The.Vortex's page

The.Vortex wrote:

A question about the review rewards: I am an avid player and GM of the Society Scenarios, but have switched to using the Foundry VTT Premium Modules, which already include everything I need to GM. But that technically means that I do not own the scenarios themselves. So I WON'T get gold for leaving reviews? I would definitely NOT like that!

While you might not be able to review the scenario itself, you will be able to review the Foundry modules built from the scenarios. That will also grant the 5 gold.

If you purchased a bundle product (that contains the Foundry version and the PDF), you should be able to review both products. A product needs to show up in your purchase history to write a review for it.

-Jim

That does make it sound as if it will in the future be IMPOSSIBLE to write reviews for products you don't own? So far I thought I just wouldn't get gold for it. If it is as you say, I sincerely ask you to reconsider! That would prevent players from reviewing scenarios they have played, which would be a very bad idea. It should NOT be only the GMs that are able to write reviews.

Also, back to my main point: The Foundry Module is one for a complete season. It does NOT make sense to write reviews for the individual scenarios in the review section of a bundle of 20 or so scenarios!

A question about the review rewards: I am an avid player and GM of the Society Scenarios, but have switched to using the Foundry VTT Premium Modules, which already include everything I need to GM. But that technically means that I do not own the scenarios themselves. So I WON'T get gold for leaving reviews? I would definitely NOT like that!

I just GMed this at the high end of high tier for 6 players - the skill challenges were absolutely trivial. On the first one, they had 17 points after 3 of the four rounds, on the second one they had 13 points after ust two of the four possible investigations. The DCs are quite low, so with 24 rolls, it should be VERY likely that groups reach the highest possible thresholds.

Also, as I suspected earlier, there were quite a few questions about the content of the Symposium itself. It is a real shame that there is nothing in the adventure for more studious players / characters to sink their teeth in.

A friend of mine confirmed that the issues are present in the PDF version of the adventure as well and not only in the module.

(I only have the premium module, so some or all of the issues I found might only be different in the PDF)

I am currently prepping this to run it tomorrow and found a few things worth mentioning:

1. The first skill challenge (Presentation) doesn't account for number of players at all! So a group of 4 players has 16 actions, while one of 6 players will have 24 - but the number of successes needed is the same.
This might be less of an issue if the secondary success condition didn't consist ENTIRELY of this skill challenge.
This seems like an obvious mistake to me, so may it would be OK here to give smaller groups more rounds? 6 rounds for 4, 5 rounds for 5 and 4 rounds for 6 characters? That way, groups of all sizes have (almost) the same number of rolls to accumulate points (24/25/24).

2. The second skill challenge (Investigation) also doesn't account for the number of players when it comes to the number of successes needed. But since this one only affects initiative a tiny bit, it doesn't matter as much. Also, the thresholds are easier (8/13 instead of 10/15)
Another thing about this one: It is indicated that the players can start whereever they like. But then it lists the different challenges as rounds? This feels like a leftover of a previous version where this was a more formal type of challenge.

3. Najid's "Fennic Scream" ability has two failure effects in both subtiers. Which one is the correct one? Stunned 2 or Stunned for one round?

4. Content wise, I have two issues with this adventure:
a)It feels kind of bad that this is a scientific symposium, but there is almost NO INFO AT ALL about the subject that is being discussed at the symposium. There is a short sentence about what the Pathfinder Society is presenting, but nothing at all about the results of the other factions! We have had adventures recently that were almost pure lore dumps. This one is lacking lore. Badly.
b) The Pathfinder Society are NOT the last group on the list of presenters. There are three groups that are supposed to present their findings after the players. Since the proceedings are interrupted, it makes sense that they don't do that right away. But the conclusion makes it sound like they don't present their findings later, either.

Those two points in conjunction strongly suggest that the whole theme of the adventure is pure window dressing and not meant to really do anything and thus wasn't spared too much thought.

5. On a more general note: The adventure could have used another round of proof reading! It is riddled with errors and weird sentences.

