Rotrovio

Nathan Goodrich's page

FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Venture-Agent, Utah—Lehi 69 posts (1,266 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 18 Organized Play characters. 4 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 69 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

I have a pair of groups that are forming up for the PF2 Playtest. One is hoping to meet on a weekly or biweekly basis, though we haven't decided on a day yet. The other group is going to go play-by-post.

I've heard that there are reporting deadlines by which Paizo hopes to have input on each part of the Doomsday playtest module. Additionally, I've learned that there are Organized Play scenarios.

Do we know what the deadlines are like for each one? Do we have two weeks for each part of Doomsday? How long are the parts? I have a feel for the length of PFS scenarios, but how much time do we have to complete them?

Grand Lodge

What is the rationale for giving the Rogue so many more skill feats than everyone else? Prior experience to me suggests that having a class be the Skills Guy is a bad idea. One of two things tends to happen:

1. The Skills Guy pays for their extra skills in combat proficiency and sits in the shadows while the combat characters do the fighting. Some might like it but it's not a great model in my view.
2. The Skills Guy doesn't pay for their extra skills in combat proficiency and we start wondering why he gets extra skills.

Grand Lodge

The one comment I have is something that might not apply in the new edition, I suppose. One of my ongoing annoyances in PF1 was that certain effects attacked a nearly custom defense value. Intimidate was a good example, targeting a creature's 10+HD+Wis.

If I was going much further with PF1, I'd be tempted to say that there should have been a more standardized value 'mental defense' or something similar. I guess they really could have just been Will Saves instead.

I started writing down stats that didn't actually appear in the game for some of my higher-level casters, such as Spell Attack for all of the +caster level +charisma attacks (Telekinesis and similar spells), but it looks like that sort of thing is already handled.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Shelyn is getting name-dropped a lot in these playtest articles. Is she becoming more prominent in the new version, or does our article writer just really like her?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Rot Grub wrote:

I wonder if people would be less upset if they gave Goblins a different appellation, by calling the base seven the "Core Races" and calling goblins an "Uncommon Race" which will be supplemented by further uncommon races in future expansions.

And is it true that Paizo is baking the Golarion setting into the core rulebook? I believe that's part of the anxiety, too -- the feeling that people are being dictated a default setting.

If someone is troubled by it, honestly I think this doesn't have to affect your group -- nothing stops you from reducing the prevalence of adventuring goblins in Golarion, or from using your own campaign setting.

Golarion was at least nominally baked into the Core book in 1E as well: the gods of Golarion were in the Cleric chapter.

For what it's worth, if goblins were in Core but were designated as "uncommon" somehow, that would make a difference for me.

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I was nervous about this whole idea of Core Goblins when I first heard it, but I wanted to wait and see what the implementation looked like. We haven't actually fit that point yet. I did hope that we would have a better in-world explanation of how the murder-rats would suddenly start to show up in adventuring parties, though.

The explanation given in the article does not satisfy.

I do love Paizo/Pathfinder goblins. I remain unsold on them as a Core playable race.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, Utah—Lehi

Replay is like acid to a living campaign. I saw it before in Living Forgotten Realms and the games didn't feel like they meant anything.

If replay is allowed for 1E, I'd prefer that it be delayed some amount of time after the start of 2E. My location runs weekly PFS games (2-3 tables) and the release schedule for 2E won't be nearly enough to supply us with a full 2E roster for a long time, so we'll still be running 1E (Starfinder is also an option I suppose) for quite a while and I'd prefer that 1E not go all cattywampus immediately.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, Utah—Lehi

Has the idea of allowing people to burn 1E boons for benefits in 1E been raised? Perhaps power benefits for some of the final 1E scenarios or retirement vanities?

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, Utah—Lehi

Gerard van Konijnenburg wrote:
As the proposal stands a 5 glyph GM could be someone with between 100 to 150 GM credits, based on the number of stars that GM has.

That seems an odd way of doing the math. It seems to me that the range of GM Credits would be 150-250. You are completely discounting the work /effort component of Pathfinder 1.0 stars which just can't be right.

For what it's worth, I've never viewed GM Stars as representing rules knowledge.

I'm generally in favor of option 2.

Grand Lodge

I've realized since my last post that I have enough on my plate for now. Good luck everyone!

Grand Lodge

Dex to damage was always a ridiculous mechanic. I still support it on the Unchained Rogue because without it the class kind of falls to pieces. Hopefully the 2.0 Rogue comes out better.

I could even see something like the Rogue getting 1 point of damage per sneak attack die when sneak attack doesn't apply.

