Nick Wasko's page

Joshua Gremillion wrote:

Getting ready to run this scenario, and came across something I needed to ask. For the Drandlesticks, there is a chance that the target will drop their weapons and equipment 100'. Should I just be trusting that the players won't turbobotch the Acrobatics check, the Will Save, and the 50% chance the wind carries the weapons off? Currently, if it carries the weapons off the cliff, as written, those items are Destroyed. The only items I can think of offhand that could feasibly survive 50 falling damage are Sturdy Shields. Every other item I can think of, including the hypothetical Level 10 player's +2 Striking Flaming Serrating Greatsword, is gone after a fall like that. Is this intended?

As is, I'm kinda just hoping that the Monk chooses to be the point man for the run we're about to have locally.

When I ran, the Rogue missed the Perception check by 1, the Redeemer failed the acrobatics check, and then only succeeded on the Will Save on the reroll.

I wouldn't have the weapons take damage from the fall. Items, especially smaller ones, shouldn't follow the same falling damage rules as creatures. This should just an inconvenience to them, where they now have to climb back down to get their stuff, or just continue without it.

Cordell's interpretation is how I had intended it to be run. I'm not super familiar with the falling damage rules in 2E yet, but in my head a sword (or even a wooden weapon like a bow) that is dropped from the statue would be blown around by the stormy wind, but otherwise clatter unharmed on the ground. It was designed to be a hassle that forced players to spend resources to fetch the weapon, not to destroy it completely.

Other than a big slap in the face to tenth level characters who cam finally cast dim door (or maybe spent 20ACP and 980 gold to buy a cape of the montebanc) what purpose is served by having teleport effects specifically called out as not working on this module? (And 2-24)?

Presumably the same as the point of it being so difficult to fly, in making it not be a simple matter to skip 2/3 of the scenario. The whole thing is set up so that going straight to the top of the cyclops without difficulty isn't an option.

This is exactly right. The outline for this scenario specifically called this out, and required some mechanism of preventing the PCs from simply teleporting directly to the boss if they had the right resources. I understand Shea & TwilightKnight's point, and I did try to brainstorm alternative layouts to the plot that would allow PCs to use teleportation magic if they invested in it, but at the end of the day it was simply untenable with the narrative structure of this scenario. As more high-level scenarios are written I'm sure teleportation will be more seamlessly factored into the adventure options, but for this first one we played it safe to see how the other factors of high-level play work out.

I ran this last night, and we had fun. I allowed a 10-minute rest after each fight, but the benefits of spending an Aspiration Point inside the head made me second guess that.

How quickly are the PCs expected to move through this scenario?

James is correct, the intention was to finish at least the first two fights before resting. In my mind the players also climb the Colossus and get to the head before resting, since the head is designed to be a rest stop before the boss. However, a rest inside the Colossus after the second fight makes perfect sense as well.

How are the secondary checks supposed to be handled?

My original intent was to offer a number of skills that each PC could attempt to contribute as a secondary caster. PCs could double-up on skills if more than one PC was strong in a certain skill. I had hoped to provide a wide array of options PCs could use to improve their chances of success. I did not fully appreciate the shortcomings of the ritual rules for this purpose, as outlined by Robert Hetherington. It's something I'll definitely reconsider before using them again in a PFS scenario.

For the ritual it's probably just Dolok's result that's incorrect. If Dolok gets a 40/42 on his roll:

Quote:

If a PC critically succeeds and no PCs fail, the ritual’s result is a critical success.

A +2 will push it to a crit success and a -4 will pull it back down to a success.

Quote:

If a PC critically fails and no PC critically succeeds, the ritual is failure.

A crit fail would pull it down -4, which is a success, and then lower it by one to make it a fail. The only problem is that a Crit Success wouldn't save it. Guess this is just a bone thrown to the party to reward crit succeeding.

Quote:

All other outcomes result in a success.

A -4 isn't enough to cause a 40 to fail a DC 32 check, so this works out cleanly too.

This is correct. A couple different versions of this ritual were bounced around between playtesting and development, and the outcomes Cordell Kintner describes were the ones I targeted for this skill encounter. Clearly some of the numbers got incorrectly carried over between drafts, and resulted in an apparently unachievable challenge. I take full responsibility for that.

Luckily, the development team put in "override" language that explicitly states the success conditions of the ritual as they were originally intended, which provided a failsafe for the mathematical typo.

Further research has revealed these creatures to use as examples: Ioton and Seething Spirit.

Both have a weakness to Mental damage, and allow Mental damage to bypass the Resistance.

Thanks for this reference, it's definitely what I was shooting for when I wrote the final boss. I didn't know about the formatting for these creatures at the time of writing, so I appreciate the heads-up should I design something similar in the future. Chalk it up to first-time PF2E-writer rookie mistakes.

Though honestly, I'm not too broken up about the error. In my playtest the PCs piled on the Disciple of Urxehl while trying to leave Dreng mostly unharmed, and the outcome was a pretty swift victory. Since the Disciple is a spellcaster, having a bit more staying power may make the encounter more interesting, and mathematically spending an Aspiration Point to auto-negate the spirit's resistance still seems like a decent investment to me.

For what it’s worth, I wrote the final fight with the assumption that the incorporeal boss would be unaffected by wind on the Material Plane.

The Gamemastery Guide says about spellcasting creatures:

Because creatures tend to be “on stage” for only a short time, you usually don’t need to fill every spell slot. You can often fill just the top three levels of spells, pick cantrips, and slot in a few thematic backup spells in the fourth level down.

I didn’t include 1st level spells in order to save word count. Since it’s unlikely the final boss will survive long enough to expend it’s more valuable high-leave spells, it shouldn’t need any 1st level spells.

Doug Hahn got my response about the invidiak perfectly

We haven't started yet, we finished up the shimmerstone series of scenarios and wanted to continue on as a group.

Gotcha, I just posted my character in your Discussion thread so you can see if they are a good fit for your group

We have a group of level 4-5 characters continuing on to play 3-11, Into the Veskarium. It's a repeatable quest series.

We had a player decide to not continue on. We would prefer some level 4-6 players so we can play up, but are willing to accept anyone in level range. We have room for another 2 players!

Feel free to pop in here and say hi!

How many quests are remaining in the set? Enough for a full scenario’s worth of XP? I have a level 6 healer mystic who might be interested.

Good choice, there's a lot of fodder in the early PF2E APs.

What a delight to see this thread expanding. Thank you for the recommends, by the way. I’ll look those up!

The Idiot by Stan Rogers is particularly fitting for the AP’s ambience.

Nice to see Billy Joel made the cut! I've played through the first two books and I definitely get Stormfront and Allentown vibes from the adventure thus far. There's some good Stan Rogers pieces that fit the genre as well, but he tends to have an older-fashion nautical theme rather than spaceships.

I've got a level 6 sniper who would be down for this, if you've still got room.

Welcome welcome! Alrighty, and that's three sign ups! Hopefully we can get one more before we kick off next week!

If not, we'll fill in the fourth slot with a pregen. Two questions:
1) Would anyone mind running the pregen?
2) Given our current three sign ups (mystic, solarion and soldier) any votes/preferences for which pregen? Perhaps the mechanic or technomancer?

I'll be doing my sub-internship for medical school, so I probably wouldn't have the bandwidth to run the pregen at the same time.

As for a choice, I'd lean towards a skill-heavy option (Envoy or Operative), since that will likely be our biggest deficit with the current lineup.

I’ve got a level 4 sharpshooter soldier ready to go.

Hello Everybody! Zoey shouts into the room. There's still two seats left for Duskmire Accord 9!

