As I'm reading through the low tier encounter, I'm noticing that the low tier damage for the Nahyndrian Focus blast is 4d12 +22 (DC31) compared to the high tier 4d12 +26 (DC35). :O

So as they roll for initiative a level 7 sorcerer (approx. 64 HP) likely has around 50% chance of crit failing and taking an average 96 dmg (between 52 and 124). At level 8 (approx. 72 HP) the likelihood drops to a mere 40% chance of crit failing. Since it's spirit damage, there's almost no way to prevent this damage.

I know this is Cheliax's prototype of a nuke-like weapon, but are these numbers really intended?

The megalodon only makes sense if it's in the black "void" below the platforms and can attack creatures that are on said platform. It that case it would represent a tank deep enough for it to be able to retreat as well.

There's no point in having multiple keys. There being multiple seems to be a failsafe in case they miss one.
The colour of the keys allows to explore the complex via different paths. I actually like that, even though they will end up in the same place eventually.

Traps and hazards tend to have ridiculous DCs because they're meant to be circumvented differently, but even the skill DC to do that is insane. Though to be fair, in this case players can just brute force this one from a distance: 120 damage with no hardness and a weakness to slashing is reasonable easy at that level.
The DC with the final boss encounter is brutal yeah: The DC is extreme, though it seems to be offset by 1- the hazard doesn't do any direct damage after the initial blast, and 2- Yollen doesn't do any offensive actions in round 1. It's still insane since a level 7 character in the high tier is likely to instantly drop to Dying 2.
I don't read the text as that it's possible to change the polarity of the hazard before combat no.

I'm reading the "exit is here" entry as a "free" pass too, though having to be stuck on an obstacle for a full round before a penalty triggers already is a penalty in and of itself.

I agree the lack of party size scaling for both the research and the chase scenes is insane. Having a smaller party really looks like a penalty, which I cannot imagine is the intention.

Running it this weekend for a 5-player low tier party, I'll write a post-mortem.

I ran this on Sunday for Ascalaphus (24 CP). I tried to keep the infiltration somewhat light and fast to try to get to the good parts of the scenario, but there are not really many ways around the poor information you get for it.

The bad
- The theme of the infiltration is clear, but the way it's presented in the scenario is completely crazy. As was mentioned previously, the party has to pass all the obstacles, but at the same time 10 infiltration points is enough? What is the idea here? I ended up doing all the obstacles to give a good impression of what is going on in the manor, and what types of defenses the manor has. Also the libary is somewhat of a mandatory location, since the story can otherwise not progress?
- The high numbers just don't add up: The requested DC and success requirements for the individual challenges are way too high: Having high DCs to achieve as a group is fine, but having them for individual challenges makes no sense. This means that as written, the infiltration is near guaranteed to fail, especially for larger parties for which there doesn't seem to be any modification.

- I really disliked the maps as they don't make sense and are utterly incoherent. I recommend just drawing the outline of the rooms that you need on a blank mat for it to be easier and prettier. As for the final fight, just use almost any cavern map that has a big room. This felt like having to use a map pack for the sake of using one.

The good
- The story itself is cool
- The descriptions of the manor are evocative of how huge it is
- The fights are nice: Especially the final battle had interesting set pieces. From my side it felt like the party was actually fighting soldiers, and that forced them to think a bit differently

Despite my opinion about the infiltration part, I cannot overstate that this is a good scenario, and I figure this is an important one with the Season 7 metaplot coming up. The amount of lore and callbacks in this one are excellent, even though I haven't read the Jagare novels.

That Planar Lore contradiction is a funny thing yeah :D.

It's kind of hard to interpret the exhaustibility of a list when some lists have been declared exhaustive but others have been declared incomplete. Also compared to the Society skill, the narrowness of a subject is up for debate if it covers a whole nation or continent. The way we've interpreted it so far here, is that without clarification the list described in the description of the Lore skill should be exhaustive. In the end the issue is similar to the Undead Lore skill discussion.

Rolling Untrained at high level is pointless, even for lore skills. As to Untrained Improvisation for Lore skills, that is a whole other unclear situation that has not been addressed (AFAIK, at least), so I'm not getting into that can of worms here.