Grand Lodge

I'd like to submit Khareg Runeaxe, a Dwarven Chirurgeon Alchemist. Khareg lived in Korvosa three decades ago but currently resides in Kaer Maga. He gets drawn into the Gaedren Lamm situation via the Missing Child (son or daughter) trait avenue. The child isn't Khareg's, but belongs to a family that helped the Runeaxe clan some human generations ago. He hears about the matter via the Slatehammer clan, who were visiting Varisia and passed along the news (they are aware of the Runeaxe obligation). The humans he is helping probably don't even remember the Runeaxes, but a dwarf pays his debts.

If one of the other players is doing Missing Child (Son or Daughter) we might want to make it be the same missing child (which would likely imply that the Runeaxes owe their debt to your family).

In combat, Khareg will play a melee backup role focusing on the mutagen & infusion parts of his class, with less emphasis on the bombs.

The traits in the booklet I have access to look like they might be out of date (it refers to Gather Information checks in one spot). What's the trait bonus from Missing Child (Son or Daughter) in the anniversary book?

Grand Lodge

I noticed that in my read. I was a bit leery about a player overload as well. Maybe later!

Grand Lodge

BastianQuinn wrote:

Head on over to Discussion, Pixels.

Recruitment is closed to all but players from Season 1. PM me if you need a summary.

Ouch. I was only watching this thread loosely while trying to make my way through season 1 gameplay so I could understand what was happening better. Thought I had the weekend to finish catching up.

If you have the players you need already though, I guess I messed up. Have fun!

Grand Lodge

I'm at least curious, but I don't have time to look into it at this moment. Dot I guess?

Grand Lodge

Very interested, but my efforts to come up with a character are going all scatterbrained. I'll wait for the player's guide to post any ideas.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, Utah—Lehi

Has anyone heard anything about when we'll get more information on the Concordance? The first of their faction-related scenarios is dropping tomorrow and no one can join the faction yet... it's sort of awkward.

Grand Lodge

Do we know when recruitment is closing yet?

Also, just to confirm: do unchained rogues get the power modification you mentioned earlier or just chained rogues?

Grand Lodge

thejeff wrote:
Nathan Goodrich wrote:


Information that wouldn't have any in-world analogue, like a creature's number of HD, is generally not available at any price. Maybe a rough estimate of a creature's toughness/danger as a proxy for HD, but nothing closer than that.

If I'm in any kind of a sandbox style game, where some encounters should just be avoided, I'll give out some indication of CR.

Does no good to learn that trolls are vulnerable to fire and acid if you don't learn that this group of them will rip your party to shreds even without regenerating.

Sure. And that would fall under my toughness/danger as above. But not a number of HD.

Grand Lodge

I'm heavily in the camp of the GM giving out information as well. My method of deciding what information to give to the players is along the lines of imagining that they are talking to an old sage about the creature:

"The first thing you should know about ghouls is that their very touch will freeze you in place. Defend yourselves well and don't let them touch you."

"The second thing you should know about ghouls is that their bite can give you a particularly nasty disease: ghoul fever. If the disease kills you, you will rise from death as a ghoul."

That sort of thing...though not in artsy language like I used there.

Information that wouldn't have any in-world analogue, like a creature's number of HD, is generally not available at any price. Maybe a rough estimate of a creature's toughness/danger as a proxy for HD, but nothing closer than that. If a creature resists fire 5 or 10, I'll just say resistance with no number attached. If it resists 30, I'll probably say really strong resistance.

In regard to what saves a creature is good at, I usually wouldn't give out that sort of information. I do consider it completely within a "fair play" range for players to infer that sort of information from its type, however. I give out creature types without any check at all (at least, which creature type is apparent. A heucuva that looks like a human, hasn't acted like an undead and hasn't had its disguise/illusion broken would give human data even if the player makes their check - realistically they'd be rolling Local instead of Religion). This mostly facilitates allowing the players to know what kind of knowledge checks to make, but also gives them information like oozes being unflankable and uncrittable even if they have no knowledge ranks in Dungeoneering. I assume that trained adventurers know the basics of creature type data (don't use mind-affecting on vermin).

As Mudfoot says, a rough estimate of a creature's best & worst saves can be inferred from that, though not precisely.

When I see the question system used, I very frequently see players asking for information like damage reduction that is usually known or very likely from its type, like DR/cold iron on fey (although if a fey creature was randomly DR/adamantine, that would probably shoot up on the list of things my imaginary sage would mention). It is pretty useless and harms the players in comparison to my method far more often than not.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, Utah—Lehi

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Excited for these scenarios, but I need information on the Elemental Concordance so bad...

Grand Lodge

Merry Christmas everyone!

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, Utah—Lehi

Uthal, just to clarify something first: what do you intend to do with your animal companion? My base assumption is that you plan to use it as a combat pet, but that isn't the only option. Our answers may be very different if you want to use it for something else.

