How about some home game cheese? It says the runes must be physically engraved onto the item (though it also says clothing can be engraved?). Presumably, if you were transferring a rune you would transfer the magic but not bother with buffing out the engraving. So then you con an NPC into believing it's still magically enhanced and sell it for a higher price. If people believe copper bracelets improve their balance, then this should be an easy con.
This makes me wonder what old weapons or armor might look like after undergoing dozens of rune changes.
Lau Bannenberg wrote: wrote:
The cheesy option here is to use the level 1 rebuild/full resale rules.
How's this for a cheesy option? All +1 magic armor is 160 gp regardless of base armor. In PFS play we can transfer runes for free.So buy +1 full plate. Have the specialist at the pathfinder society transfer the rune to your leather armor for free and then sell the now non-magical full plate to effectively reduce the cost of your +1 armor to 145 gp + base cost. Do the same thing with a composite longbow to reduce the price of a +1 weapon to 25 gp + base cost.
How I know +1 full plate costs 160 gp:
There is a chronicle sheet with +1 full plate for 160 gp and it doesn't say it's a discounted price. Since PFS gives access to rune transfers for free instead of 10%, I think they should have just put rune stones on chronicle sheets.
Though, it seems this option should flood the market with full plate which might make it cheap enough for a 1st level PC to afford? Oh, right, for the sake of simplicity, the laws of supply and demand do not apply.
I feel like there should be a hazard stat block for the web traps.
What is the stealth DC for the web traps already on the ground? Are they just plainly obvious?
When a PC steps on one does the trap make an attack roll using the spider's ranged attack modifier, does the PC make a reflex saving throw vs the spider's "class DC", or something else?
The Hunting Spider web trap says "until it Escapes" with a capital E. So, that must mean use the basic Escape action which allows the use of acrobatics, athletics, or unarmed attack. However, the Web Lurker entry says "DC 20 Acrobatics check to Escape." If this is a case of specific overriding general, then anyone untrained in acrobatics might not escape except on a natural 20.
Okay, these are group checks. Thank you for this clarification. I still find it odd, but acceptable, that the DC was set in the normal to hard range instead of very hard or incredibly hard as the CRB suggests. Running the checks this way still means that even the smallest and weakest parties will get at least 2 successes >90% of the time.
Robert Hetherington wrote:
I can see how if you only read the last sentence of the rewards paragraph on page 8 that you might come to this conclusion. However, please allow me to direct your attention to the second sentence of that paragraph where it says:
page 8, paragraph 1, sentence 2 wrote:
They provide the PCs with two alchemical items (three if the PCs succeeded at two or three skill checks during their investigation)...
So, I believe the full condition table, assuming they succeed in encounter A, is:0 Success: -4 Init in Encounter A, 2 items/treasure bundles
1 Success: Information about the caravan, 2 items/treasure bundles
2 Successes: Info, Village Charm, 3 items/treasure bundles
3 Successes: Info, Village Charm, 3 items/treasure bundles
Doug Hahn wrote:
"Each PC may attempt each skill check once, including any efforts to Aid." I don't understand why this is confusing? Each pc may attempt each skill check once.
My confusion comes from the author's decision to use the phrase "two or three" instead of phrases like "at least one" or "two or more". This leads me to question whether the author wrote this from the perspective that no more than 3 successes were possible. The RAW interpretation of how to execute the skill checks means that it is possible to get as many as 21 successes. I was further confused by the +2 DC increase for the 3rd check attempted. Which of those 21 checks count at 3rd checks?
And now that I've read that section a dozen times I've realized that the most pedantically RAW interpretation of the rewards is that the condition for exactly 0, exactly 1, exactly 2, and exactly 3 successes is defined. It doesn't say that if you get the charm you also get the information. It also doesn't specify what happens if you get 4 or more successes. Which means that if the party gets 4 or more successes, they don't get the 3rd treasure bundle, the charm, or the info, but at least they don't get the initiative penalty.
I wouldn't, and haven't, run the scenario this way. I ran it probably the same way most people did. I let them attempt checks until they got at least 2 successes.(There is no difference between 2 and 3 successes.) Both times it took less than 6 checks and only that many because the goblins were trying to use acrobatics instead of one of the listed skills.
Has anyone given any reward for this section other than 3 treasure bundles + village charm + caravan info and if so, how did you run it?
Up to 12 rolls, and the party uses the highest roll for each check to determine if the party as a whole succeeded at that check.
I think this an unlikely interpretation because of the principal that rolls should be consequential. Under this accounting and assuming a party of 4 with an average chance of success per roll of 40% there is only a 0.2% chance of them failing all 3 checks, a 4.4% chance of getting only one success, and a 95.4% chance of getting 2 or more successes. (I got to learn about binomial distributions today!)
The difference between 2 and 3 successful checks for the party is the number of alchemical items (and corresponding treasure bundles) they get after the encounter (pg. 8).
The Scenario wrote:
They provide the PCs with two alchemical items (three if the PCs succeeded at two OR three skill checks during their investigation)...
So, there is no difference between 2 or 3 successes.
If the consequences were supposed to be tracked per PC, then aiding another would not be allowed. The consequences apply to the party as a whole. Likewise, the number of alchemical items received is for the entire party, not per PC.
Yes, I had forgotten about the successes being tied to the treasure, so it must be tracked for the whole party. For this reason and for my probability analysis above, I believe the best way to run this section is to let each player choose which skill to roll and each player only rolls once. That would give a more consequential distribution of outcomes. (4 players, 45% chance of success: 0:~10%, 1:~30%, 2+:60%)
In the Border Village section it says
Each PC may attempt each skill check once, including any efforts to Aid.
For a table of 4 players does this mean up to 4 rolls or up to 12 rolls?
Whatever the third skill check the PCs attempt is, the DC increases by 2 to account for fewer locals knowing the information
But wait, they already had one success and know about the caravan, so the subsequent rolls are just about impressing them and earning their trust to earn the charm. So how does this mechanic apply?
If the PCs succeed at two or three checks, they win over the locals and earn their respect, gaining the benefit of the village’s charm for the remainder of the scenario.
If each PC may attempt 3 rolls, does that mean the charm is earned per PC or does the entire party get the charm with at least 2 successes amongst all of the rolls? If the former, then this must mean the initiative penalty for failing all three is tracked per PC. If this was the intent, then I think it would have been clearer if it had said "a PC" instead of "the PCs".