Oh, and can
-caps
-The Ragi
-GM Aarvid
and
-sedoriku
make their way to the shuttle that is ready? Just report at the loading bay (link) and climb aboard! Thank you for flying AbadAir!

I've got a soldier (sharpshooter) 4 I could bring, will that work or are you shooting for low-tier?

Amanda was my primary contact developer for Seers of the Drowned City, and the first Paizo employee I had the pleasure of speaking to in a non-email/messageboard forum. I'm not exaggerating when I say her energy and optimism set the tone for every other in-person interaction I've had with Paizo, and I can't thank her enough for it.

Best of luck, Amanda! I'm looking forward to seeing what comes from the Kobold team with you at the helm!

All full for Storm of the End Times!

Hmm (Dani Merta)
Skeemo (Agatio)
Farol
ScottyBobotti
Shifty
Caps

Standby: Supersuperlative

Clambering aboard the train to the end times!

Welcome aboard! You can use the link I gave Farol above to dot in.

@Nick Wasko - I haven't played that scenario either. I've got a level 4 envoy and a level 4 drone mechanic I can use depending on what the party needs.

Sounds good! You can dot in with the link I gave to Farol above. So far I believe we have a copaxi solarian and a phrenic adept (mystic base). Not sure what Farol is bringing.

@Nick I would love to play that scenario. Is the name of the author coincidently similar to yours? ;)

Glad you noticed! I wanted to start with something familiar since this is my first time doing PbP.

Welcome aboard! Here is the discussion thread link if you want to dot in.

I'll be trying my hand as a PbP GM for the first time after PaizoCon. Two seats filled, currently seeking 4 players for SFS 2-13: Storm of the End Times (Tier 1-4).

Worth noting that this is a RP-heavy scenario, if that affects your character choice.

Shout out to GM Hmm for helping me through the logistics!

If the PC's cast a spell into the horde , what is the horde saves values? I am defaulting to the fanatics values at the moment.

That's a fair ruling, I would do the same. Though an AoE damage spell could also have the jinsuls automatically fail, since it's kind of swarm-like given all the jinsuls are crawling over each other to reach the PCs.

I'm currently running this in play by post, and I noticed a discrepancy. On page 7, in the section Wealdriad's Crown, it says setting up the equipment is an Engineering or Survival check. Yet every single individual pillar's description says it's a Computers, Engineering, or Physical Science check. Which one is it?

Good catch, I must have missed the discrepancy when proofreading the final draft. Default to what it says for the pillar descriptions (Computers, Engineering, or Physical Science) - the Engineering or Survival check from from an earlier draft. I expanded the skill options so fewer PCs would feel trapped if they don't have Survival or a good engineer.

First of all, no reference was added for the race. It turns out that that's because it's not from a book, it's from another scenario! Calling out the scenario would have been helpful, in part because the spelling of the race's name differs between this scenario and the other, so nothing I did (including full-text searching every PDF I own) got me to the right place. It wasn't until I started reading through Honorbound Emissaries that I turned it up, but I was really reluctant to do that because I haven't played the scenario!

Good point, sorry about that. I focused on fleshing out the shatoris and inadvertently took the Season 1 metaplot scenario info for granted, including the Kreiholm Freehold races. The typo in the name just adds insult to injury. In the future I'll pay closer attention to which species I use so I don't leave GMs in the lurch if they see something unfamiliar.

While I thought the DCs were high, they crushed it and ended up with 8 recordings, 8 favor, and all the findings. (They missed one recording because they damaged the lily pad, but got automatic favor with the group that landed that there were the Xenowardens and one of the PCs had ashes of discovery-Xenowardens).

Interesting, I thought the DCs were high as well. The goal was to scale the checks so the PCs could succeed roughly 75% of the time without special resources, even with a few Aid Another successes. That way PCs who brought relevant boons would feel the added benefit was significant. I suppose it's possible that your group just got lucky, but I'll keep this in mind for future skill-based scenarios.

I have to say, checking back and forth all the time for the scenario was a real hassle. They author could have just picked an order that they show up in. It isn’t as if the scenario is repeatable so the randomized element doesn’t seem necessary.

I can see why that would be annoying, sorry for the inconvenience. I randomized it because I know several convention GMs who run the same scenario multiple times. Even though this scenario has no mechanical replay value, I figured GMs who are going above and beyond to offer this scenario to multiple strangers could spice it up with a bit of randomization. Plus, there wasn't a narrative reason for the attendees to come in any particular order, so I figured shuffling the arrival times wouldn't hurt. Lesson learned.

Still, a fun, skill-heavy scenario that makes use of a bunch of different skills. The fight were a joke in the higher tier though. PCs barely took any damage at all.

This is valuable feedback, since I got some complaints about my first SFS scenario (1-34) that the difficulty was too high. I was already planning to scale it back, and I may have gone further on the easy side because this is a 1-4 adventure. I'm still calibrating my SFS encounter difficulty, so next time I'll shoot for something in between this and the 1-34 boss fight.

There is no grid on either of the maps of Wealdriad's Crown. One map has a scale 1 square=5 feet, but there are no squares. Running this Friday 1/25/20 and would like to know how far apart each pillar is. Also, is traveling between pillars part of a setup phase?

Xalxe is correct, the distance between pillars has no grid because it's an overland map (i.e. not for combat). I suspect the "1 square = 5 feet" scale was part of a Starfinder map template that got left in by accident. The distance between sites is fairly arbitrary (as Xalxe put it, "as far apart as the plot demands") to encourage PCs to travel between sites by vehicle (Pegasus, CHERAV, or PC-owned) rather than swimming. If the PCs use a vehicle, the travel time is negligible; it doesn't cost a Setup Period because the transit is built into the other activities that make up a Setup Period. If the PCs insist on swimming, then travelling between the pillars costs 1 Setup Period because swimming is slower and more treacherous in the stormy waters.

For what it's worth, my draft map had a scale that set the width of the entire map at 26 miles (roughly 1/2 inch = 1 mile), so the longest travel distance (A1 to A8) was about 20 miles. In a vehicle that can move at least 60 miles per hour, covering that distance should take about 1/3rd of an hour (i.e. 20 minutes), so each travel period should take roughly 10-15 minutes as Xalxe suggested.

My new concern is the Grotean Vandals trying to make piloting checks (piloting +4/+5) vs the churning surf's Average DC 16+. I foresee a good chance of at least one hovertrike becoming an uncontrolled vehicle! Could be hilarious.

I hope that does happen! Since this was a vehicle-tag scenario, a goal of mine was to make the final encounter dynamic concerning the vehicles, particularly when the enemies have an ability to throw the PCs out of the CHERAV. Between the storm's combat modifiers, the unfriendly terrain, and the vehicle rules, I hope the final battle has enough cinematic chaos to make it memorable.

After having run it, the scenario seemed to be missing a lot of detail. The handout points out when the cultists land, for example, but there's nothing in the text describing what happens. (By process of elimination it seems they land last and would take the needle. Assuming someone's party doesn't take the needle, anyway.)

There weren't ways written to get favor with all of the groups, just most of them--and one of those required a previous chronicle. A note saying you can't get favor with them would have been nice, but the handout seemed to suggest you could.

Also, the party immediately wanted to go defuse the bombs on the second pillar during the fight, but defusing wasn't covered by the scenario. It's easy enough to set a reasonable Engineering DC, but that seems like something that should have been covered!

Box text for the cultists' arrival was omitted because I didn't have enough word count left for it. I figured it was an acceptable loss since it doesn't really change the story and GMs can describe it without my exact guidance on how it would play out.