Grand Lodge

I'll pop in just to say that if you want to kill gods, there are better roleplaying systems for it out there. I played a Mythender game at Paizocon where we slew Rovagug, as one example.

d20 rules break down the further you get away from a bunch of guys marching forth out of a bar to go look for monsters to kill & treasure.

I'm converting one game I'm GMing over to Mythender now that the capabilities of the PCs in their native rules system are no longer persuasive.

Grand Lodge

dotting for interest - I'm planning on submitting a human Bloodrager (Draconic - White)

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, Utah—Lehi

I still don't understand how people are saying that the PCs are reaching frightened during the fight with Xiangnuer. Frightful Presence would make them shaken for 5d6 rounds if they fail their save because they are above 4 HD. In order to reach frightened without taking a separate fear-related action, there's got to be more.

Are people making the party shaken on the first round (or surprise attack) and then having them save again against the same frightful presence ability on the second round to get to shaken? That seems wrong, but it's the only way it is making sense in my head.

Grand Lodge

I'm new to PbP gaming, but eager to try something out!

The new Ruins of Azlant campaign looks fantastic and I've created a character, Galyth Kallios for submission (I listed him as a bard, but I'd be happy to change to any role).

If a different campaign is forthcoming that I could join, I'm interested in anything right now.

Thank you!

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, Utah—Lehi

I can't see any proper justification for saying that saddlebags are a saddle requiring a [saddle] magic item slot to use. Just because the word has "saddle" as a component does not mean that it is, in any sense, a saddle. Even if that fails, you could buy a backpack instead, which doesn't require any particular body type. Best that the issue gets cleared up though.

Now that paizo is adding [saddle] slots to more animal companion categories, I consider the question of whether lacking a [saddle] slot prevents the use of mundane saddles to be answered in the affirmative. The literal interpretation was always pretty clear, and the new action is at least an indication of intent.

I don't like this ruling, and would have preferred that the lack of a [saddle] slot be used as an indication that a critter needed an exotic rather than normal saddle. But I can't justify ruling that way at this point.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, Utah—Lehi

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I wouldn't normally worry about it except the saddle related wording wasn't clear on that point.

Quote:
Creatures without these notes cannot wear saddles or horseshoes.

I *think* this is all about magic items still, but it would be good to be sure.

As a side note, using this list as a way to say which creatures need exotic mundane saddles sounds like a good idea to me.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, Utah—Lehi

Based on this, a Tyrannosaurus can't wear a magic saddle. I think that's clear. Does that ruling also extend to mundane saddles? If so, are there consequences for not being able to wear a mundane saddle for a potential rider?

Grand Lodge

I have several different clerics in PFS:

* A midrange Cleric of Shelyn (Love/Defense) that sometimes engages in melee and sometimes just stays back and casts spells or channels. She's gotten fantastic use out of Calm Emotions.

* A dedicated casting cleric of Sarenrae (Fire/Restoration) that is utterly useless in melee but it about to start using Shield Other and Holy Smite and loves casting Fireball.

* A battle cleric of Cayden Cailean (Frenzy/Travel) who mostly just stabs things. I always make sure to pack around a copy of Remove Fear with him. <Insert complaint about Cayden Cailean's domains being all wrong>

I love them all, so it's hard to pick. To me, the joy of the Cleric class is picking domains and spells to play into the flavor of your chosen deity, especially so if the combination of domains works into something special. The class needs 4+ skills something fierce though.

Grand Lodge

To me, cold weather gear DOES equal protection for the purposes of cold environmental damage, and fairly clearly so. Rysky even quoted one of the relevant passages:

Quote:
In conditions of severe cold or exposure (below 0° F), an unprotected character must make a Fortitude save once every 10 minutes (DC 15, +1 per previous check), taking 1d6 points of nonlethal damage on each failed save. A character who has the Survival skill may receive a bonus on this saving throw and might be able to apply this bonus to other characters as well. Characters wearing a cold weather outfit only need check once per hour for cold and exposure damage.

* Unprotected characters need to make Fortitude saves once every 10 minutes

* Characters wearing cold weather outfits only need to check once per hour for cold and exposure damage.
* Clearly, then, people in cold weather outfits aren't unprotected since they don't have to make checks every 10 minutes
* I consider cold weather gear to grant protection since the characters aren't unprotected.
* Thus, protection doesn't negate the checks every 10 minutes entirely. It instead changes it to 1 hour checks.
* If there was some other available definition of protected for this section of the rules, I would go with that. There isn't. So I extend the ruling that cold weather gear grants protection from exposure to the higher and lower temperature bands as well.

Literal reading does not necessarily equate to good textual interpretation. You can't read protection out of the section by saying it is never defined and just giving up on it.