Hi all,
I'm a bit confused about some of the Lore skill checks that have been requested in scenarios recently, specifically with regards to geographical indications. Player Core defines allows these lore skills as follows: "Lore about a specific settlement (Absalom Lore, Magnimar Lore)". Alternatively it allows Lore skills related to a specific Plane.

Yet I've seen various scenarios asking for country wide, or even continent wide lore skills, which players would not be allowed to have as they are not specific enough.

Is there a point to adding these disallowed lore skills in scenarios? For starters nobody would be allowed to roll these, and secondly it gives the impression these lore skills are allowed. And maybe only relevant to writers, it's kind of a waste of word count space.

You can do the reporting without his entry, regardless.

As to him: Normally he should either not be getting the chronicle, or getting a chronicle without gold, xp, item & boon access and reputation. But you might want to contact your local VO (or if that's not possible, Alex via the organized play coordinator email) for a solution.

Quentin Coldwater wrote:

Ran this yesterday, I have a few comments:

Make sure to leave a review on the product page if you and your players liked it - authors love that sort of thing!

I agree with you, though I have a caveat: I've written many reviews over the years in order to help and encourage fellow GM's and players. I noticed a while back that Paizo is hiding many reviews and not necessarily due to spoilers or foul language, which I understand. This includes my review on this one. This bothers me, as I invest time and effort trying to write mine in as positive a way as possible while remaining critical of glaring issues. The consequence is that I currently feel censured and actively discouraged to write any future reviews.

Fair, though in most cases people will likely do the first time they run :)

To answer your questions and a bit more:
- For any single scenario you can have one chronicle as a player and one as a GM
- You get a chronicle only for the first time that you GM a scenario, unless the scenario is an evergreen/ repeatable
- You can never have multiple chronicles of the same adventure on the same character regardless of how you received the chronicle
- You can use Replays to replay and get a chronicle for a scenario multiple times as a player but not as a GM

With regards to the Hero points, having now run the scenario, a next time that I run it, I'd only give out the hero points related to Glyphs (so max 1 per player if there are enough Glyphs at the table).
My reasoning behind it is as follows:
- The Mythic Points are really strong and cover nearly everything Hero Points do and then some. I think the only thing not covered by Mythic Points, is that you can't stabilize while dying.
- Players can regain Mythic Points via the Mythic Calling they chose.
- I now agree that having full Hero Points on top of Mythic Points is indeed OP, and is clearly not intended.
- Since Hero Points tied to GM Glyphs are specific to the PFS campaign, I don't think it's the intention of the campaign team to deprive players from their campaign rewards unless there is an alternative solution. An additional Mythic Point does not seem possible as the max pool is 3.

--
Regardless, running this was a blast! The challenges are spicy and the combats unforgiving but fair. Sure Strike + Disintegrate is mean, though fortunately Penumbra can only use that combination once due to the 10min cooldown on Sure Strike.

Correct, I had the same issue: Clearing the cache should indeed solve it.

Question about the wording of mythic ferocity on the statues.

"The shadowpact statue avoids being knocked out and remains at half its maximum HP, but its wounded value increases by 1."

Does that mean they regen back to 50 HP? What effect does making them Wounded 1 have? Aren't they dead when they hit 0 HP for realsies?

That's how I read it: When they reach 0, they fill back to 50 HP without the damage instance overflowing into the "new" hit points. They basically have 150+ additional HP. When the statue regenerates, I would describe how the statue repairs itself, but with a lot of the chipped off stone remaining on the ground. That should illustrate what is going on without giving everything away.

Normally, GMs are free to apply the Dying rules to significant NPCs and opponents: This is an example of a creature where this has to happen, otherwise the encounter doesn't make sense.

As to Hero Points: There's no mention in neither the scenario nor the handout not to hand them out, so I'm going to hand them out as normal.

I think the last line of the secondary objective is missing: The entry only states the objectives but not the rewards, so it should be 2 reputation for that one as well.

Spell: Stifling Stillness
Source: Rage of Elements

Multiple points of attention:
1- The spell is at the same spell rank (and in the same spell lists) as Solid Fog and does the same with additional effects. This suggests the spell should at least have a higher spell rank than Solid Fog.
2- The spell combines the effects of Solid Fog and either a heightened Suffocate spell (Uncommon, base rank 6, heightened to 9) or a Vacuum spell that in addition deals some damage (Common, rank 7).
3- Can a target hold its breath when it starts its turn in the area of effect?
4- What happens when a character doesn't hold its breath and doesn't spend the action to breathe? Does it immediately fall unconscious and start suffocating?
5- What happens to Unconscious and Dying creatures in the area?
6- Is spellcasting still possible in the cloud at the cost of spending an action to breathe (and take damage)?