Each group does have specific ways to get both a Recording and Favor from them (barring a disqualifying event like damaging the Lily Pad). The CPBN, Kreilholm Freehold, Land-Hoard Holdings, and Weydanites each have 2 different skill checks associated with their cooperation - one Average, one Hard. PCs who succeed on one check get their choice of a Recording or Favor. PCs who succeed on both checks get both rewards. The Church of Desna and the Xenowardens both have one skill associated with earning their favor, plus a slightly more involved way to impress them (sharing Findings for the Desnans and capturing the Groetans alive for the Xenowardens). PCs can offset the tougher requirements for impressing those two factions by slotting the correct boons for this scenario.

I might have made the bombs a trap if I had more words, but ultimately they were just a plot device to draw the PCs into combat with the Groetans, so I didn't bother to make them more involved.

Everyone had a good time, which is the most important thing! That said, I had to ad-lib a lot myself after not finding some obvious things in the scenario.

I'm glad you enjoyed it despite the hiccups. I like ad-libbing when I GM, so I saw that as a feature rather than a bug. I guess it's part of my writing style that I need to take into account when I script adventures.

Thanks Nick - I'm sure someone from that table is much happier now.

No problem. I could have sworn I added that, but I went back through the text twice and couldn't find it. Glad it got cleared up here.

I am the GM of Joe Jungers post. If the scenario would have mentioned that the gear was near the last boss she would had try to recover it before escaping on Jadnura's gunship.

Would like to know if the player has a chance to recover her gear after I table ruled that the gear was lost.

It would be greatly appreciate a response.

Good catch, I forgot to add that explicitly in the text. Any gear possessed by captured PCs is added to the offering described in the treasure section of area C. Captured PCs should be able to recover all their gear if the party defeats the kohkleim.

Hermena, had a question for you about _Aeon Throne_. A while back, I'd brought this up elsewhere on the boards:

John Woodford wrote:

That reminds me of another question. From the same page:

SCB, p. 291 wrote:

While Near Space worlds tend to be closer to the galactic center (and, incidentally, to the Pact Worlds) and the systems of the Vast tend to be farther out, the true difference between the regions lies in the density of so-called “Drift beacons.” These mysterious objects, sometimes spontaneously generated and sometimes placed by priests of Triune, help navigation systems orient ships in the Drift. While placing a single Drift beacon on a world isn’t enough to convert a Vast world to Near Space status, placing many in that general region of space can cause the shift, and thus it’s possible to find pockets of Near Space worlds all the way out to the galactic rim, as well as uncharted zones considered part of the Vast near the galaxy’s core.

That implies that a Drift beacon is a Drift beacon is a Drift beacon, regardless of who placed it or how it came to be. So if it's only beacon density that determines whether a world is in Near Space or the Vast, how is it that the Azlanti Star Empire is in the Vast? Do all of their worlds lack the critical density of Drift beacons? And does that mean that it takes them 5d6 days to go between their own worlds?

Was this addressed?

When I played in Against the Aeon Throne we were doing a speed run, trying to get the whole AP done in 3 days. Because were moving at breakneck speed we didn't stop to consider that point, and our GM didn't go into the details. I remember it did take quite a few days to travel between the planets in Azlanti space, and one of the plot points was that the main villain was investigating alternative faster-than-light travel mechanisms that would allow the Azlanti to cover vast distances without using the Drift. It doesn't close the plot hole of why a galactic military as strong as the Azlanti hasn't invaded the more "fertile ground" of the pact worlds (it should be easier for the Azlanti to approach and attack the Pact Worlds than for the Pact to launch an effective counterattack), but it's something.

Loved the lightning, cold and perception mechanics that basically made it impossible for the party to keep environmental protections up the whole way through. The first two jinsul fights were a waste of time though. My party went through them like they were paper, and they wasted precious game time that could have been spent on the swarm encounter, making the investigation clearer, and then the final fight. At high tier, this was an adventure that I managed to end with only 20 minutes to spare -- and I am a GM that excels at pacing and prep. I think this will run long for most GMs. If this were not SFS, I would have clumped them into a single encounter.

I can understand that, and it was something that caused me some consternation. I wanted to emphasize that the jinsuls still on Rax were the military chaff, not strong or disciplined enough to warrant a place in the main jinsul force currently occupying the Scoured Stars. Mathematically the best way to reconcile weak individuals with encounters challenging to mid-level players was to increase the number of low CR enemies, but I'm quickly learning that doesn't always hold true in Starfinder. I think the balance works better in the low subtier, but I sympathize with the feeling that the early combats were a waste of time in the high subtier.

In a lot of ways I think my writing for this scenario slanted more towards the low subtier than the high subtier. I designed the kohkleim to be a boss monster worthy of the jinsul home planet, but I needed to make sure it wouldn't be too deadly for a party of level 3-4 PCs. As a result I erred on the side of weaker mooks and treasure specifically selected to provide an edge against a high CR demon. I think I was probably too focused on making the low subtier survivable, and as a result certain encounters in the high subtier come across as pretty tame. Low level PCs trying to play up get the worst of both worlds, which is why this scenario is particularly dangerous to out-of-tier PCs (as you mentioned).

I was really confused by the map on Encounter B. Where are the fires? Where is the party? Where are the jinsuls with their vehicle ready to crash the party? Because of this, though we had a large map, the party and the jinsuls clumped in the one location that made sense. I would have put the party nearer the center of the map if it weren't for the description of the whole city being on fire. This is something that I should have clarified with you in advance. Did I miss something here, and what was it?

This encounter probably would have been better with its own map, but I dedicated my entire map budget to the final battle. I sifted through a number of pre-published Paizo maps to find which one would work best, and the Flip-Mat: Tech Dungeon made the most sense. That being said, I still ended up wasting a lot of space on that map.

Based on the orientation in the scenario PDF, I would have the party start near the structure wall in the southwest corner of the map, and have the jinsuls crash the street crawler in between the three sections of broken wall (where the white-ish debris is on the map) as if approaching from the southwest. The crash might cause some of the interior wall to collapse as per the Hazards section, allowing combat to take place in the bottom left quarter of the map with a few broken pieces of wall still standing to provide cover.

The fires are descriptive concerning the city at large; there are no fires on the combat map per se. If you wanted the party to start from the center of the map (as if they were exploring or hiding inside the building before combat), that would have been fine and they would not have been at risk of fire damage.

I did love the chase scene, but my goodness, the layers of complication there on an already complicated game mechanic led to some confusion of my party members -- I had a handout about how vehicle chase scenes work, but I really needed to have adapted it to this specific scenario. I pulled it off, but I feel like I needed another week or week and a half to prep this thing.

Yeah, I was trying to synergize chase scenes that I really liked from PFS (specifically Kaava Quarry and The Infernal Inheritance) with the Starfinder-specific rules, since I didn't want to stray too far from the Starfinder Core Rulebook on my very first SFS assignment. It was a gamble, and I think I may have ended up falling short of my intentions. If I could do it again I probably would have lobbied to add the Vehicle tag to this scenario and made vehicle use (the street crawler and any PC-owned vehicles) more prominent throughout the scenario, so as to not diverge so much from the intended use of the ruleset. I'll keep that in mind moving forward.

I loved Ekkerah. Were those leg blades ones that he had pulled out of his own body? Is that why he has stumpy legs and is covered in bandages?

I'm glad you liked him, I had a blast writing his dialogue. Fun Fact: I originally wrote his dialogue only ever using the past tense and intentionally screwing up complex verbs (e.g. "goed" instead of "went") in an effort to show that he learned Common under sub-optimal conditions; it seemed to me the strong military tradition in jinsul society would have made initial translations lean heavily on the past tense, so I figured that's all Ekkerah ever learned to conjugate. The dev team streamlined his dialogue to make it less burdensome to read, which I totally get.