(Why is there no thread for this already? It is out a month now, has 7 reviews, and quite a few problems - has nobody noticed? Or did nobody care? I am confused)

I played this last week and then prepared and GMed it on sunday. Both in High Tier. Here are a few points that remain unclear / feel weird:

- What is the point of having multiple keys of the same color? Are the keys supposed to be single use?
- And while we are at it: What is the point of even having keys of different colors (other than the teleportation circle later on)? From what I can see, it doesn't matter at all if you use the green or red portals. And even if you could use purple, it wouldn't make a difference, either

- How is the encounter against the aquatic enemies supposed to work? The Megalodon is too large to fit through any of the wells in the room. Both my GM and me just handwaved it, but technically, that enemy just doesn't work here

- What is up with some of the DCs in this adventure? If you fail some saves, you are pulled under water and the escape DC is 36! That is a VERY HARD DC for Level 9. But at least in that case you had to fail some saved to get there. Unlike the final encounter, which starts with a DC 35 save for everyone. That is INSANE! Most people at that level will have somewhere around +16-+18 for the save - minute chances of success, and high chances of critical failure. In both runs, we had people go down to that damage

- Are you supposed to be able to disable or even "reverse the polarity" of the focus before combat starts? If so, it would probably trivialize the final encounter. But it would also mean that the final encounter wouldn't actually really happen the way it is described, so it probably shouldn't be allowed.

- During the chase: One penalty (Exit's this way) sound like it auto-clears the obstacle if the group didn't pass on their own. The others don't. And since you have 10 rounds, it wouldn't make sense for all of them to clear that obstacle for you. But is it correct that that particular obstacle is automatically cleared with some minor damage?

- Missing scaling on subsystems - Research as well as chase seem to be lacking any scaling, either for player number or for CP. So a group of 4 will have a MUCH harder time here. That is what scaling should prevent, so the lack of it is kind of weird.

The.Vortex wrote:

(maybe) interesting observation after skimming over the replies:

Every single class with Int as key attribute has beeen mentioned. Some of them quite a lot. What is it about those intelligent characters that makes them disliked so much / weak?

I wonder how much is an overreaction to Cha being historically the most common "dump stat" (outside of a few classes/"builds" that required/focused on Cha) before PF2...

However, in PF2 it seems that Int is now the most common "dump stat" if not required by the class. It also seems that the Cha-focused classes got a bunch more and/or better goodies than the Int-focused ones.

Absolutely. Especially in PFS, where social skills come up quite regularly, while the Int-based skills are rarely as important. And even if they are: It is way more important to have one person with the skill maxed then, while situations where everyone needs to roll Diplomacy against a lower DC are more common.

My solution to make rituals easier, while using a only slightly modified system, would be to shift the effects of secondary casters by one degree:

Critical Success: IMPROVE the degree of success of the main roll by one
Success: Circumstance Bonus of +2 to the main roll
Failure: Nothing
Crit Failure: Circumstance Penalty of -4 for the main roll

That way, the secondary casters don't feel like they are most likely a burden on the already tough main check, but have a good chance of actually HELPING, sometimes even in a very significant way.

We just finished book 3 yesterday and I have to say that I hugely enjoy many aspects of this Adventure Path. But for the love of all the gods of Golarion: Who thought it was a good idea to use rituals as a roadblock multiple times in this AP?!

The very first of the roadblocks (earlier adventure, not getting into spoilers here) we needed 8 tries to finally finish the ritual. EVERYONE was complaining about that broken system at the end. But it worked out and just took us a lot of time. No real harm done, I guess?

The second time (end of chapter two of book three) we had to do a ritual again. We got flashbacks to the first ritual and where dreading a similar situation. First attempt failed, but this one at least had a fail forward mechanic. Yay!

But then came the end of the book. We had the almost perfect group for the ritual. Primary and Secondary casters where Masters in the relevant skill, everyone had the maxium attribute of +4 (Level 9), non-lore-skills had items with a +1 - the primary caster could have gotten a +2 item, which would have been the only thing we could do to improve our chances. But not by much.
We tried. And (critically) failed. Time and again. The GM handed out extra Hero Points to improve our chances. We tried to find spells or items that could help us, but there just isn't anything in the system that CAN help with a 5 day ritual. It all came down to rolling dice and hoping. But we failed and failed and failed. This wasn't fun for anyone.
In the end the GM had to pull the "deus ex machina" the adventure offers as a solution to the problem. Usually most of the players would have voted against using such a crutch, but in this case, the rules for rituals are just SO STUPID and the fact that this ritual is there as a roadblock felt so bad that we decided to take the only out the adventure gave us. Otherwise it would have soured our opinion of the whole AP more than it already has.

