax either, but the Pathfinders are a neutral organization with numerous Chelish alumni and this is exactly the kind of thing the Horizon Hunters should be doing.)

We really need to take care of that Cheliax problem.

We really need to take care of that Cheliax problem.

Indeed.

Contrary to this blog, my PFS/SFS subscription order did not include "Pathfinder Society Quest #2: Unforgiving Fire". Was this a mistake in the blog or a later change?

Quests aren't part of the subscription, I think.

Rysky wrote:

We really need to take care of that Cheliax problem.

Indeed.

Might be time to think big, the Society is bound to have a doomsday device or two they could loan for this purpose.

GM Lamplighter wrote:

Rysky wrote:

We really need to take care of that Cheliax problem.

Indeed.

Might be time to think big, the Society is bound to have a doomsday device or two they could loan for this purpose.

If we were a little more or a little less responsible, we'd find a ritual to drop the Blakros Museum directly on top of House Thrune and let a bunch of problems solve each other.

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

GM Lamplighter wrote:

Rysky wrote:

We really need to take care of that Cheliax problem.

Indeed.

Might be time to think big, the Society is bound to have a doomsday device or two they could loan for this purpose.

If we were a little more or a little less responsible, we'd find a ritual to drop the Blakros Museum directly on top of House Thrune and let a bunch of problems solve each other.

Knowing the tenancy of rituals involving the Blakros's to go awry, I don't think that would end up helping in the way we'd hope... Unless the pathfinders are being sent in to make sure this ritual goes as planned.

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

GM Lamplighter wrote:

Rysky wrote:

We really need to take care of that Cheliax problem.

Indeed.

Might be time to think big, the Society is bound to have a doomsday device or two they could loan for this purpose.

If we were a little more or a little less responsible, we'd find a ritual to drop the Blakros Museum directly on top of House Thrune and let a bunch of problems solve each other.

Something like this is prone to happen naturally in the fullness of time, though if/once we eventually get kineticists, they might be able to throw it ^^

I am having a hard time remembering the show but a Pathfinders having to track down a traveling Museum that teleports from place to place does sound like a Saturday morning cartoon.

Imagine all of those poor monsters that would be subjected to the museum. ^^

Maybe you should try dropping the palace in Egorian on the Blakros Museum instead? Then, even if something goes wrong, you can achieve the more important half of your goal as the palace would still have to go splat somewhere.

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

GM Lamplighter wrote:

Rysky wrote:

We really need to take care of that Cheliax problem.

Indeed.

Might be time to think big, the Society is bound to have a doomsday device or two they could loan for this purpose.

If we were a little more or a little less responsible, we'd find a ritual to drop the Blakros Museum directly on top of House Thrune and let a bunch of problems solve each other.

Yep, like Seb said, we can part with one doomsday device and still be feared.

If we were a little more or a little less responsible, we'd find a ritual to drop the Blakros Museum directly on top of House Thrune and let a bunch of problems solve each other.

This sounds amazing!! Let's do it!!

"Here! Hol' m' beer!"

While I'm all in favor of seeing what would happen if the Blakros Museum suddenly ended up in Cheliax, I'm going to attempt to steer back to business at hand.

I just read over #1-04: The Immonwood Bandits, and I REALLY like how the encounters are laid out. Each encounter has an entry that tells you how that particular encounter should scale depending on how many challenge points the table has.

Overall, I'm a fan. This'll make running each encounter MUCH easier, rather than having to remember a level bump for the entire scenario.

What isn't made clear is if level bumps are still a thing, and would affect non-encounter DCs (knowledge checks, etc.).

I just read over #1-04: The Immonwood Bandits, and I REALLY like how the encounters are laid out. Each encounter has an entry that tells you how that particular encounter should scale depending on how many challenge points the table has.

Overall, I'm a fan. This'll make running each encounter MUCH easier, rather than having to remember a level bump for the entire scenario.

What isn't made clear is if level bumps are still a thing, and would affect non-encounter DCs (knowledge checks, etc.).

I second that opinion, although regarding 1-05 instead. Having the adjustments listed right next to the encounters makes a lot of sense and removes some shuffling that was needed in the older format.

And I also second the question of wether level bump / virtual player numbers are relevant only in encounters, or all over the adventure? In case of 1-05, Michael Sayre answered one of the questions I had in another thread, but one is still open, since the adventure lists a 7 player adjustment in one encounter, which will never happen since it isn't part of the challenge point system. So I guess, the people over at Paizo need as much time as we do to fully adjust to the new system.

One minor gripe my group has had with the CP system is that preparation for the GM is a bit harder to do, especially in online games. At the table it isn't a big problem to add the level bump to all enemies, but if you have to edit the stats of every creature in for example roll20, it is quite a hassle. And since you seldom know the exact levels of every player, you cannot really anticipate in advance wether or not you will have the bump. The old system was much more lenient and you usually knew which tier was going to be played from the players you DID know the levels of.

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

GM Lamplighter wrote:

Rysky wrote:

We really need to take care of that Cheliax problem.

Indeed.

Might be time to think big, the Society is bound to have a doomsday device or two they could loan for this purpose.

If we were a little more or a little less responsible, we'd find a ritual to drop the Blakros Museum directly on top of House Thrune and let a bunch of problems solve each other.

Even as someone who is not against cheliax I am for every solution to PERMANENTLY solve the museum situation.

I'm a big fan of the explicit scaling. Far less confusing than referring to it as 5 and 6 player adjustments but not having it based on the number of players. Also eliminates confusion as to whether a 5-player adjusted 4-player table should get non-encounter 5 player adjusts. I also assume this overrules any "level bumping" the scenario like the Org Play guide suggests.

Having the sidebars down in the encounters appendix area is a great idea to de-clutter the main adventure section.

Other than 1 adjustment that went walkabout in the quest (pg 13 stole pg 14's adjustment) they seem great. I also much prefer the scale up than the scale down - especially cause it cases like this it means it's too easy rather than the party dies if the GM doesn't find it on the other page.

The only suggestion I have for 2e scenario layout is to include the 5+ player adjustments in the back with the encounter/monster stats as well as in the body of the scenario.

Upon further prepping of scenarios, there's a couple of nit-picky things that would greatly help.

1) I prefer to have both levels of an encounter together, rather than all encounters for playing down, then all encounters for playing up. I accidently turned to the wrong section of the appendix, and found the encounter I was looking for, only for it to be the high tier, rather than the low tier. Oops.

2) Please put the handouts at the back just before the sign-in sheet. That way, we can double-sided print everything, and then single-side print the handouts, sign-in sheet, and chronicles.

1) I prefer to have both levels of an encounter together, rather than all encounters for playing down, then all encounters for playing up. I accidently turned to the wrong section of the appendix, and found the encounter I was looking for, only for it to be the high tier, rather than the low tier. Oops.

I humbly disagree with this, having been one to use the wrong stat block in 1e, I really like having different sections for the different tiers. Once I know what tier I'm running, I can just take the other appendix out of my 3ring binder. And currently while everybody in my group is low tier I just don't print the high tier pages.

I too prefer all the encounters grouped by sub-tier. I use colour coded highlighting to help avoid errors but it is easy to print to pdf each grouping and have the one needed open on a separate tab. If they are interspersed with each other then I need to be more vigilant.