His description says he's missing one leg (down to 5), and based on the page layout of his artwork I think the intent was for Ekkerah's picture to be his "headshot," like Jadnura's in the mission briefing. Ekkerah's legs aren't stumpy so much as excluded from the illustration. Given the bizarre jinsul anatomy I think Bryan Syme did an outstanding job on his "portrait" of Ekkerah (along with everything else - I'm super thrilled with how the art for this scenario looks).

I figured the leg blades he offers as weapons were simply scavenged, but given his disillusionment with Dhurus' leadership I really like the idea that he pulled out his own augmentations in protest. His wrappings were meant to be a "robe," but since jinsul anatomy makes an actual robe pretty cumbersome I desribed it as something closer to a long scarf.

Irony, to me, is due to how much my party had trumped the the initial combat encounters, and managed to blaze through the chase without ever getting into "melee" with the swarm. When we got the aid options, we rolled really well and got the major aid... Which meant we looked at the loot... and then at arming the Starfinders... Pretty much unanimously agreed to arm the Starfinders rather than collect the loot...

Electric, and plasma (half Electric half Fire) weapons were the primary source of of damage around the table... Which meant we wiped the jinsuls easily... (enough so that the armed Starfinders was... unnecessary) and pretty much chipped for 1-3 points of damage on the demon.... Whith DR and/or Electric resistance against attacks back around the table. It really did turn into a long slog, but victory was ours.

I'm glad you got some mileage out of the other major aid options. Did you feel like they were helpful? I didn't want the gear to overshadow everything else so I did try to make Ekkerah's contributions to the fight meaningful, but I couldn't playtest all of them.

Cool beans. And thanks for all the swift answers. GMing this tonight!

No problem, I’m happy to help. I know my adventures tend to be crunchier than stale bread, so I try to be available to clarify what I can. I am trying to make my mechanics more user-friendly, but I’m still polishing my Starfinder skills so this one was a bit rougher around the edges.

So this is a modified vehicle chase.

If they pilot a vehicle what are the DCs they have to hit? If we follow the Vehicle Chase rules, the DC of piloting + a 2nd level vehicle seems much lower than the DCs to advance using party level + appropriate skill using vehicle chase rules.

Correct, the Vehicle Chase rules mean it's easier than expected. That's by design, it's supposed to be easier as a reward to the PCs for doing well during the investigation (granted it's probably lower than it should be, especially for the higher subtier; that's my mistake, which I attribute to being relatively new to Starfinder). Even though using the street crawler doesn't guarantee escape, it is faster than the horde traveling on foot. There are plenty of active hazards capable of wrecking the street crawler, so PCs may only have the easier DCs for a short time anyway.

May be a dumb question, but: if the PCs convince Ekkerah to help them, and the PCs ask for the Minor Aid option of giving items to the PCs, does Ekkerah give them everything listed in the treasure section? Or do the PCs get to choose 1 item (or group of items, like the two semi-auto pistols, all ammo rounds of a particular type, etc.) from those available for each time they take that Minor Aid option?

I'm pretty sure they get everything at once, based on the comments above, but want to make sure. Especially in High Tier, that is pretty awesome loot for getting one NPC to indifferent and then passing a single (admittedly high) check.

Correct, they have access to any of Ekkerah's toys if the PCs use one form of minor aid to get gear. I wrote it pretty much knowing that most groups would ask for equipment, which was fine by me since the lion's share of the scenario's reward payoff comes from Ekkerah and I didn't want PCs to get short-changed for loot during an adventure that takes place on a world that doesn't use Pact World credits. I also needed to make sure that any group woefully unprepared to fight a demon (which has tons of resistances) would have a chance to get weapons capable of bypassing its DR without too much hassle, so as to avoid the risk of a TPK.

If your group wants to play "hard mode" I wouldn't mind limiting them to only one type of gear per minor aid, but that's entirely optional.

Phantom dot...

Hey folks! This will be my first time doing a PbP, so please bare with me while I adjust to the new style.

I've got a level 2.0 sharpshooter soldier and a level 3.0 healer mystic. The former is much more competent in starship combat, while the latter is higher level and has the Harm Undead feat (given the scenario description, that might be helpful).

Is there any preference among the group for which to use? I'm leaning towards the soldier because I want her to level up soon and I'm considering buying the Exo-Guardian Champion boon for her to double-dip in Acquisitives & Exo-Guardians, but I can go either way.

Ahhh, I've been doing it wrong. So each PC can also aid-another as well as leading a check?

Can they aid-another everyone, or just one other character?

Or is it that as a group they get to make a check for every one of the three (and after three hours, four) categories. So they will have a lead (character with the best bonus) and as many assists as they can get.

That would certainly make a bit more sense, and now I'm rereading it, I'm thinking that might be what you intended.

Correct. Every character could theoretically aid every other character on their checks - the investigation is a team effort, after all. The only limitation is that a PC can’t be the primary skill roller for more than 1 skill per hour. The best way for the players to “ensure” success would be for all PCs to aid each primary PC on one skill check per skill per hour.

PS: I like how when you and I have a conversation our avatars look like they are shooting lightning back and forth.

Oh, another question.

The investigation DCs increase by 2 for each attempt according to the scenario. Is that what was intended, or just per success?

I'm not sure why a low skill PC failing to notice something would make it harder for others to do so.

it is per attempt, but the intent is that since the investigation takes place over the course of an hour per attempt a PC isn’t limited to only making their own check. All PCs should be able to aid another to bolster even relatively low rolls.

@therealthom I'd be game to play Cries from the Drift if you still have room. I've got a level 2 soldier and a level 3 mystic. However, I've never done a PbP scenario before, so you may have to bare with me while I learn the ropes.

I have a question about the investigation phase of the scenario.

I get the mysticism, engineering/physical science and culture checks okay. But when do the PCs get to make the perception checks?

I know they get to make one check at the start of Roaming Hunters (p. 7). However in the development section (p. 10) of that encounter it says:

Quote:

The PCs can attempt Perception and Stealth checks to learn about the jinsuls as described in the Investigating the Enemy

Is this a new option open to PCs for each hour of progress?

Or is this a one off set of rolls they make?
Or is this just based off their initial perception check at the start of encounter A?

Correct, this is a new option available for each hour of progress after the Roaming Hunters encounter. So let's say, hypothetically, the PCs succeeded on 2 Survival checks to travel efficiently, so their total travel time to get to the city is 6 hours. Roaming Hunters occurs at hour 3 of travel, so each hour after that (hours 4-6) the PCs can use Perception or Stealth in a manner identical to Culture, Engineering/Physical Science, or Mysticism to learn more clues about the jinsuls.

Even if the PCs do exceptionally well and navigate their way to the city in the quickest possible time (4 hours), they can still learn all the clues available via Perception or Stealth by doing well in Roaming Hunters. The Development section for that encounter on page 10 states, "For every 5 by which the result of the PCs’ Perception check exceeds the DC to notice the jinsuls, or for their Stealth check to observe them, the PCs glean one clue listed below about the jinsuls’ behavior patterns." So let's say a Subtier 3-4 group took the extra hour to track the jinsuls and got a +8 on the Perception check at the start of the Roaming Hunters encounter. The party rolls very well and gets a 25 on a Perception check to spot the jinsuls, with the +8 bonus bringing the final result to 33. This is followed by a 24 on the Stealth check to observe the jinsuls from hiding. The Perception result is over 10 more than the DC (21 in Subtier 3-4), while the Stealth check is 5 more than the DC (19 in Subtier 3-4), so the PCs automatically earn 3 successes and 3 clues associated with Perception/Stealth after encounter A. Even if the PCs only have 1 more hour of overland travel, they could still earn the last clue during that travel time (and even if the PCs don't get every clue then, they can learn all the pertinent information from Ekkerah later).