I think the nonlethal damage being dealt in this section is also cold damage. Not as clearly so, but clear enough for me.

Grand Lodge

666bender wrote:

WOW.

missing rules:
1. if mount move - will the rider AND the mount BOTH trigger attack of opportunity?
1.B if mount or rider have a special feat not to provoke (grace spell, spring attack, etc) will BOTH be protected or just the one with the ability?
2. if mount have spring attack, is it 1 or 2 moves ? (for casting \ using archery minus).
3. if both mount and rider have spring attacks, can both move-attack-move?
4. ride by attacks - cant work if the closest route.... as closest = bumped into the foe.
5. as both charge - and if rider have reach can rider attack, than mount move a bit closer, and mount attack?

SlimGauge wrote:

1. Yes, as both are performing the same provocation (assumed to be leaving a threatened square)

1.b Depends on the exact feat, but probably only the one with the ability
2. Spring attack is a special full-round action that happens to include some movement. Ask your GM.
3. Why would that not work ?
4. Using ride-by requires GM adjustment
5. Unclear, ask again later (magic 8 ball response)

Quoting both 666bender and SlimGauge here to focus in on a question I've had for a while relating to their 1 & 1b.

I fully agree with SlimGauge's answer on question 1. If there isn't any effect going on that protects from opportunity attacks, both the mount and the rider will provoke. Though I've never seen a GM allow a single creature to attack both before and wouldn't do so myself, I'd have a hard time coming up with a reason why they couldn't (provided Combat Reflexes of course).

1b I'm much less sure about. I think there are a couple of ways to think about this situation. I'll two examples: a Spring Attacking mount and a mount performing a full withdrawal. Assume that 5' steps are off the table and that the rider is not dismounting.

Interpretation 1: There is nothing that can be done in terms of simple movement to protect the rider from an attack of opportunity. The rider clearly moves out of a threatened square and will provoke. My objection to this is why I included a full withdrawal as an example activity. Are we sure we can say this?

Interpretation 2: The rider can leave the threatened square but only if they both perform the same action. If the rider also has Spring Attack, they can Spring Attack along with their mount. If they full withdrawal along with their mount, they can also leave the square safely. My objection to this returns to SlimGauge's answer for the #3 question: I contest the notion that both creatures can take full-round actions at the same time. They definitely can do this while charging, so I can't laugh the suggestion off completely, but I currently view that rule as an exception. This might be the cleanest solution overall if it works, though.

Interpretation 3: The mount's mode of movement protects the rider if it protects itself. There is little to no rules support for this option, which is my primary objection to it. I imagine that this gets applied all the time by players though in the full withdrawal case.

The Spring Attack case makes it easy to say "yes provoke" while the full withdrawal case makes it hard. I can't see why they both wouldn't have the same answer, though.

For the record, I think the answer to #2 is super clear. Spring Attack only provides one movement as part of the full round action. One movement speed is one movement.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, Utah—Lehi

3 people marked this as a favorite.

My perspective is that from season 4 and after, but I've never seen the Shadow Lodge actually live up to their ideals. So for me it is a bit hard to see why people think they are missing anything. I'll make an effort anyway.

As far as I can tell, Shadow Lodge players got faction missions starting in season 3. This is after the other-Shadow Lodge went all Murder-Death-Kill on the Society, and for existing players it must have felt like the faction was reforming itself. If there is any indication that the Shadow Lodge ever did care about the Society, it exists in those faction missions. I'm not aware of any actual scenarios that ever displayed the Shadow Lodge doing its work.

By the end of season 4, however, Grandmaster Torch went crazy on the Society and the faction missions were no longer published.

From the perspective of a season 3 player:
* Shadow Lodge went completely crazy in season 2. There is nothing good about what they were trying to do.
* I joined the Shadow Lodge in season 3 and we did a lot of good work keeping the Decemvirate in check.
* Scenario writers went bonkers on me in season 4 and my faction leader betrayed the Society.
* My basic idea of the Shadow Lodge plotline is Bad -> Good -> Betrayed.

From the perspective of a post-season 4 player:
* Shadow Lodge went completely crazy in season 2. There is nothing good about what they were trying to do.
* I only play the old faction missions if the GM decides to include them (rarely if ever) and I'm not in the Shadow Lodge, so I don't see them doing anything worthwhile.
* I can barely tell the difference between the very small time period when the Shadow Lodge was an actual thing for players and the smaller but more prominent period when the Shadow Lodge was trying to kill us.
* Even if I do see the Shadow Lodge's efforts to protect Society members (I'm GMing an older scenario and I happen to read their faction mission) I have no emotional attachment. If anything, any "caring" that Torch does about Society members seems disingenuous given his later history. Since I learned the later history first, it colors everything I see of him during the good period & it doesn't really seem good at all.
* My basic idea of the Shadow Lodge plotline is Bad -> Still-Bad-But-Not-Currently-Murdering-Pathfinders -> Betrayed.

