Master E's page

Its a minor issue compared to all the ones in the scenario but the Champion of deskari creatures do not seem to work as intended. Becuase they have Scythes they can not wield their shields and therefore can not cast the shield of spirits spells that they have

Phredd wrote:

There's a handout as part of the scenario that lists what abilities you get. That is not on the list.

"Any mythic abilities or properties noted in the full ruleset and not listed below do not apply to this temporary state."

Doesn't that also mean that players will have Hero Points AND Mythic Points in this specific case? The handout doesn't say they lose their hero points, so the "replace hero points" property of Mythic points does not apply?

That would make a pretty significant difference for the difficulty of the adventure!

It seems to me that if you take the reading that the PC's Do not get hero Points because they are mythic characters for the scenario even though them losing hero points is not explicitly written in, it would also be fair by the same logic to have mythic dying rules apply to them, as they are mythic characters even though it is not explicitly stated in the scenario.

Or by the more literal approach they would get hero points and no mythic dying rules as those are not explicitly written into the hand out.

It seems that they wording in the hand out of "Any mythic abilities or properties noted in the full ruleset and not listed below do not apply to this temporary state." Could be taken either way but it might have just been meant to indicate that they players can not chose from callings or mythic feats not listed in the hand out. However the word "properties" feels like a potential sticking point for the other view and the players should get hero points and no mythic dying rules.

I guess the question is the netherworld her home plane

It would not be fun for the player that it happened to on, but is there any reason why penumbra would not want to use her soul cage to drop a 6th level banishment spell on a player to thin out the PC's Ranks. It might to anti-fun to do first round and basically make someone miss out on a whole fight if they fail but if she where being threatnend by a big scary melee combatanbt I dont see any reason she would want that person to stick around.

I found the Research Complex map and descriptions were really confusing.

B5 says "The zombies here are fresh, hungry, and angry." But there are no zombies listed as being in the room. The flow was also strange. B1 has zombies coming in through the open southern door, which drew my group into B5 and then straight to B6. I had them pull the fight in B3 as they crossed B5 or they would have completely skipped one of the better combat encounters.

Exact Same flow happend for my group running the scenario yesterday

Overall I whish that they had dropped one of the combat encounters and instead put steaks on the research encounter

2 Points of confusion for me.

1st For the Research encounter, there is no limit on the amount of checks or amount of time the PC's can take. The only consequence is the encounter for critically failing. That encounter can only happen once and is even optional.

With that being considered once the PC's trigger the encounter or if you decide not to run it, what is the point of continuing the research activity considering the PC's can just keep rolling until they get the 15 success needed to get all there treasure bundles. It seems like a needles time drain on a scenario that is already likely to run long given the amount of combat encounter.

Also tying it to treasure bundles seems strange. Either the PC's miss out of 2 treasure bundles because they stopped rolling after discovering the way to the bottom level, or you let them know that they need to keep rolling to get the treasure bundles. And causing the PC's to lose two treasure bundles when failing the roles has no consequences other then one in encounter that is optional seems strange. As written it feels like a needless quest to roll 15 success in a scenario that already seems like it will run long

2nd, for the Festering Plague zombie on page 25 the zombie bite attack does less damage then the normal fist attack. It seems that the zombie bite is supposed to do more damage. As written it makes that attack pointless which is strange creature design as that attack requires the targe to be grabbed.

The only other way i can see to read it is based on the whole idea thay it is supposed to take place in "resolution rounds". The idea might be that each pc can attempt a givin challange. But once any number of pcs attempt a challange that challange is gone. That reading ia becuase it says at the beiging of each round a pc ia supposed to chose a check to challange, aid on or abstain. In that case, say when the 6 pcs first enter a room there are 5 challanges availble. 2 pcs try to attempt one challange. 2 attempt a differenr chllange and the two remaining pcs aid. After that round of rolls the two attempted challanges are gone with three remaiming. That sort of flow would keep the idea of each challange can be attmpted once but also make sense with the scaling based om PC number

And on the point of the secondary objective they also increase the amount of point need for that at a 6 player table. From 16 to 20. That means that a 4/5 pc table can fail 4 checks and get the 2ndary objective but a 6 player table cant fail any. Becuase of the one check per challange reading 6 players dont really have more role then a 4 or 5 player table. It seems harsh to penalize them then into need 4 more success on the same number of attempts