On page 6, in the Hazards section, It mention PCs can attempt survival skill checks to gain a bonus to their Fort save and may be able to apply it to other characters via the Survival skill, but I'm not seeing the specific DC for this check (unless it rolls into the DC 15 + 1 per previous check), what the potential bonus is, nor what the DC for the Survival skill check to apply the bonus to other characters should be (unless it also falls into the DC 15 + 1 per previous check).

The DC to improve resistance to the weather (potentially for multiple travelers) is based on the Survival skill rules in the Core Rulebook (page 148). The DC is 15 and one check determines the success of your efforts for a single day. If you succeed at the check, you gain a +2 bonus to Fortitude saving throws against severe weather while moving up to half your overland speed (you can't stay put and earn the +4 bonus for the purpose of this scenario). You can grant this bonus to one other creature for every 1 point by which your result exceeds the DC. You can’t take 20 on Survival checks to endure severe weather.

Now that I've got time to read your answers in full, I think what I ruled during the session and what you wrote isn't very far apart. I stand by my point though that the vehicle rules are not a simple matter for the GM to use.

The biggest difference I ended up with is that I missed that the horde could engage the PCs while they were inside the street crawler, directly, without first engaging the crawler. Since in my game they were using one PC's exploration buggy which doesn't seem to be fully enclosed, I could have done that instead of engaging the buggy.

I think "engage" is a bit of a misnomer. It works so differently from the normal engage action in vehicle combat that it's more confusing than helpful;
* It bypasses the vehicle and goes to a PC in the vehicle
* It's not really transitive; if the swarm "engages" one PC it doesn't also drag off the others and it automatically breaks free the next round with the PC in tow.
* There's no -4 for the swarm using both a Leader action and engaging a PC.

That's fair. In hindsight I probably should have used a different term for the offensive action taken by the horde - something like "grab" or "grapple" instead of "engage," just to help draw a distinction between their unique action and the typical vehicle chase rules.

The skill DCs proved quite steep for a 4-player party in high tier. The high quality of Ekkerah's gear offerings was appreciated. Surprisingly, they didn't manage the Diplomacy but did manage to scrape up a successful Intimidate and Bluff. Considering the DC 27 there probably includes expected Aid Another bonuses, should that DC maybe be scaled down for 4 players?

Yes, several of the check DCs are high because A) the PCs are in hostile territory, and B) there is a baseline expectation that PCs will be reasonably competent on Aid Another checks, which are almost universally applicable throughout the investigation and the conversation with Ekkerah. I did knock down the skill DCs in the 4-player adjustment for the investigation part, so not doing so with Ekkerah as well was an oversight on my part.

Ekkerah's gear was selected to help shore up the PCs for the final boss if they got walloped during the earlier sections, and to give the PCs access to weapons capable of bypassing the demon's considerable defenses if they didn't already have some. It's more vital for low subtier groups squaring off against a CR 7 demon, but I'm glad your players appreciated it as well.

The 5-6 subtier includes one combat against CR 2 enemies and one against CR 3 enemies. This really feels like a waste of time. At this subtier a considerable number of PCs are getting DR through either a feat or an armor upgrade, and even if the enemies manage to hit their AC they're not doing enough damage.

The lighting strikes were considerably more painful. In the final fight, it's more the threat of any captured NPC starfinders getting hurt that adds tension than the quality of the mooks.

This was by design. The remaining occupants of Rax are the jinsuls who didn't make the cut for the jinsul military that returned to the Scoured Stars. As result, they were supposed to be a bit easier to handle in combat compared to the foes in 1-99, 1-23, and other jinsul scenarios. They should only be a real threat when faced in large numbers, even at the lower subtier (though the combats are arguably a bit more dangerous for level 3-4 characters). This is further reinforced by their terrible tactics (the ones with flame rifles don't care about catching allies in friendly fire).

The kohkleim should be far and away the most dangerous foe in the scenario. Since it's capable of throwing lightning at the PCs from the minute they crash on Rax, it's quite possible that the demon chipped away the PCs' health for quite a while when the party finally encounters jinsuls. I made the early combats comparatively tame for their CR to lower the likelihood of a TPK if the PCs come into the fight having been severely whittled down by the lightning strikes. It sounds like I may have lowballed the challenge since your players got hit with lightning quite frequently early on and still beat the jinsuls fairly easily, but based on the permutations I ran it seemed like a solid setup while I was writing the scenario. I'll keep the difficulty of the fights in mind for any additional projects I get.

The Kohkleim's blindsense is a bit weird. It gains blindsense against creatures inside the fog clould. So inside it's cloud, it can't actually see out. Also, it still suffers miss chance (20% at 5ft, 50% at 10ft) when making attacks or AoOs. As I understand, since blindsense is an imprecise sense, it probably also can't target people with lightning strikes through 10ft of mist so it'd have to provoke to use it's "fry everyone" ability.

Blindsense is an imprecise sense, but the kohleim gets blindsight against creatures within its fog clouds. Blindsight is a precise sense, so it should not suffer any miss chance against any creature in the fog, even if it's invisible or otherwise obscured. The "fry everybody" option just turns its lightning strikes & arcing surge into wider AoE weapons when used against enemies in the cloud.

That being said, you are correct that the kohkleim can't see out of the fog if it's inside. I envisioned the kohkleim using the fog to conceal itself while using defensive abilities (e.g. summoning an ally), then coming out to target enemies if they aren't in fog clouds of their own. If possible, the kohkleim would try to catch many enemies in additional fog clouds so it could see them without needing to emerge from its own protective cloud.

Overall it was a very enjoyable scenario. The little details like leaders lashed to the prows, the autocannibalistic frenzy of the horde after taking enough damage, and jinsuls on the altar firing their flamethrowers just wherever really set a tone. I'm also a big fan of these "show, don't tell" scenarios that actually let you piece together a picture of what's going on through bits and pieces, rather than just telling it to you in exposition. Very nice.

Glad you liked it! I was going for a post-apocalyptic, "Mad Max" atmosphere with a touch of "Walking Dead"-style piece-together-the-past vibe. I'm thrilled that seems to be coming across well.

This is the second time or maybe even third time in a chase scene where it seems damaging the opponent takes prime place. First time was in Scoured Stars Invasion where the party shot the wurm to bits. Second time in Save the Renkrodas where the party/environment dealt 90 damage to Vossi during the chase before actually getting to the combat. And here, the PCs scattered the horde well before reaching the finish line. It makes me wonder if it isn't a bit too easy to just defeat the enemy instead of winning the chase.

This is really good to know; I was worried that triple-digit HP for the horde made it unbeatable through damage. Hearing your account helps set reference points for future scenarios to make it challenging.

My quibble is mostly that the vehicle rules seem a lot more complicated to me than the reverse chase rules, they're essentially a third game (next to normal combat and starship combat) with a separate turn structure and separate basic actions.

That's a fair concern. I approached this seeing the vehicle chase rules as the "chase rules 2.0" intended for use in Starfinder, with modifications thrown in as necessary. Feedback like this helps authors and editors course-correct depending on what players and GMs want, whether that means revisiting some of the classic chase setups for non-vehicle scenarios or providing appropriate guideposts for scenarios that will feature chases (such as including the Vehicle tag, as you mentioned). For what it's worth, I'll try to answer your specific questions as best I can here.