Who designed the ritual system and ever thought it would be a good idea? Why does this otherwise stellar AP use it as a hard roardblock multiple times?

As a maths nerd I did some calculations and found out that our chance of success or critical success as about 35% per try. So even with our almost perfect stats and the maximum of 4 tries before time runs out, there was about an 18% chance of failing every single one of those. That means that about 1 in 5 groups WILL fail this. And other than the deus ex machina solution, that means the AP stops there. Can that really intended?

(maybe) interesting observation after skimming over the replies:

Every single class with Int as key attribute has beeen mentioned. Some of them quite a lot. What is it about those intelligent characters that makes them disliked so much / weak?

@Maya Coleman: I haven't heard back from you in a while now. And at UKGE yesterday, I was asked to bump up this thread in the hopes of getting some more information.
Would it help if I sent you a link to the Github page where the current version of my script is located, so that you can have a look at it yourself? If so: should I post it here or send it to you via PN?

To someone who works in IT, it looks more like a bug than censorship to me.
The bigger issue to me are all the reviews that are being eaten by "you backtracked too far" and people then just writing a single line. Those reviews are gone forever, while the ones hidden by a bug might be restorable.

"While our beloved Venture-Gossip is missing" - whoever said she was beloved? As far as I can tell, she was present in two scenarios - in one it was our job to distract her long enough for someone else to do what she actually wanted, and in the other she gave us a rather rambling briefing. Not really a beloved character from my point of view.

Looking forward to kick Hesla's but, though :D

PS: there is a trailing /p> right before the last set of illustrations.

Hey, Vortex! To get you the right answer on this, we have some follow up questions! Are you looking to grab your own data or the data of other players as well?

Hey Maya,

I am only grabbing data for me right now. Another GM asked me to parse details for sessions in their event, to be able to count the number of unique players that played there. So that would technically be data of other players, I guess? That isn't the focus of the tool, though, and if that would not be welcome, I can limit the uses of the tool to my own / the user's own data

I am currently working on a script that automatically logs into the Paizo website and gets your characters and sessions from there, so you can export them, have an easier time finding out what you played, etc.
Now I am not 100% sure if that is allowed. The community use policy is no real help here, since it only covers using published material, etc. - it doesn't say anything about automation.
Has anyone got a clue as to wether using such a script is OK or not? It is basically just opening a normal but script-controlled browser, logging in, and opening a few pages from the "My Orgranized Play" section of the site, so it shouldn't put much strain on the servers, etc.

Thanks everyone. That is how I see it as well. I was hoping for something else, since this way, unless you are mounted, the 1 handed use case is limited to 1/hour. Nothing you can really plan your fighting style around. A shame. Cool item, though not particularly good - unless of course you are already mounted and need holy damage.

AoN lists Jistkan as an Uncommon language. The rules for Organized Play (link) states that all uncommon languages are available to them.

So I'd say you still have to learn common (see link above), but you can freely select Jistkan as an additional language - probably even as you bonus regional language.

I actually found a second two handed weapon that has a specific magic version that is one handed: The Scarlet Queen

This, too, is from a rather small product (Highhelm), so it might be a second case of wonkiness. Or those weapons are indeed intended to change the number of hands you need.

The Alicorn Lance (AoN Link) is a specific magic weapon that uses the Lance as a base.

Lance has "Hands: 2", while the Alicorn Lance says: "Usage: held in 1 hand"

Can I use the Alicorn Lance as a lance while not mounted and using only one hand? Or is the usage only relevant for its special two action ability, which kind of summons a mount for that action, thus allowing me to use the lance in its jousting configuration for that specific action?

Being able to ALWAYS use it with just one hand would maybe make the weapon too good - d8, reach, deadly, decent crit effect. But on the other hand, if I can ONLY use it in one hand while mounted or using that special ability (once per hour, unfortunately), it wouldn't really make any sense to use it one handed in the first place (unless mounted of course). Having a weapon that you effectively can only use once per hour sounds like a bad idea.