It seems like there might have been an intention to allow more then once check per challange but im just not seeing it based on my reading and the "each challange in a room can only be attempted once" phrase

It seems to me with the writing the only way it could be otherwise is if you took the reading that each PC attempt each challange once. However i am not getting that from the reading of the text. Seems like 1 check per chllangw. The reading of one check per PC would also trivialize the secondary objective as there would be 20-30 worthiness point per room up for grabs

Prepping the scenario. It seems that upping the needed worthiness points to 9 at a six player table for a boon is a bit excessive. Unless i am reading it wrong each challange in a room can only be attempted once.Considering that each challange in a room can only be attempted once the PCs at a 6 player table needs to crit succeed on 4 of the 5 room challanges rolls for a boon. While 4/5 player tables only need to crit succed 1 of the 5 checks per room to get the boon.

Question for talking with Farah Al-Saleel. On page 13 in terms of how Farah reacts to the amount of Respect Points the PCs earn it says:

"If the PCs earn fewer Respect Points than half the
number of PCs, Farah demands her revenge and uses her
first 2 actions in combat to smash Rayyan’s seal before
fighting any Pathfinders who attack her, then departing.
If the PCs earned a number of Respect Points that is
at least half the number of PCs but fewer than the total
number of PCs, Farah agrees to leave Rayyan’s fate to
trial by combat, and her lost resolve reduces her HP by
20 (30 for levels 5–6). If the Pathfinders earn
successes equal to their number or greater,
Farah relents and allows the PCs to
claim Rayyan’s seal."

On page 12 it seems to indicate that the PCs can earn up to 4 Respect points. 2 Respect Points for persuading Safa to be diplomatic, and another 2 Respect Points for a Critical Success on the Check to Reason with Farrah.

Based on this Reading it seems that Farrah would only ever surrender outright to a group of four PCs. Is that the correct interpretation, or is each PC supposed to be able to attempt a check to reason with Farrah, allowing parties to get beyond only 4 respect points?

James Martin wrote:

Linda, can we get the pregens in advance of Free RPG Day? I'm supposed to run it and I'd love to have them for the day! Thanks!

Second for this! I am in the same boat

I am wondering if this is a possible as well.

I'm confused about this two. From what I have read it seems like you need to take a manipulate action to grab or let go of a weapon. I agree that this seems like micro-management. The paladin wielding a two handed weapon for example seems like it needs to spend all of its turn use lay on hands to 1) let go of the weapon 2) Lay on hand 3) Re-grasp the weapon

that is a fair enough point

Is it just me or did they give the Arcanist to much of a hit. The Arcane reservoir was the arcanists main class feature. You now need a 16 in charisma to get any good use out of consume spells making your Arcane reservoir extremely limited. You would most likely want to save one point to make sure you can use dimensional slide in case you get in to a jam. You would probably want to save a second point in case you need to use quick study to quickly get a spell that you didn't prepare. It also makes cthe occultist archetype (my personal favorite archetype) down right awful imho, especially when compared to a Summoner or wizard with acadmae graduate. It also makes it much harder for the Brown-fur transmuter to do its thing because they will use quite a lot of arcane reservoir points to increase to power of and hand out there buffs. Consume magic item can help alleviate some of the problem but it carries the same limitations as consume spells and is very expensive. Have a bit of an exploit tax also makes it harder to play any of the archetypes, who all give up a chunk of there exploits, and get all the exploits you want. I do except the arcanist was an extremely powerful class but I do think they nerfed it a bit to harshly. I think it would have been better implemented if they had done 3+cha or 2xCha.

The only thing is if he goes sohei he wouldn't be able to use Stunning fist which is what I think he is trying to utilize. But if the OP changes his mind and doesn't want to use stunning fist sohei is one of the best monk archetypes because he can always act in the surprise round which is great because of your sneak attack, and just great in general.

Also carrying a wand of Mage armor is not a bad idea. I almost always had some one who was able to cast or umd it on my monk and it has a 1 hour duration for only 2 prestige points. It is a worthwhile investment imho.

That's probably true. Mantis style would be better if he plans on using stunning fist a lot

You have the dodge feat so you might also want to check out the Crane style feat because you meat the prerequisites. My Between that and barkskin my lv 12 monk was getting very respectable AC his whole career.

So how would it work on a Strangler archtype brawler who took a one level dip in tetori?