Normally vehicles impose a penalty to pilot checks, apart from the vehicle's item level being factored into the DC. Neither the PCs nor the horde have such a penalty. Won't that shift the real difficulty in unforeseen ways?

Some vehicles do impose a penalty, and some don't. For example, the Level 4 Police Cruiser provides a +2 bonus on Piloting checks. To try to keep things simple, PCs escaping on foot have a +0 bonus to Leader actions (in lieu of Pilot actions) and take a -0 penalty on attacks.

The rules you outline assume PCs stay together. What if they split up, for example because an operative with 60ft speed thinks he can distract the horde?

Since the "horde" is an abstraction, it is possible to make PCs stick together for the purpose of the chase. Much like how commandeering the street crawler doesn't ensure escape because jinsuls are popping up everywhere, a fast PC who tries to take a separate route could suddenly realize that a bunch of jinsuls emerged from tunnels right in the direction he was travelling, forcing him to go back towards the rest of the group. If a player really wants to play the self-sacrificing hero, they could "break off" into a separate "vehicle" that takes its own Leader actions and makes its own decisions, possibly slowing down so the rest of the party can get ahead. Since the rest of the PCs automatically advance one zone if a PC is captured (regardless of whether or not the captured PC is in the same "vehicle" group as the rest of the party), this decision could push the PCs two zones ahead of the horde and allow the rest of the party to escape.

What happens if a second PC retries a failed leader check? If he succeeds, can the whole group still advance?

Yes, a second PC who succeeds on a retried Leader action despite the -4 penalty allows the action to take effect, which includes advancing if the action was to keep pace or speed up. Ideally that should allow the PCs a reasonable chance to advance and keep the encounter moving, but speeding up is unlikely so the horde can keep up and remain a threat.

Engaging normally takes an extra pilot action. Does that mean that if the swarm tries to keep pace with the PCs and engage one, that it has to split actions at a -4 to both? If we assume the PCs Evade every round (it has the same DC as Keep Pace so why not) then the horde would be going up against KAC+2 with a +4 on the 3-4 tier (+7 on high tier), which seems like a very long shot.

The rules for engagement are different in this modified chase, since the characters aren't actually in vehicles. Page 14 says, "To engage in this modified chase, the jinsuls must make an attack roll (+8 in Subtier 3–4, +11 in Subtier 5–6) to overcome the target PC’s KAC." Essentially, the horde collectively uses a move action to take a Leader action (typically Keep Up or Speed Up, depending on their relative position to the PCs) then uses a standard action to attack a random PC with the attack bonuses outlined above.

I apologize for how the flow of actions in a combat round intersect with the flow of actions in a vehicle chase round; I know characters typically make their full combat round of actions during the Combat phase of the chase round, but since the PCs likely need to be moving on foot in this situation I needed merge the two round structures into one. I did this for the PCs by removing their move action if they are traveling on foot (they must spend the move action following the leader), but the jinsul horde wasn't as clear.

Are the PCs considered in engagement with each other? Otherwise, do they first need to engage with the PC before being allowed to attack the swarm in melee to either free their friend or destroy the swarm outright?

The PCs are generally considered a single "vehicle" unit, so if one PC is engaged the party's unit is engaged for the purpose of the vehicle chase rules. PCs can make melee attacks against the horde to free an engaged ally.

However, if a PC wants to make melee attacks against the horde as an offensive tactic, the PC must engage the horde, which puts them at risk of being captured (a PC is captured if it remains engaged with the horde for one whole round, regardless of damage output - there are simply too many jinsuls piling on for a single PC to fight them all off). If the whole party consents to this strategy, they can engage as a unit, in which case the action plays out as if the horde had successfully engaged the attacking PC rather than a random PC. If only one PC wants to Leeroy Jenkins the horde, the GM should consider having this PC split off as their own "vehicle" as I described above for your second question.

Conversely, if all the PCs are by default considered engaged with each other, doesn't that imply that if the swarm engages one, it engages all of them?

In a manner of speaking, yes. From the PCs' perspective, being engaged to the horde is the same as being engaged to a vehicle; they can make melee attacks against the horde, and can escape with a Break Free action. Where it differs is the outcome of continuing engagement. In a normal vehicle chase, failure to disengage would cause the engagement to spill over into the following round, allowing occupants in the engaged vehicles to keep taking appropriate actions. In this modified chase, when the horde engages the PCs a single PC is randomly selected as the main target. If the PCs can't successfully disengage within 1 round (by a Break Free action or dealing enough damage), the horde automatically disengages from the PCs, taking the target PC with them. The remaining PCs get to advance one zone automatically as the horde converges on the captured PC.

If the PCs engage the swarm to aid a friend in melee, are they automatically captured if they don't destroy/break free in the next round?

When the engagement begins, the only PC at risk of capture is the one targeted by the horde (random PC if the horde initiates the engagement, or the attacking PC if the PCs initiate the engagement). Any PC can use melee attacks to beat back the engaging horde, but if they don't succeed only the targeted PC is captured; the rest are disengaged and automatically advance one zone.

Was it intended that you must shoot people free that are about to be captured or is melee violence acceptable?

Melee violence is acceptable if a PC is engaged; only ranged weapons are acceptable if the PCs want to damage the horde while not engaged. That being said, PCs following the leader must spend a move action, so switching to a melee weapon if a PC was previously using a ranged weapon could be tricky.

Do single-target attacks (like a laser pistol or mind thrust) work against the swarm?

Yes, single target attacks affect the swarm normally (the PCs simply kill the jinsuls closest to them, giving the party more room to maneuver).

Normally, if PCs are in vehicles, engagement is determined against a vehicle. If the PCs use the street crawler, the scenario says that it becomes "a conventional chase" - so what does that mean for engagement? Can the swarm engage the entire vehicle and take it captive, potentially capturing all PCs at once? If the vehicle is engaged, can the PCs Break Free from the whole engagement? Can PCs jump ship and abandon the vehicle?

Using the street crawler converts the encounter into a conventional chase for the purpose of a using Vehicle Chase round as written in the Core Rulebook and using Piloting actions in lieu of Leader actions. The modified rules for the horde engaging individual PCs remains unchanged, though driving the street crawler makes it tougher for the jinsuls to engage (on page 14, "The street crawler’s lack of siding means the jinsuls can still attempt to engage a target PC within the vehicle, albeit with a –2 penalty.") This means if the jinsuls engage a random PC on the street crawler, the street crawler is engaged for 1 round; if the PCs fail to Break Free or deal enough damage to the horde, the engaged PC is pulled off the street crawler and captured.

I honestly never considered the PCs jumping ship if they commandeered the street crawler, so I guess that would be up to the GM. If I were running the game and the PCs wanted to do this, I might use abandoning the street crawler as an optional trick Pilot action to create a new active hazard for the horde (if the PCs jump off while launching the street crawler into the mass of jinsuls) that then reverts the chase to the modified chase rules.

-------------

I hope that helps. I appreciate your questions, they will certainly help me assess my work on any future scenarios (anyone whose played my previous PFS scenarios knows I like crunch and I tend to make things pretty complicated, much to the chagrin of new GMs).

How do you pronounce Kohkleim? Is it coke-lime or koh-klime?

What was the motivation behind modeling the jinsul horde on a vehicle chase, instead of the "group escape chase" mechanics that have been so successful in PFS?

The second one (koh-klime).