I DMed this yesterday and found a few more things that were weird:

1. On the hexploration map, the Oasis is NOT the spot that shows a "lake". That is called fetid bog. I would expect a maps of a desolate region to show an oasis clearly and not a bog where you probably can't drink the water anyways. Not a mechanical problem but just weird.

2. Speaking of the Oasis - if the hazard is triggered, a map is almost needed for the encounter to work! Movement and distances play quite a large role in how deadly that hazard is.

3. In High Tier with many CP, some of the rooms are once more too for a good fight with all the huge and large units around. Especially since many of the units don't have viable ranged options, so they block each other from being able to do anything.

4. The Retriever is just a strange unit! A construct that is in the text mentioned to be a demon, but has NO characteristics of a demon. It also isn't mindless and has a VERY week will save for its level. So not only can they be handled easily with certain spells, but they also are not immune to things like the confusion of the Derakni.

5. The Foundry premium module has more problems than the one mentioned above:
a. there are multiple instances in which buttons for skill checks don't work. One was easy to spot, since there was a typo in the skill name. Others I didn't take the time to check for the reasons

b. The party is placed in the wrong spot for area G2. They should be in the north according to people with the PDF - which makes more sense when you look at the locked door, which the group is only expected to encounter AFTER the fight, not before it.

6. Treasue Bundles: Not only did my group exactly what I expected would happen - they went for the outlook, then the oasis, then found the Gullet with lucky rolls, so they would have lost 4 treasure bundles by being too efficient. I told them about that issue in the adventure, and thus the group spent about one ingame month roaming around the map to find all but one of the spots they needed, before they returned to urgently interrupt that ritual. I have no idea how to fix that issue! It is just TERRIBLE design!
But the treasure bundles then also don't make sense in the end. The group did NOT win the skill challenges at two spots (Lookout (almost impossibly high DC anyways) as well as the snake), so they didn't get the items there. But for the treasure bundles, they only need to visit the spots. So the challenges are even more of a waste of time (other than to have an inkling of an idea what was happening in the end) than the hexploration part already was.

#3 is addressed in the scenario: the ritual effects occur once each time they enter a new room and after they complete a ten minute activity, like treating wounds or searching a room (page 14).

Ah, thanks, I missed that. I only have the Foundry VTT Module, not the PDF and kind of skipped past that in the description of room G3 - That info could have beeen presented in a more prominent way.

One more thing I noticed: The makro in the Premium Module, that is supposed to reveal the chase cards, just shows a broken link icon. It seems to be missing.
A friend, who is using the same game for all of season 6, doesn't have that symbol, but the chase cards in the macro have completely different names - that suggests, that the link is to a macro from another scenario.

I played this yesterday and am currently prepping this adventure. Some things came up during the discussion with the GM yesterday, and my own research in the adventure couldn't find any solutions, so here we go:

- The adventure mentions that the time the group takes to find Deskaris Gullet would influence the final part - the premium module even has a token to track the number of days. Yet the rest of the adventure doesn't mention it at all. Something seems to have gotten lost here!

- The fact that the treasure bundles are linked to more or less random spots on the hexploration map is BAD! By visiting two marked spots and fullfilling the challenges there, we had a pretty good idea where the Gullet was. So if we didn't stray from that very reasonable path, we would have lost not only 1 TB but FOUR! I remember a post saying that 8 TB is the expected result, with 10 meaning you did exceptionally well - reality aside that in most cases, 10 is the expected amount unless you screw up: In this case you get LESS TB for being fast / doing well!

- The effects of the ritual: During combat in G2, the ritual does damage every other turn. What happens AFTER that encounter?
If the damage doesn't stop: The adventure becomes MUCH more deadly since there is no way to heal up and even reaching the final chamber might take enough time to down characters. At the very least, the group will start the final combat on rather low health if the damage continues.
If the damage stops: Why does the end of the encounter change the effects of the ritual? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense!