All in all, this spells seems stronger than Toxic Cloud (Spell rank 5), so in its current state it seems way too powerful for a 4th rank spell.

Wait for i-i-i-t... :)

Those number sound wrong, but I think you may also not understand how magic weapons are priced. Magic Weapon

Magic Weapon wrote:

The Prices here are for all types of weapons. You don't need to adjust the Price from a club to a greataxe or the like.

Yeah, I was thrown off by Pathbuilder; I found that rule again after looking into it further: So the prices on the chronicle are completely wrong.

Another remark about the chronicle:
- The +1 Chain Sword correctly mentions a price of 41gp (base cost of 6gp + 35gp rune)
- The +1 Striking Chain Sword mentions a price of 71gp (should be 106gp: base cost of 6gp + 35gp Potency rune + 65gp Striking rune), so that doesn't seem to include the price of the +1 rune. Intentional discounts usually mention a "discounted price" and a limit, so is this intentional or a misprint? As written, this would be treated as a discount.

1) I can't answer for Paizo, but this isn't the first time I've seen them add a rarity tag to a creature for minor changes.

Most of the adjustments are the equivalent of an Elite template, so that shouldn't additionally increase the RK DC with a rarity tag: The DC is already higher due to the higher creature level.

There's actually another error- The Sparking Zombie Brute seems to be intended to be Large like its base variant (and that's apparently what Foundry went with), but is listed as medium. I'd reccomend making it large so its reach doesn't catch your players off guard. Either that, or emphasize it's incredibly long arms when you describe it.

Good catch, based on the situation and the map, I think they should indeed be Large. This is before the 5ft corridor hell, so there's not really any reason to make them medium.

3) The Ulna projectile explodes around the player it was fired at. The Brain Guzzler should only need to make a save if it took a shot at an adjacent creature (which it's smart enough not to do unless it has a really, really tempting cluster). The Bow itself does not explode, it just breaks.

Ooh right, I misread that. I thought it fired a projectile and then the ulna shattered in smaller bits around the brain guzzler. This makes much more sense.

For the purpose of Recall Knowledge: What's so different about the Festering Plague and Aged Zombies (subtier 7-8) that they deserve an Uncommon and Rare tag respectively? All of their stats and abilities are the same as the stock creatures (or have only been increased to match the stats of a creature of that level).

Th Cackling Skulls are mentioned as being Medium sized (or potentially Large in the boss fight) and having a reach of 0ft. This makes no sense, especially with the cramped halls and boss room. I'm assuming it will either be Tiny, or have a Reach of 5ft. In case the creature is supposed to be Tiny, why the Rare tag? It's just a stock Cackling Skull with stats matching a creature of a higher level.

The Ulna Bow: When it explodes, I'm assuming the Brain Guzzler has to make a save against the damage as well?

I Actually why did they even print Undead Lore to begin with, its one of the broadest creature types in the game. Was it just to let Int characters replace religion entirely in undead campaigns?

That's a whole other issue on which they haven't come back to, and which they complicated further with the Necromancer playtest .

Yeah, it goes the same at our tables. In most cases people have only one Lore (plus PFS Lore), so they ask whether theirs is applicable. If a character has multiple Lore skills, as a player I'd offer the different Lores and modifiers and let the GM decide what to roll (out to decline all). As a GM I'd ask for the various modifiers.

UI is weird here: I'm all for players attempting RK rolls: It leads to more interesting combats with players trying to target oravoid specific things, and it helps boost casters (target weakest save). I also don't mind high Intelligence characters being able to RK on a Lore skill rather than a Wisdom skill. But I'd like to know what the design teams view behind this is.

To be fair, I've always imagined a character with UI as one that has read most of Wikipedia without fully understanding everything. In a universe where magic is a thing, it wouldn't be an unreasonable thing to be able to do.

Critical Success The Technic League were a group of arcanists focused on uncovering the mysteries of the Silver Mount, the spaceship that crashed near Starfall a little over 200 years ago.

This seems like a bit of an understatement to describe over 8000 years ago. Did I miss a lore update?