The short answer to why I used the vehicle chase rules instead of group chase rules like in PFS is that the vehicle chase rules are in the Starfinder Core Rulebook, and since this was my first SFS scenario I didn’t want to rock the boat too much.

That said, by my reading the vehicle chase rules derived a lot of their mechanics from what worked in chases used in Pathfinder, so it wasn’t that far a jump between the two systems. Since the PCs have the opportunity to use a vehicle if they do well during the initial investigation, it made more sense to me to fit non-vehicle options into the Starfinder vehicle chase rules than to try to hybridize PFS chase mechanics with a Starfinder setup and also include a vehicle option. Ultimately I did try to draw on the best of both worlds (Kaava Quarry and The Infernal Inheritance were both references for me), and I think the differences between starfinder’s vehicle chase rules and the tweaked chase rules used in later PFS scenarios are fairly superficial.

The chase seems like it could be exciting. I like the idea of the horde of jinsul trying a grab one of the characters.

Once a character is grabbed, the rest of the group needs to do sufficient damage to the horde (15 or 30 hit points of damage depending on tier), but I don't see values for EAC or KAC. Are characters assumed to automatically hit? Should area of effect weapons do extra damage (similar to a swarm's vulnerability)?

Good catch, that was an oversight on my part. My intent was to have the horde's EAC and KAC reflect the jinsuls of the appropriate subtier (fanatic jinsuls have EAC 11, KAC 13 in Subtier 3-4, bloodthirsty jinsuls have EAC 14, KAC 16 in Subtier 5-6); I must have missed that I didn't carry those values from encounter B over to the Jinsul Frenzy.

If running the scenario RAW, you could certainly assume each attack automatically hits (there are plenty of targets as the jinsuls descend on the PCs). The damage thresholds for freeing the PCs may be a bit low to really threaten the PCs, but mechanically it should work fine.

Thank you for the answers. The increasing difficulty really is likely to be more relevant than reduced time in this case.

Player reactions in the chase part are going to be interesting. Any gear of the captured players is probably best placed somewhere near the sacrificial area (as trophies or whatever) so it can be recovered and used. (Unless Ekkerah can deliver it straight to them.)

Indeed, the best place for confiscated gear would be near the kohkleim, so PCs trying to reclaim their weapons will draw attacks of opportunity and players will need to be pickier about what weapons they want to try to grab (once the PC escapes their bonds, of course). I don't think I called that out specifically in the text, so thank you for bringing it up here.

Ekkerah can untie all captured PCs and return their confiscated gear (or additional gear from his stockpile if the other PCs also convinced him to provide minor aid in the form of equipment) as a form of major aid. Confiscated gear returned in this way is not "replenished" in any way, so any used battery charges or ammunition remain expended. The captured PCs will still start combat among the captured Starfinder team, near the demon and away from the rest of the party (okay for a melee character, perhaps, but dangerous for a caster or operative). In order to start the encounter alongside the other PCs, a captured PC must be smuggled out of captivity (a separate form of major aid from Ekkerah per rescued PC, and since the players can only earn a maximum of 3 forms of major aid they should carefully consider who they want smuggled out and who must stay with the other Starfinder captives). PCs smuggled out by Ekkerah get their gear returned to them automatically.

Page 6 notes it will take the players 8 hours to reach the city, with hourly Survival checks to reduce the travel time by 1 hour, to a minimum of 4 hours. This time also tracks how many lightning bolts hit, how much ash there is on an armor's faceplate, and how many hourly investigation checks to make. Once they reach the city, encounter B triggers.

If the players fail at the Survival checks, they each have eight opportunities to reach the investigation goals. A talented survivalist can cut these opportunities to half. Am I missing something, or should there be an upside at reaching the target area faster than anticipated? The only benefit for succeeding at the Survival checks seems to be avoiding lightning bolts and ash on your faceplate, and the Mysticism goals can provide cover from the lightning bolts.

Correct, the benefit of moving quickly is to minimize damage from the lightning/cold and penalties from the accumulating snow. The cover from the Mysticism checks will take a minimum of 2 hours to kick in if the PCs succeed on two Mysticism checks in a row, and even with the +4 to EAC the lightning is quite dangerous. Since the skill checks to gather clues become more difficult with each attempt, the party will likely reach a point of diminishing returns on later rolls that make expedited arrival to the city more valuable than additional investigation checks.

That being said, PCs shouldn't feel penalized for rolling well. If I were GMing and my players did well on Survival but poorly on investigative checks, I would give them the option to keep exploring the outskirts of the city to try to get a couple more successes before moving on to encounter B, essentially foregoing a number of successful Survival checks to retry Culture/Engineering/etc.

I'm probably going to have the players preroll their eight faceplate Survival checks before the game starts. That way I can consult the results quickly when needed and avoid a situation where six people are yelling numbers at me.

Excellent idea. The preliminary reconnaissance has the potential to drag if the PCs fail key checks, so having certain outcomes pre-rolled will help keep up the pace.

Michael Sayre wrote:

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

Props for finally having a briefing end with the VC dying, I am surprised it took this long to happen.

It was literally the first suggestion I made after joining the org play team, and I was pleasantly surprised when John and Linda leapt at the idea. Then mildly horrified when Linda revealed her plans for executing the execution.

Hey, it's not just my plans. What I'm saying is, don't get on author Nick Wasko's bad side :)

What's a little chemically-induced asphyxiation among friends?

Seriously though, I'm glad this was just a Tier 1-5, since I'm not sure how many more work-arounds I could have incorporated into the arcane amplex to accommodate higher level magic for neutralizing poisons.

Doug Hahn wrote:

I also don't really see the point of Caldara's "sniping" from her little 10' cloud as bombs can't get sneak attack dice.

Actually, they get sneak attack dice as long as she's within 30 feet, which given the size of that room she usually is. For obvious reasons, that fight can drag a bit and get frustrating for players, so be mindful of running over time if you're on a limit (definitely honor the optional encounter guidelines). Even on low tier, the stench bomb can disable a few player PCs with poor rolls, and definitely shifts the mindset the PCs have in the fight if half their party is too busy puking on their shoes.

Doug is actually correct - page 202 of the Core Rulebook states that "Splash weapons cannot deal precision-based damage (such as sneak attack)." Even within 30 feet, Cladara's bombs do not deal sneak attack damage. There are some forums on the messageboards detailing how alchemist/rogues work.

However, she can hide with concealment from the smoke bomb, which would allow her to make sneak attacks with her other weapons. The term "sniping" meant targeting compact groups of PCs with bombs while hiding in the smoke cloud. She uses bombs if the PCs stay together and fight with ranged attacks, and uses her weapons/sneak attack if she can engage with single enemies.

One thing I ran in to at two of the tables was groups wanting to bring Bosk to a temple to try to get help. I allowed it and ruled that getting to the temple and returning to the lodge took 20 minutes and gave them the information as if they passed a Heal check on the body, but that there was no way for them to fix him on the spot (even a Level 5 party won't have the resources for Resurrection, which is necessary to clear the Arcane Amplex). If they do so, for lore purposes, the area tends toward more chaotic deities - I don't have a reference on hand for Daggermark itself, but in the River Kingdoms, you're likely to most easily find temples of Cayden Cailean, Desna, Callistria, Desna, and similar.

The other thing I had happen twice was the group captured Ilchok. IIRC this possibility is not encountered in the scenario. I played him as antagonistic and mocking, unwilling to admit defeat even at threat of imminent death and much more afraid of Cladara than anything the PCs could do to him - the most information they got was him letting Cladara's name slip.

This were excellent choices in adjudicating those developments. I would have done exactly the same thing. Hopefully low-level PCs will realize that Bosk is truly dead within 3-5 rounds, and resurrecting him is unrealistic given their available resources.