- The final chase has two issues:
1. Are the automatic chase points from the leopards in addition to a roll or do they substitute a roll?
2. What happens if the chase is lost? Nothing? Some irrelevant damage? TPK? - Winning the chase isn't listed in any success conditions, either

In Society play, with currently 201 sessions as GM and player combined, I have seen very few PC deaths. Very early on, before the massive damage rules FAQ, I killed a Level 1 Elven Wizard with an unlucky crit. Other than that, no PC has ever died in games I was part of. Though in one scenario, I could have gone for a TPK, but opted to instead do rather stupid things with the enemies to prevent that.

Outside of Society play, it has been a bit more common. In Strength of Thousands, we lost characters three times due to Death effects, before we were high enough to get scrolls of Shock the System (or just prepare it). And the very last encounter also killed half the party. Which I am still a bit miffed about, since it just felt unfair and made for a very poor final experience.

One Shots and Adventures are probably where I have seen the most deaths. Dinner at Lions Lodge and Little Trouble in Big Absalom both ended in TPKs in at least on run. And Plaguestone is notorious for having battles that can quickly turn into TPKs. While I ran it, I handwaved three TPKs away as the GM to let play continue.

I was hoping for less war and more archeology / exploration / etc. - the things that made me love the Pathfinder Society in the past

So to be fair, what you are describing are the 1 hour quests & bounties, and yes, those are fairly lacking (but do have a place). I've played and GM'd several of the 2 hour ones, and they are more involved, and can be a lot of fun. Back-to-back 2 hour quests are a satisfying game day (and can let you share GMing duties).

You are correct - after my not so great experiences with the older quests / bounties, I mostly ignored the newer ones. The two I did play ("The Swordlord's Challenge" and "Infernal Infiltration") felt pretty much like Intro - Skill Challenge - Encounter - Conclusion. But maybe I misremember something there?

Driftbourne wrote:

DnD Org Play had an issue where people would get together, 4 people had played the scenario, and they'd all just say "Well, we have 3 characters that want credit for this, so lets just speedrun this" and new players didn't get a chance to actually experience the scenario at all. No, that won't happen everywhere, everyone will say "No, we won't let that happen", but somewhere, it will, because it's not technically against the rules.

PFS2e already has this in parts. When browsing Warhorn for games, I often see Speedrun Sessions for repeatable adventures. Some of them even as Theater of the mind and "you can roll any way you like and just tell us the results", which invites even more shenannigans.

I'm courious to see how the 2-3 hour-long scenarios play, but some of the best in-person PF2e sessions I've played were 2 quests played back-to-back, so I'm open to seeing how all 2-3 hour-long scenarios go. My big concern is if that's enough time to develop an interesting story, but that's easily fixed by doing more multi-scenario mini-polts.

I tried quests and bounties a few times, but found them utterly lacking. One skill challenge, followed by one encounter. There may have been some nice (short) stories in there, but mechanically, there just wasn't enough meat for me. I REALLY hope the SFS2 scenarios will have more mechanical depth than that. Otherwise I can't see myself becoming invested in that part of organized play. Which is a shame. I always liked the Starfinder setting and loved much about the playtest, so I was fully prepared to jump into Starfinder Society more with the release of second edition!

We want gamers worldwide playing Pathfinder and Starfinder and we understand that shipping costs are a barrier to that.

-Jim

One way to get around that would be to FINALLY give us "Digital only" or "PDF only" subscriptions! It gets around shipping costs completely and there are a lot of people who don't want or need the physical books anymore. They are your loyal customers, too! I hope, the new Plus system will acknowledge that in some way, since Advantage never did :(

No combat?

I don’t see a good way to prevent the combat for A2. MUSTARD MARKET MADNESS.

Then again, I don’t see how anyone would know about the bracelet so they could event attempt anything with it.

It cannot be prevented completely, but it can be over REALLY fast if the bracelet is disabled right away

I really like the premium modules for FoundryVTT. They make the life of GMs so much easier. One thing I would like to have, though - especially for the modules for Pathfinder Society Scenarios and the included scaling macro, would be to have that macro use default token settings and especially the PF2e Workbench NPC mystification settings!

Different tables have different views on how tokens should be configured, so I am not asking for my preferences to be used as the default, but for a way to accomodate everyone by utilizing the options already in place for the system.

In the Default Token Settings you can set the visibility of a tokens name on the map, visibility of HP bars, append a random number oder prepend a random word. Very nice options that I would love to use. And with a modules like Token Mold I can kind of do that already. But it would be nice not to have to use yet another module. Token Mold also uses its own settings instead of the default.