So I recommend that you put it in the Spring Errata 2025 suggestions topic in PF2e general forum. It's there that we are concentrating all errata questions, asks for clarification and pointing errors.

Thanks for pointing this out, I missed that thread.

Source: Player Core
Feat: Untrained Improvisation

Could you please have a look and clarify how this feat interacts with Lore skills?

The current way the feat is written gives a character with this feat a variation on a Class Feat (Bardic Lore) in addition to boosting all the other Untrained skills a character may have. This feels inappropriately strong for any character to have for the price of a level 3 General Feat, let alone for high Intelligence characters.

Thank you for the replies everyone.

Yea. Official clarifications usually only happen in the next errata if the designers want write about this.

My reasoning behind the post is that, since they have scheduled specific errata moments, I might as well put out a request for this to be looked at: If we get an answer, great. If we don't, well then the Lore part of the feat will remain unclear.

My interpretation? You don't get the right to roll any lore skill with that feat. You use the generic skill most fitting for the situation. If you wanna RK about a dog, you can't roll dog lore, you just make a nature check. Any other interpretation would just lead to problematic player behavior.

As written, even witout the feat you can do any check Untrained, including Lore skills. In general this is not going to be very relevant beyond level 1 since your modifier stagnates if you're not at least Trained.

Hi all,
I would like to request a clarification from the Paizo team about the General Feat Untrained Improvisation. I've seen a few threads about it, but no answer from Paizo.

In general it's a decent feat allowing you to attempt Untrained skills with a better modifier due to the character being a jack-of-all-trades. Where the clarification request comes in, is how this interacts with Lore skills. In general, compared to the broad knowledge skills (Arcana, Religion, etc.) Lore DCs are usually against a -2 DC for an unspecific lore (such as Fiend Lore) and -5 against a specific lore (such as Demon Lore). As written, there seems to be nothing preventing a high Intelligence character with Untrained Improvisation from attempting all the Recall Knowledge skills against the DC of specific lores.

Is this intentional? How should we handle this?

The idea behind the rework of the concept of Schools is amazing; The execution not so much. The focus spells are the same as before (somewhat weak), and the choice of bonus spells is just weak. With the old schools, the list per spell rank consisted of tens of spells; Now only 2 (beyond rank 1), with usually 1 good or medium spell and one situational spell. In my opinion this is the main issue that needs to be addressed: Expand the spell lists for each school.

What bothers me most about the class though, is that the wizard is (traditonally at least) the "learned" caster; The guy who spends his time reading books. In my opinion this is not something that is properly reflected in the class chassis: Give the wizard some additional skill increases (and/or skill feats) exclusively to be spent on Intelligence and Wisdom related skills. This would give the wizard the edge on mental skills that he needs without causing any balance issues.

I guess we could also use minimum expert proficiency in the specific skill could unlock the alternate option?

Actually I think that's even better. I'm going for Expert in the skill for tier 7-8 and Master for the 9-10.

As to the missing Survival check DC, I'm going for a level based DC of 24 (low tier) or 27 (high tier).

The class calls in the gauntlet challenges seem very arbitrary and not necessarily in theme with the challenge. I don't know if these are supposed to be pop culture references or something?
As per the recent changes in the GM guidelines, I guess we are allowed to be lenient with regards to those (it won't increase the difficulty!) to make it more reasonable: Replacing Ranger by "Wilderness themed character" for example, Bard by "Performance themed character", etc. I suppose I'd make the choice based on a Background or a Class/ sub-class/ Dedication.

Any feedback from the Organized Play team would be appreciated.

Probably because there is time manipulation in the form of fitting 6 Recall Knowledge actions in the space (and cost) of 1 action. Very thematic.

Ran it today at 19 CP, for a party of 6.
I had the drake, the boat launch, pit trap and the constructs.

The investigator had a "bad crit roll" where he accidentally finished the poracha, costing them the bin from the kami. He was also the one whose Devise Stratagem actions regularly got interrupted by the Tengu's Eat Fortune abilities.

My party spent a lot of time trying to get the mail destined for the nephews from the squirrly creature, which led to a cartoonish scene with various attempts to coax the creature.

The Animated Wine Dispenser with drunk Tengu, that I placed in C1b got a laugh from the whole table.