Now that I've written it all out, I think I did a better job of explaining my own point of view than trying to understand that of the Shadow Lodge players. Hopefully there is still some value added though. If my view of the matter is mostly accurate, I can't imagine us ever getting to the point where there would be a big swell of support from the post-season-4 player base for the Shadow Lodge's return.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, Utah—Lehi

Ran my game on high tier. The party managed to find the Ashen Leaves supply chest, which obviously helps everything out. Even with the chest and a holy symbol tattoo on the cleric, they had some amount of difficulty with the Amphiptere attack. They stuck to the 1-2-4-6-8 path and managed to clear the whole race in two days.

The only real problem they ran into was the blood caterpillars, which were quite nasty. I had to expand out the map to give the party any room to maneuver at all. They failed their Nature checks and the party cleric charged into battle, taking 15 damage from an opportunity attack due to reach and another 1d8+3 plus a poison failure from the bristles, (which I had mentioned in describing the creatures). The fight nearly turned into a rout right there, but a few of the players decided that they had to stay to rescue the cocooned halflings. I stuck to the tactics block & had the caterpillars throw webs unless a target was already webbed or the caterpillar was already in melee reach. Fortunately, I missed on my webs a lot and the party was able to keep them at bay for the most part.

Though I'm sure I had read it earlier, I didn't really pick up on the fact that the Alchemist is full of fail and only has 1d6+1 bombs at the 4-5 tier while I was preparing. It was a sad moment when I found that I couldn't even explode the PCs a little.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, Utah—Lehi

Lau Bannenberg wrote:
Steven G. wrote:

I played the high tier of this scenario with my 4th level Fox Form Kitsune Vexing Dodger, read "Familiar". My party was a pair of Arcane caster gnomes, a paladin, a Flame Dancer Bard and an Agathiel Vigilante (Raptor). Between 7 Magic Aura castings from the Arcane casters, and the party each picking up to one magic item of importance, I carried our magic items out of the city in Fox Form. Nothing too impressive was taken: My Ring of Eloquence, Boots of Striding and Springing, an Eversmoking Bottle, Spell Component Pouches, a Belt of Incredible Dexterity +2, a bonded ring, and a couple wands. The one spellbook was stored in the Etheral Plane via the spell Secluded Grimoire. Only the Paladin needed a weapon (other than his snapped off tree branch for a club) crafted, which was easily done after the first encounter. All in all, our group was very well prepared for this challenge.

I will be running this scenario twice at Paizocon, and look forward to seeing how other groups handle the challenges they'll face.

I have to ask - blatantly violating the rules of the competition, with great premeditation, and also against the express instruction of the venture captain - is that really something a paladin should be comfortable with?

While I'm also impressed with the level of cheating PCs engage in when Venture Captains order them not to cheat, please don't turn this into a paladin thread.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, Utah—Lehi

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
Nathan Goodrich wrote:

Here's a sample playthrough the way we were doing it earlier. My team is L4 Valeros, Kyra, Amiri & Seoni (btw, kind of a bad team)

** spoiler omitted **...

Nice writeup Nathan, that is exactly the kind of the things a scenario/ruleset like this needs (ideally in the scenario).

Not sure if you can combine the hustle and the forced march though since they are both listed under group tactics.

When my group played this( more later) we were really uncertain how to deal with the forced march, since as written is seems like an amazing idea, the chances of getting more damage than what will heal during the night is tiny.

Thanks.

I'm fairly confident that you can combine hustle and forced march. At the very least, nothing says that you can't. I did realize after I put that post up and went to work, however, that I made at least one mistake: in the hustle phases, the party should be taking a -5 on checks not related to moving (see also: the crafting I was doing and also the Perception in the jungle hex). There are probably other mistakes as well.

At least for the high tier, forced march damage really is pretty trivial. A low tier party could get hammered by it, particularly if they meet an encounter while they still have nonlethal damage on them.

Having a Cleric (or some other character that can channel + cast cure spells) for this scenario is a pretty big deal since it helps you ignore any hustle/forced march damage. The parties that try to skate by with a Ranger using a Wand of Cure Light Wounds instead are taking huge risks in this one.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, Utah—Lehi

Here's a sample playthrough the way we were doing it earlier. My team is L4 Valeros, Kyra, Amiri & Seoni (btw, kind of a bad team)

Spoiler:

The party doesn't get either of the bonuses from the starting Knowledge (Nature) check. They don't manage to catch the cheaters either (Seoni was the only one who beat the Perception/Sense Motive DC and she wasn't able to make the Stealth check). Kyra was able to make a successful Diplomacy check to impress the other teams, however, and so their race times are slowed by half a day.