For NPC mystification I haven't found a viable way to use it with the Premium Modules yet. It is such a cool feature. Replace creature names with size and type, and reveal the actual name once the creature has been identified.
Unlike Token Molds settings, though, the scaling macro completely ignores NPC mystification - even if it is set to "always".

Does anyone have an idea how I can force the mysticifaction to be used by the scaling macros?

Since said forum is read-only, I will cast a Resurrection Ritual on this thread...

It has now officially been more than three months since the post about the Foundry VTT premium module has been updated. So, our only official channel for information on how to handle unclear points in recent scenarios (and yes, there definitely have been such points! Look at the threads for 6-09 and 6-10) had been dead silent.
Please, give us more guidance! Putting everything on the shoulders of your GMs is not the way to go! I cannot run adventures "as written" if the "as written" in ambigous!

We talked about this at our game Saturday. There's certainly an argument for and against Heropoints. HP are a base assumption for every PFS2 game, and while the normal "Don't forget to hand out hero points" part is missing, it also doesn't say not to hand them out as normal.

I noticed that as well. I would have expected the adventure to explicitly state that the MP replace HP somewhere if that was indeed intended. Not sure how I will run it on saturday.

I guess the question is the netherworld her home plane

The development section of the fight says "Locating her soul cage among the mists of the Netherworld ... ", so the Soul Cage is definitely in the Netherworld, which makes it more than likely her home plane

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

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

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

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

Found some of it due to another post. The answer to question 2 is on the character options page (link)

All gunslinger and inventor characters treat updates to the class chassis and feats as errata, and must implement them immediately.

Hello everyone,

After I received an email telling me about the remastering of G&G, I am a bit confused about what that actually means:

1. Is there a list of changes somewhere? I was hoping the FAQ and Errata page would have those, but it doesn't.

2. The new rules are probably considered as Erata for the old ones? The Official FAQ and Errata site doesn't have it listed yet. So does that mean those rules are not in effect right now? Or are we in some kind of in-between phase where both versions are viable?

3. Since the PDF only dropped now, it is too late to use the free remaster rebuild for characters. Can I replace features that were significantly changed without purchasing a rebuilt for a character? Or do I have to use retraining?

Since moving away from weapon implement has been mentioned multiple times: Don't discount the usefulness to be able to react to concentration effects and disrupt those in a campaign based in a magical academy!
Especially at higher levels, my Thaumaturge in SoT became a real problem for enemy casters! Disrupt on normal hit prevented so many spells...

Isn't three levels more like a module and not an adventure path?

Kinda curious if Strength of Thousands dropped too since it was also widely considered one of the best, but like AV I've seen criticisms of it come up more recently.

We recently finished SoT after three or so years. Would you have asked me in the first year, probably even in the second, I would have agrees that it was the best AP I had ever played. But unfortunately, the quality went downhill HARD near the end. The final two books felt like something completely different. And not in a good way.

A bit fix about my impression. I completely forgot that Fortifing Knock exists allowing to rise a shield and Trace. Yet this being a level 2 feat doesn't help any lvl 1 shield build anyway. Also it's limited to Trace your shield (and is unclear if you can Trace runes in attached weapons, probably not).

I agree that it should not allow tracing runes onto attached weapons. That would be a bit too good.

A few things that cropped up in the Foundry VTT for this adventure:

- There is no landing page
- Many NPCs had images linked incorrectly
- There were creatures on one of the map (including some cat that didn't have a corresponding actor)
- The scaling macro doesn't do a whole lot - no enemies on the map, and the journal contains both DCs for most of the checks
- The code for the chronicle listed in the module is incorrect (and even lists it to be for A God Falls Where Magic Fails)
- There is no PDF for the chronicle, either, so unless you have the actual PDF for the adventure, you are out of luck as of right now

None of those issues was particularly large on its own, but they accumulate to be quite annoying.

While I agree with your conclusion, there is at least an effect for doing well on the research encounter. The Help from Allies action has the following: Requirements The PCs gained enough research points to reach the second threshold of the representative's skill challenge.