The pit trap was in the entrance squares to C6, with the halflings successfully baiting a melee character by throwing their eggs and forks. That trap is mean and iconic, but very fair.

I ran the drake in C6 as well, after the party had dealt with the room that I assume was C8. That one appropriately got obliterated by the ranger with a drake rifle crit: It was a relatively short combat.

In order to play into the Golden League NPC's going crazy, I had Bloodmoon whisper in the PC's mind during the first round of combat, playing to their envies and ambitions.

The balancing seems fine, though I have a few remarks:
- Using a Hero Point for a reroll is a Fortune effect. I think a GM should consider carefully whether they want to cancel out one with the Eat Fortune ability that the Tengu have
- How should one handle cantrips such as Know the Way, or spells that show you the way / prevent you from getting lost?
- My party handled all combats trying to knock out the opponents instead of killing them (although they failed with the poracha). They decided that it was maybe best to avoid bloodshed, being unsure how that would impact the "miasma" that the Kami described. I couldn't find if that was necessary, but I wasn't going to stop them from doing that, as it felt in line with what the Kami explained.

All in all, great fun was had! I'll write a review soon.

Heya,

Loving the scenario, and looking forward to running it! Below are two questions I have about it.

There seems to be an editing issue with regards to the Boat Launch map: Where is C8 (the shrine)? Is it the room that is mostly hidden by the compass?

Second: With regards to Bloodmoon (both tiers), in relation to Reactive Strike: The high tier Empowered Bloodmoon mentions that the weapon is Tiny but has reach. I'm assuming that the regular Bloodmoon (and the low tier Empowered Bloodmoon) do not have reach?

** spoiler omitted **...

I get what you're saying about the subsystems, but just to check an assumption: Quests are supposed to last 1 hour (Quests 1-13) or 2 hours (from Quest 14 onwards); Not 5. You don't have to flesh out a whole background for barely relevant NPC's unless you want to.

As for me, I do absolutely love skill challenges, but I dislike most implementations of the subsystems. Some are just too complex to introduce as a segment within an adventure (such as infiltration/ heist), and some are often just poor and overused implementations (influence). In most cases, the subsystem becomes a mini-game that gets in the way of roleplaying: Like, what the heck are you supposed to discuss with your fourth or fifth attempt to Influence an NPC?

Is it supposed to be dark? I'm not sure, the scenario doesn't mention it, but it seems reasonable. I'd say maybe.

The complaint is valid, and there should be a clarification. But I'd say if the scenario doesn't mention to apply a condition, it's not reasonable: Gimping a barbarian (but not any other classes in a 1-4 scenario) for the final fight doesn't seem to be the intent of this challenge.

My post-mortem for a 5-person party at CP18:

Every Pure Legion enemy having Retributive Strike (with 15ft aura) really turned the fights into slog-fests. The first fight alone took almost an hour and a half, which seems too long.
Maybe a reminder to the players that only the hit that knocks the enemy out needs to be non-lethal is a good thing. My party went for 1-2 lethal hits (or spells) before switching to non-lethal and that helped. Also giving a reminder about the availability of saps is not a bad recommendation.
Also the mooks doing +2d6 damage against divine classes is really harsh, which becomes egregious with the boost they get from the captain in the final combat.

IMO, GMs should be using death and dying rules if the PCs want to not kill them.

Yeah, this was a good and necessary recommedation.

Escape through the city: I'm not that worried about the DC's, but I am going to mention how hard the DC's are, as I do with most DC's in minigames (no numbers of course: Very Easy, Easy, Medium, Hard, Very Hard), otherwise this is'nt going to work

I ran it like this and it worked rather well, even though they ended up failing quite a few of the obstacles.

I was a bit confused about this quote in Part 2:

Repeat the choice, removing options the

PCs have already overcome, until you’ve run a path of
four total obstacles, then continue on to Part 2.

There are:

Reskinning for gm preference is one of those things which can be a good thing or could be like "I hate non human ancestries in my fantasy, so everyone is human" kind of dealio. Ye kinda have to trust gm to not abuse it.

To be fair, the whole Organized Play concept is based on that trust: We kind of have to, otherwise the system collapses.