Christopher Hall.2 wrote:

Could somebody clarify the poison section at the beginning? The potion of delay poison. It seems to hint at places the players should give it to Bosk, yet if I'm reading this right, he will immediately die if they do. This seems confusing. Am I missing something?

Yes — the info you are looking for is in the section that covers investigating Bosk's death: "PCs who succeed at a DC 25 Perception check can find the hidden potion and bring it to Bosk on round 3 after his collapse."

This should probably be front and center in the section where Bosk dies, as no matter what the PCs should get the 3 rounds of clues.

Correct, the first 3 rounds of Bosk dying automatically take place. Even if the PCs succeed on their check to find the potion of delay poison in Bosk's desk, he still tells the PCs to find Brandur and begs them to protect Timinic while the PCs are searching his desk. If the PCs succeeded on their check, they find the potion on round 3 and give it to Bosk, causing him to die as a result of the arcane amplex (which, as Hock noted, the PCs can connect to Brandur's death if they go to his cottage). If the PCs don't succeed on their check, Bosk dies from the poison in three rounds (4 rounds if the PCs succeed on a Heal check or provide an antitoxin, or 5 rounds if they do both of the above). Each of those extra rounds provides another clue from Bosk. There should not be any way for the PCs to save Bosk's life in this scenario.

Okibruez wrote:

Similarly, the encounter with the Faceless Stalker was easy because both wizards had Magic Missile prepared; 6d4+6 damage is not to be scoffed at, at such a low level.

So yes, party composition and spell selection carried the day by outright negating most of the encounters.

Magic Missile is the way to go, since it guarantees damage which is very valuable in pf2. My group is now preparing to play the 3rd adventure of the playtest, and the probabilities to hit are always between 50% and 60% (which explains the randomness of the system). If conditions were a little stronger (say, flat-footed -4/-4 for example), it would facilitate more teamplay between PCs and cut down some of the randomness.

I don't disagree, and in a way it makes every bonus/penalty really count, at least at low level. I played a bard and made liberal use of inspire courage, which helped swing a couple of the encounters where it seemed like a 50/50 split. In fact, the encounters where we struggled the most were ones where the bardic music didn't help (e.g. it doesn't improve saves against the grease spell used by the goblin caster). It certainly made me feel valued as a support character.

2nd thought: The skill system is a mess. I can see what's being attempted, but it punishes anyone who wants to pick up a bunch of different skills by minimizing skill progression and locking the most interesting flavors behind Signature Skills. Simultaneously, it also reduces the feeling of "I am actually advancing in skill" because everyone gets a base +1 to all skills every level, which the monsters also get. It just feels like a case of 'bigger numbers for the sake of bigger numbers' because, statistically, everything remains roughly the same. Literally could do away with the redundant +1/level entirely, and instead unlock level related effects like spell level as the player reaches the appropriate level. It'd feel less like number bloat.

Our rogue felt similarly, though he gave it the benefit of the doubt because he hasn't gotten to a level where he can play with the extra Skill Feats yet. I think skills could do with some revisions as well, but I'm reserving judgment until I try it at the higher levels with some Skill Feats thrown into the mix.

EDIT: My biggest concern is that it will make all characters functionally identical concerning skills. In PF 1.0 very few characters have more skill points than class skills, so even among class skills they need to pick and choose what they want to specialize in among several options that fit with the class's general feel. That was part of the customization that made character building interesting - I could build a dungeon-delving rogue and a social intrigue rogue very differently based on which skills I put ranks in, even though both fit under the rogue umbrella. Now, even a mediocre Intelligence bonus gives most classes enough Trained Skills to cover all their Signature Skills, and since cooler abilities are locked behind Signature Skill barriers (e.g. requiring master or legendary proficiency) I can't see many people choosing skills outside the signature list unless they have high enough Intelligence to get bonus skill proficiencies. I'm holding out hope that higher level integration of Skill Feats will restore the customization among favored skills, but it's definitely concerning that I've never seen a player pick any skill outside the signature list unless it was a surplus skill rank from high Intelligence.

3rd thought: The 3 actions per round felt sleek and interesting, and it's different in an exciting way. I actually enjoyed it a lot, especially because it adds a different dimension to tactical thinking beyond the standard "move and attack or full attack?"

Edit: Also the Shield rules caused a lot of confusion, such as in regards to the Centipede poison, and the Denting rules.

Amen to that. The 3 actions really made each turn come alive for us. Definitely pumped to see if that excitement carries into the higher levels.

We loved the shield rules, but that was mainly because our paladin is a history teacher who was thrilled to see shields get the limelight they deserve. He mastered the shield rules quickly and leaned on his shield a lot, to great effect.

We just finished with 5 players: goblin rogue, gnome druid, human paladin, elf ranger, and halfling bard (myself). Once we got over the initial hiccups of flipping between pages to check various rules, we loved the flow of the game with the 3 action system. Our rogue was able to sneak ahead and get the jump on the first group of goblins, and also got the party to avoid the fungus and vermin encounters entirely.

A few adjustments were particularly hard for us. First, remembering to make the GM roll all the Secret checks. We were so used to rolling our own Knowledge and Stealth checks that we kept forgetting not to do it ourselves. Second, keeping track of who had a free Hand available. Our paladin got in trouble with having enough hands to heal himself a couple times. As a bard, my first turn was almost always A) drop the torch, B) pull out the instrument, C) inspire courage, after which I could use my spells freely by playing the instrument. When I level him up, I will almost certainly take light as a new cantrip so I don't have to keep doing that.

A few things stuck out to me. First, there are a few niggling little rules that we took for granted in Pathfinder 1.0 that either weren't addressed, or if they were I couldn't find them. Things like "if I miss with my bow, can I recover the arrow?" or "which weapons/armor are okay for druids to use?" While it's not vital to address these for the playtest, I hope they are included in the final update (particularly the weapons/armor that are acceptible for certain classes, since having a Trait indicating that they are viable seems like a trivial inclusion).

Second, some of the tables could really benefit from page numbers (e.g. the spell lists) to make use at the table more efficient. Hyperlinks in the PDFs would be ideal, but minimally some more page references will help players adapt to the new layout of the book.

Third, encounters with lots of enemies get a whole lot more dangerous with the new action economy. Like Robin96, we got hammered by the crypt encounter. In our case, we botched our Lore/Religion checks to identify a skeleton's resistances and then spent all of the first turn hitting them with attacks that dealt no damage. As a result, we got hit hard when those enemies came up in the initiative count. We also struggled with the goblin spellcaster near the fire pit, but that was mainly because no one could roll above a 10 to stand up after the grease spell. Three PCs were knocked to 0 in that fight, and all the rest fought from a prone position.

Fourth, while the action economy is certainly better for gameplay, chokepoints remain a scourge that slow combat to a crawl. That seems like more of a cartography consideration than a flaw with the rules, but it bears repeating.

Those were mostly small nitpicks, though. Overall it was a great experience, and I can't wait to try the higher level playtests!

No worries, happens to the best of us.

I only just noticed last night that the dog stats, being weasel stats, give them blood drain. My party did not appreciate the dog dealing 5 Con damage on a grapple!

Yeah, they're pretty mean for a low level adventure. My hope was that it would add some appreciation for the elixir's defenses and encourage players to use the tricks they pick up on day 1 to neutralize the beasts. It sounds like your group had particularly bad luck fighting them, if they lost 5 Con over the course of the fight.

Mike, what special formats to I need for a PbP character sheet? Do you want me to email you my character sheet PDF?