There are Treasure Bundles dependent on the research also.

You are absolutely correct. I didn't notice that requirement.

The treasure bundles I saw, but those only require you to have a single point on each of them.

The section "The Contractors" states:

Make a note of how well the party interacts with each group, as they will have a chance to try again later in the adventure and making friends will result in some extra help!

Yet neither is there any later point where the group can gain more points, nor is the assistance the various people can provide, in any way dependent on the amount of points achieved with them.

Also: Why do the JUDGES have to convince the various NPC / groups to tell them about their ideas for the train? Don't they WANT the judges to be able to judge them? That, in addition to the chase having no effect whatsoever, makes the skill based sections of this adventure one part weird and two parts window dressing / unnecessary

B) There are a handful of weapon ikons with very situational effects, and being able to more easily have access to a general use option would make them a bit less bad.

That was exactly what I wanted to use the idea for. In most cases, Starshot is just bad - Splash Damage more often hits allies than enemies, and the area is too small and the damage doesn't really scale well, so even the Transcendence Ability is kind of bad.

The character is for PFS, so I will just go with the easy route of not setting myself up for table variation.

I am pretty sure that it shouldn't work, but can't really find a rule to prevent it, so I am looking for other opinions / guidance here:

Can one weapon represent multiple Ikons of an Exemplar? For example can a Shortbow be both an "Unfailing Bow" and a "Starshot"?

Of course when shifting Immanence, you have to select which of those is currently active and wouldn't be able to activate both effects at once, but you could use it to gain more flexibility. Starshot's abilites are only usefull if you have multiple enemies / a swarm, while Unfailing Bow is better against a single enemy (and doesn't hurt your friends with that pesky splash damage, either).

There are a couple of features to the class that are fitting for a Necromancer but would feel off for any other type of "hordemaster". Like raising dead enemies as a thrall as a reaction. Or mastery over void / vitlity (as weak as it currently is with important cantrips having detrimental targeting entries). Those would have to be reworked, reworded or dropped if you change the base identity of the class.

That being said, I would really like a version of the class that uses the disposable thralls without being a Necromancer. I don't like playing a class that will be frowned upon by much of the populace, but really like the mechanics of the thralls. So the abovementioned Fungomancer, Swarm Summoner or even an android that uses its nanites offensively would work perfectly with that idea and I would love to be able to play them one day :)

I just DMed this at high tier (32 CP). They actually managed to get the 9 Points needed once. The DCs are low enough that crit successes are not that unlikely. The scaling still feels off here.
To me it seems like at some point they intended it to be a "everybody rolls" challenge, but it was later changed and we are experiencing some remnants of that earlier version.

Another thing I noticed: The Arcana Check to recall knowledge in the beginning was missing the DC in the Foundry VTT module.

Oh, wow, you are right. I didn't even realize that and had the impression that each character would be able to try every challenge, which would make an increase of 50% for 6 players the logical way to go - 50% more characters need 50% more successes. But it the group as a whole can only attempt each challenge once, it becomes a completely different matter. That whole section feels weird with that in mind!

I am coming from the other end and mostly agree with what the OP said. I utterly dislike the idea of playing a Necromancer. But mechanically this class sounds FUN! I just wish it wasn't named Necromancer and had more options that are less gore-y. Traps, exploding constructs, etc, would fit the mechanics almost perfectly and I really wish they used those mechanics for a more general class.

I am just prepping the scenario and while reading the gauntlet entries, I am a bit surprised that the actual classes of characters make a difference for some of them. I don't think that has ever happened before and I really hope that it will not happen often (or at all) after this. There are just too many classes to really do something like this fairly.

I have a rules question to that section, too: Does a multiclass archetype suffice to be considered a bard, rogue or whatever?

I was informed that the PFS FAQ acutally has an entry for this:

[NEW - Mar '24] What information should GMs give players during an Influence encounter?

While GMs are empowered to run influence encounters as best fits their table, we recommend using the following guidelines:

- Players (and by extension, PCs) should be aware of the Discovery skills (but not their DCs) at the start of the encounter.

- Players should not be told which skills are Influence skills until they are successfully Discovered.

- Players should never be told the DCs of any Discovery or Influence skills.

So, it is indeed the second interpretation