In reply to the original post: I appreciate the declaration of intent in the post, and I approve of the clarifications as the intent is good. Yet I feel like it's a lot of words and work for barely any practical change. RAW-literalists will always go by the exact words of what is written, rather than what is intended (see any political, theological, legal or game rules discussion ever), so maybe it would help to explain the intentions rather than to lock it down in short key phrases that have no context. I know it doesn't help for any form of word count, but I think that without, the proposed alterations will have very little effect.

I was sceptical about them using champion abilities at first, but it kind of makes sense in a weird way, since they're basically "champions of the godless". But the start blocks do need clarification.

Encounter A: Is it really supposed to be Retributive Strike for all the mooks, and not Reactive Strike? I could see it go both ways.

Escape through the city: I'm not that worried about the DC's, but I am going to mention how hard the DC's are, as I do with most DC's in minigames (no numbers of course: Very Easy, Easy, Medium, Hard, Very Hard), otherwise this is'nt going to work: With the way the obstacles are described, it's kind of obvious that some options are the "if nothing else" choices (blocking a stampeding crowd rightfully is ridiculously hard). I'm a bit torn, because there are a few obstacles that ask for "less common" skills, but still require multiple successes from the party. Otherwise this section seems fine.

About the trigger warning: How to go about if someone does have an issue with it? It's quite a central element to the plot. Have a mook stab him ritually instead?

Maybe I'm missing text from the Obstacle subsystem, but page 8 says about the obstacles in the maze: Each PC can attempt any of the checks set forth in each obstacle...."

The way I read it, that means, every PC can attempt a check at every obstacle. That's a lot of potential successes, while you only need a number of successes equal to the number of PCs to succeed.

When I played it, I'm pretty sure we had the required nummer of successes for the whole challenge with the first obstacle. Before running it I was sceptical about it, but when I actually ran it, the party only had 2 successes more than required at the end of the run. So it can be swingy since not everyone will have access to all the requested skills, and don't forget the CF effect. EDIT: At level 1 or 2 you can try to wing it with an untrained skill if your ability modifier is high. At level 3 that will start to (critically) fail.

@author: Loved the whole tone of the adventure, as I mentioned in my review of the product a while back.

Hi,
I have a clarification request about the Tactician's Helm from Treasure Vault: Does this interact with Reactive Strike now (instead of Attack of Opportunity), or is it an unusable item for Remastered classes until a reprint/ remaster of Treasure Vault?

Hi, the warhorn for the offline event mentions the schedule is supposed to be visible since a few days but I can't see any tables; Registration to the event also seems disabled. I've tried contacting via the email mentioned above to get some information about how things work, but I'm not getting a reaction. Is this event still happening?

Am I missing something? In the Convincing the Elementals section, there is a mention of a First and a Second set of checks. It says "Even if they dont succeed (at the first set), they're able to reach the elemental leaders, but not impress them." I don't see any downside in the decriptions, so does this mean that they get a "free" chance to impress the elementals without chance of a crit fail?

Thanks, I just ran it high tier (20 CP): It matched my high expectations. The investigation is well thought-out, and the combats were spicier than expected :)

Heya,

The scenario looks cool. A few questions though:

1- In the chase, how exactly do the leaves in de parade act as Heroism scrolls? Is Heroism immediately cast on everyone who succeeds, or does everyone who succeeds get a scroll of heroism to be used at a later stage?

2- How long does it take PC's to get from scene to scene during the chase?

Hej all,

I loved running this scenario this afternoon! A few rules related questions that came up during the combat with the Tendriculoses:

Do monsters get their Resistance to Piercing & Slashing damage against a target that has been swallowed? I ruled that they did since I couldn't find they didn't. That felt really dirty though, hence the question :/

Can a PC escape though the same hole that a previous PC used to rupture out of the creature? I ruled no because I couldn't find that they could, although that didn't feel very satisfying either.

How does a Thaumaturge's Exploit Weakness interact with the Rupture threshold when he has been swallowed whole? The Thaumaturge used the Fire weakness of the creature to boost the damage of his Slashing attack. I ended up ruling that it would work to help burst out of the creature. It seemed fair to do so since it was part of the same damage instance.

Does Swallow Whole have the Attack trait? It has "(Attack)" mentioned at the start of the description, so I assume I did that right?

Finally: My compliments on setting up the high tier BBEG ! It was awesome to run a BBEG who could survive a severe beating from the party while at the same time casting spells like there was no tomorrow (which there wasn't, of course). Felt amazing!