The party starts in Hex 1, which is Hills terrain. They plan to go through hexes 2 through 4 but want to spend the first day mostly gathering supplies. They hope to go faster on following days. Amiri has a personal progress value of 4 and the others have values of 3.

Hill Hex: 4 progress needed, 3 advantages possible, Advantage DC 15 due to high tier.

******

Day 1, Phase 1 (Hex 1)
* Amiri starts by gathering supplies: Survival 23, which gathers 7 units of food & water. This doesn't count as an advantage because gathering supplies never does.
Valeros wants to try to craft a weapon. He doesn't have a high Craft skill, so he's going to go for a simple weapon DC 12 (I've settled on the idea that the Craft skill table is a good place to be, and the text allows for GM modification of the base DC 15). Valeros gets an 18 and makes a heavy mace (1 advantage used). Now he'll try to craft a holy symbol for Kyra: result 3 and a fail.
* Kyra tries to craft a holy symbol as well: results 13 & 9 which both fail.
* Seoni tries to craft a holy symbol: 5 & 16 (2 advantages used).

Because the party's progress value was halved, the party makes 1 progress through hex 1.

******

Day 1, Phase 2 (Hex 2)
* Amiri is going to gather additional supplies: Survival 14, which brings the party total up to 10 food/water units. (0 advantages used)
* Valeros is going to craft another heavy mace: 9 & 15. Success! So Amiri will have a mace now as well. (1 advantage used)
* Kyra wants a weapon too and also tries to craft a heavy mace: Results 6 & 5.
* Seoni will try to craft the last heavy mace: 16! So the whole party is armed. (2 advantages used) Now she will try to craft studded leather armor: 4.

The party makes 1 more progress through hex 1.

******

Day 1, Forced March Phase (Hex 2)
Fortitude checks to start: Valeros 21, Kyra 11, Amiri 25, Seoni 20. No one is fatigued.
The party chooses to use their free hustle for the day here, so their final progress value will be 2 unless something untoward happens.
* Amiri wants to craft a greatsword for herself and notes the supplies of obsidian in the area. The GM allows it at DC 15. Results 8 & 2.
* Valeros is interested in that studded leather armor: Results 3 & 6.
* Kyra is also going to make studded leather armor: Results 5 & 17! So Valeros has studded leather armor now (1 advantage used)
* Seoni will help out: Results 5 & 18. So Amiri has studded leather armor now as well. (2 advantages used)

The party makes 2 more progress through hex 1, completing it. Encounter A will trigger as soon as they enter hex 2, which they haven't done yet.

Fortitude saves: Valeros 11, Kyra 20, Amiri 18, Seoni 15. Valeros takes 5 nonlethal damage. Kyra cures 2 points of it with one channel and he sleeps the remainder off. Since he's both getting 8 hours of rest and is recovering all of his nonlethal damage he's no longer fatigued in two different ways.

End of Day: The party consumes 4 of their 10 food units & has 6 remaining.

******

Day 2, Phase 1 (Hex 2)
Strategy: The party wants to hurry through the mountains today. They choose to hustle on their first phase. Because they are in the hills, Amiri and Valeros will use Climb checks to gain advantages. Seoni will assist Amiri and Kyra will assist Valeros.
Seoni Assist: 13
Kyra Assist: 22
Amiri Climb: 23 (1 advantage used)
Valeros Climb: 22 (1 advantage used)

The party's progress value for this phase is 6. They pass Hex 2 and make 2 progress into Hex 4, which is also hills. They encounter the Amphiteres and we'll assume that they survive the encounter but that Kyra used up some healing resources.

******

Day 2, Phase 2 (Hex 4)
Strategy: Same as last time:
Seoni: 19 assist
Kyra: 4 assist
Amiri Climb: 29 (1 advantage used)
Valeros Climb: 17 (1 advantage used)
Sidenote: I'm realizing now that both Seoni and Kyra should be assisting Valeros. Because Amiri is faster than the rest of the group, if she fails but not by 5 or more (unlikely), she won't slow the party down. The same is not true of Valeros.

The party's progress value for this phase is 5. They pass Hex 4 and make 3 progress into Hex 6. This triggers the encounter with the Trail Hounds. They also trigger the third encounter with the caterpillars (leaving hex 4 and entering hex 6 are the same thing -
that's kind of brutal). Fortunately the party equipped themselves with atlatls and javelins from the Trail Hounds, and they manage to clear this challenge. The party wins, but that they take enough damage and use up enough healing resources that they don't want to risk a Forced March on Day 2. They're getting close!