Same issue; Been trying to buy an organised play scenario since yesterday afternoon. The page can't find the page after the Place Order button.

Alright, here's my post-mortem: All in all I enjoyed running this, and my players had fun.

Experience:
- My party quickly understood how to triangulate; That was nice
- There was some grumbling with regards to the foraging system. Only halfway through did it become clear that you forage either for food or for water; It doesn't seem to be possible to do both at the same time. Understandable, but it makes the foraging feel useless since you need both to account for a ration. Additionally it makes tracking the resources tedious
- Somehow my party decided on the 'disable' approach in the first location they came across, but at the second they changed to 'destroy' because they were afraid due to being low on rations. This meant they could complete neither the GA nor the VS faction goal. Somehow it has to be clear to the party that they need to do either one or the other
- There was some disappointment as to the somewhat low treasure the party got. They didn't go to the oasis or location D (-1). In addition they went for E, F and G, accidentally avoiding all Arid Desert hexes after having had their first fixed location, which made them miss out on encounter B (-2). This totaled for 7 treasure bundles

Confusion on my side:
- It's mentioned on page 10 that an hour after reactivation, Star sends a pulse that scrambles all remaining signals. By that logic, if the PC's have not completed their goal on day 16, they wouldn't be able to locate the remaining ruins anymore because on day 17 has activated Star. It feels like this is not intended; Am I missing something? Or is this simply an abstraction to have team PC and team NPC arrive nearly at the same time counting only the time the party took to get there?
- The reporting screen displayed that this scenario was re-playable, but I didn't see that tag anywhere. Bug?

General feedback:
- I did enjoy the flavor of the scenario. The locations came across scary and unique, and I got the impressions my players seemed to agree
- I loved the additional pieces of lore included in the scenario (setting up a tent, the weird locations in the desert, etc.)
- I enjoyed running the combats, although fighting earth elementals in sand can take forever. Secondly, the mooks in the final battle were utterly useless: Credit to my players, because tactically they did it right, but at 14 CP the automatons needed to roll a 15+ to hit the lower AC PC's with their first attack (lvl4-5 party)
- I'm a fan of haunts, because the players can experience the story of what happened. I would have enjoyed a little bit more description about what happened. It was a bit bare bones for that
- As commented by others: Create Water and Create Food simply break the supplies mini-game. This kind of survival journey really only works for level 1-4 scenario's, because that is the only level range where a party will feel the cost in spell slots. As soon as you have a level 5 spell caster in the party, this is not really an issue anymore
- Either the map is too big, or the speed vs activities per day ratio is way too steep. Higher level characters are slightly more likely to have reliable access to a level 2 Longstrider or a similar benefit, resulting in a higher chance to have a speed of 30+. But for level 3-4 characters this very unlikely, since 25ft seems to be the norm. You need to know almost exactly where you're going and to have the right party composition to achieve the VS goal

Hi all,
How did you interpret this one, since the editing in the scenario seems to be slightly disappointing.

Encounter D:

To disable the signal, the crystals can simply be smashed

Disabling the signal without damaging it requires a successful DC 18 Crafting, Thievery or Perception check (DC 20 for levels 5–6) to remove the correct wires without damaging them and to make the panel go dormant without burning through the remaining wires

The PCs achieve Zarta’s mission for this location if they either successfully study or disable the signal

I'm assuming the first entry should say "destroy" instead of "disable", and only the latter helps to fulfill Zarta's mission, right?

Edit: Same question applies for encounters E and F, I see.

I had the same response from my party yesterday (4 lvl1 characters): They immediately wanted to split up. In the end they saw Alec move towards the library on his own and decided to pursue him as a group, because they sensed what was going to happen. After the encounter with the gremlins, they decided to stick together. Weall thought the gremlins that gave lice were a very nice touch for a school trip.

I loved the titles of the romance novels in the library :D

Kudos, this one was a breeze to run!

I ran this on the low tier with 15 CP this weekend: The adjustment for the Ambush encounter seemed to skip a "14-15 CP" adjustment. I ended up using the 16-18 CP adjustment, which still made for an easy encounter (The leaded skeletons are sooo slow!). It's only now that I look at it again that I see that the sidebar seems to have two "12-13 CP" entries with a different description.

Compliments on the scenario though: Easy prep, easy running, everything was where I expected it to be, lots of fun!