The party eats 4 of their food units and has two remaining.

******

Day 3, Phase 1 (Hex 6)
Terrain: Jungle - Progress required 8, maximum advantages 8, DC 18
Strategy: The party is concerned about all the fighting from the prior day and decides to take one phase out to gather supplies and craft some shields. Then, they hope to Forced March and clear the race by the end of Day 3.
Tactics: Because the party hasn't fully recovered from their encounter with the caterpillars, Kyra is going to use the Recovery tactic in Phase 1. This means she will take a -5 on all of her advantage checks during this phase. She spends a few healing resources to bring the party up to speed.
Amiri: Survival 18 - This gathers 5 units of food to bring the party total to 7, more than enough for the rest of the journey.
Valeros: Craft DC 12 & 19! He creates two wooden heavy shields for himself and Kyra. (2 advantages used)
Kyra: Since Valeros is already going slow, Kyra decides to make some longspears for the party: Craft 8 & 0 with her -5 penalty
Seoni: More longspears? She doesn't need a spell component pouch so.... Craft DC 7 & 16. She gives the longspear to Amiri. (3 advantages used)

The party makes 1 progress and has 4 progress on the jungle hex.

******

Day 3, Phase 2 (Hex 6)
Strategy: Now that they have recovered somewhat, the party wants to hurry on toward the end. Surely nothing can stop them now! The Jungle Advantage DCs are somewhat high, though, so the party all going to focus on one Perception check to be made by Amiri.
Tactics: Free hustle for the day.
Assist checks: Valeros & Kyra assist the Perception.
Amiri Perception DC 19 - (1 advantage used)

The party makes 5 progress, advances into hex 8 and has one progress remaining there.

******

Day 3, Forced March Phase (Hex 8)
Swamp Terrain: Progress 4, Advantages 3, DC 15
Strategy: the party doesn't need any advantages to reach the end of the swamp tonight, so they won't gather any advantages. They just want to reach the end.
Fortitude Saves: Valeros 21, Kyra 14, Amiri 19, Seoni 6. Seoni takes 5 nonlethal damage and is fatigued.
Tactics: Kyra could use the Recovery tactic to heal Seoni's nonlethal damage, but she already used some spells & channels today and decides to reserve the rest. Fortunately, Seoni's fatigue won't slow the party down. They're going to make it!

The party makes the final three progress and encounters the Zuvembie. They manage to destroy the undead monstrosity and his snakes and cross the finish line a day ahead of the competition!

Fortitude Saves: Valeros 16, Kyra 20, Amiri 8, Seoni 4. Amiri takes 3 nonlethal damage and Seoni takes 3 as well. I note this mostly to point out that I wouldn't put the second set of Fortitude saves until after the combat encounter. Seoni was Fatigued at the beginning of the Zuvembie fight, however.

******

Note one assumption I'm making. The party failed a LOT of Craft checks, badly, without slowing down. I'm presuming that the party's progress value is only reduced if they fail against the DC of a Hex. This would exclude failures on Gathering Supplies and Crafting.

Note: I object to the fact that this party wouldn't get full gold because they never got the cache/ruins. It's a REALLY specific condition to put on gold acquisition that they have to make two specific skill checks in order like this. Not happy about that.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, Utah—Lehi

I'm not GMing until Sunday morning, Selvaxri. This is as good a place as any to bring up any brainstorming you want to do, though.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, Utah—Lehi

I'm prepping for Paizocon and did a run through of just the pursuit mechanic with another GM. On one of our runs, crafting DCs of 15 were VERY problematic. I had multiple misses of DC 13 & 14. We assumed that the party wouldn't get the gear cache.

The scenario specifically says that you can make lesser quality gear with a lower DC, but says nothing else. Does anyone have an opinion on what that ought to mean? Would they be fragile weapons instead?

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, Utah—Lehi

Found an error in the scenario. Cornella Yorke didn't gain any HD or HP from her advancement to level 5 in the 4-5 tier. I assume we run as written, but that's an unfortunate error.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, Utah—Lehi

Steven G. wrote:
Paul Jackson wrote:

Ran it tonight. I have to quote the player of the Gunslinger, who did essentially nothing all session

"I personally want to kick them in the dick for this"

I had a group of 4 characters, L1, 2, 3, 3. So literally as high tier as you can be and still be clearly low tier.

They didn't get the weapons cache and had huge difficulties with all the combats. If not for the 2 level 3s they'd almost certainly have failed with at least some deaths. Heck, if I hadn't been softballing some of the combats something fierce they'd have lost characters.

The biggest problem with this scenario is that different groups are going to be affected to wildly different amounts depending on the individual characters. If your group is significantly affected then some of the battles are going to be QUITE brutal.

I'd expect a group of first levels to just die, unless they're all unchained monks or something.

This is now the second Season 8 Low Tier scenario that I will NOT run for new players

In this case, you should have looked at the party make up and recommended they play down. This is a fringe case specifically called out in the RPGG. If they ignored the recommendation, it would be on them. I am running this at Paizocon. Getting heads up info like this thread is helping me plan what to do there.

Roleplay Guild Guide, Page 10 wrote:
In the fringe case where there are no PCs that are high enough level to have reached the subtier level (such as a party of six 3rd-level characters), the group can decide to play the lower subtier.

I don't think that Paul was saying his group played high tier. I think he was saying that they were low tier but still had huge problems despite the level 3s.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, Utah—Lehi

I'm preparing this and after my first read, my big concern is weapons & armor for the party. If they don't discover (and keep) the weapons cache and they don't successfully Craft or Modify Tools in time, that first combat could TPK some parties.

Add to that the lack of warning that they should be prepared to go without their gear before the scenario and it's of concern to me. How has that angle gone for everyone?

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, Utah—Lehi

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Does it say anywhere that companions or familiars should be taken away? I would assume that they shouldn't. They aren't possessions or equipment.

Grand Lodge

Doug Davison, SmiteWorks wrote:
Nathan Goodrich wrote:

I'm curious. A long time ago I had a player license and played some 4th edition D&D games on Fantasy Grounds. I really liked it as a tool.

Does that player license count for this at all? Or was it specific to 4th edition? I found my old purchase email and it says it was a Fantasy Grounds II Lite License.

The Lite license (Player license) is still supported but is no longer sold. You can reinstall with that key and still act just like a player license did in the past. Use the latest installer from our website under Downloads > All Licenses and enter your key into your Settings. It is also eligible for a reduced cost upgrade to Standard if you ever decide to go up to the Standard edition.

Thanks!

Grand Lodge

I'm curious. A long time ago I had a player license and played some 4th edition D&D games on Fantasy Grounds. I really liked it as a tool.

Does that player license count for this at all? Or was it specific to 4th edition? I found my old purchase email and it says it was a Fantasy Grounds II Lite License.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, Utah—Lehi

So far as I'm aware, there shouldn't be a big difference between giving commands to an animal companion that understands your language normally (via it knowing the language - requires the animal to have 3 Int and a rank in Linguistics) and a character giving commands to an animal companion while they have Speak With Animals up. Hence, I would assume that a normal Handle Animal check would still be required.

There is a difference in that a character using Speak With Animals can have an actual discussion with the companion while the handler of the wolf-that-knows-Celestial (or whatever) cannot. Assuming that there was sufficient time for a back-and-forth with the companion, I'd be tempted to allow a bonus on the Handle Animal check. Mostly this would be useful for pushing. Basically the same as I'd be tempted to rule for a level 11 Hunter that has Speak With Master.

Getting an animal companion off the trick system is hard (or perhaps impossible) in PFS.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, Utah—Lehi

I ran this tonight. Going into it I felt like I had a handle on the social conflict mechanic. Turns out, I didn't have it down nearly enough. Explaining it all to players and guiding them through potential tactics in a reasonable amount of time was just stupid and we weren't able to roleplay in places where I would have liked. We got through it, but it was not great. Worse so, since some of the possible neat tactics you could pursue that are inherent in the system seem to all vanish when you are trying to lose.

I like the social conflict mechanic, but not in a 4-hour time slot and not inverted.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, Utah—Lehi

I knew a halfling that wrote Penny Dreadfuls for their day job. No specific titles, but they had to retract an issue after it came to light that the creature they had called a "manticore" was a mis-idenified wyvern.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, Utah—Lehi

* Potion of Communal Darkvision: The Darkvision spell doesn't actually help against Deeper Darkness. It's a good solution against Darkness though. Daylight is a better option. (note: scrolls of Daylight are questionable since you won't be able to see the scroll when you need to cast it)
* Potion of Dispel Magic: Sometimes you just have to roll the dice and hope for the best, but the low caster level on this potion is a problem. Also, the set of spells & effects this works on as a potion is rather limited. Why isn't this a scroll if you are assuming that a caster is in the party?
* Scrolls of Lesser Restoration: Sometimes this is your best shot. Be aware that this scroll takes 3 rounds to cast, however.

More broadly, when I see players die it's most often to a bad crit or just general hit point damage. It's always a good idea to be prepared, but I don't think your list replaces a saved-up Raise Dead as well as you seem to think it does.

* I suggest adding a Scroll of Invisibility Purge to your list if you travel with Cleric/Orace/Inquisitor classes frequently or have good UMD availability.

1 to 50 of 69 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>