UnforcedError's page

Or indeed, there could be a mini-quest for some specific items that make the ritual substantially easier, like lower the DC by a minimum of 4.

No, which is why I think it should be clarified in the errata. Add the rule one object = one ikon.

UnforcedError wrote:

Given that this is linked to higher levels and feats I'd say that you cannot utilize the same icon for multiple immanence abilities as they would according to the rule all activate at the same time (which is linked to the higher level feats).

I'm not sure that's really a problem. The feats are tied to ikons, so even if we allow one item to contain multiple ikons, the feat would only acitvate if the spark was assigned correctly.

The problem is it would confuse the vast majority of the players. If you say, hey it's legal to select three weapon icons for a single greatsword (say one in the blade, one in the hilt, one in the handle) it would very quickly come to new players asking whether they could have the three immanence abilities active all the time, as the text says:

If your ikon has multiple immanence abilities, you gain all of them whenever the ikon is empowered.

However, the additional abilities are related to additional feats.

It is pretty obvious that in the beginning any one icon will only have one immanence / transcendence ability, and you can select feats later on to enhance the same icon with the additional abilities. Given that this is linked to higher levels and feats I'd say that you cannot utilize the same icon for multiple immanence abilities as they would according to the rule all activate at the same time (which is linked to the higher level feats). It's the same as implements for a thaumaturge, a single object cannot represent multiple implements.

The bolded part is so you can reuse the discovery to get the second lowest DC and so forth and not rediscover the same lowest DC over and over.

Yes, that part is obvious, but it also hints that the skills are not known before you discover them, hence hidden.

it would be an odd way to write it if the intent was to discover them in order of Lowest to highest, and would lead to some less then fun things for character with few skills since time can be an issue even if time is unknown to the player.

"Blind" influencing without knowing what will be effective are a thing with hidden influence skills as well.

Also another note, the use the same Language on Both discovery skills and Influence (typically found in the NPC’s influence stat block)

That's a good point !

We used version 1, Since as you said Discovery hints thats you already know all the skills, and nothing in influence suggest they are hidden.

Discovery hints both, as already stated by the OP:

Success [...] You learn which skill that can Influence the NPC has the lowest DC (skipping any skills that you already know), [...]

The bolded text suggests that you're not supposed to know the skills you could use (as long as you don't discover them, which you will then skip at the next successful discovery).

Also similarly Hazzards(uses the same wording) also dont say that the skill used to disable them are hidden and dont always make sense so unless you want your players to play make 10 guesses you might aswell tell them cause if they have the expertise to disable the trap they should have the insight that they can do it.

Yes, for hazards that's definitely the way to go, it would be mean not to tell players what they're supposed to do, yet expose them to the hazard. Also, there is no special mechanics to discover hazard disabling skills except for noticing the hazard using perception usually.

I think we're predominantly using version 2, although I played exactly two society games with version 1 so far. (I like neither of them, it can easily take away the role-playing feeling and easily become a rolling context with litte to gain.)

Tomppa wrote:

If that's not the intent, then wording should probably be "run combat encounters without deliberately changing difficulty"

I have written the text above in a very deliberate way, and I am aware that I wrote "increasing" and not "changing."

Well, I think the majority of the scenarios are a stroll in the park for the average group, and I definitely do agree that GMs should not be aiming at deliberately TPKing a party (and all the GMs I have played with over the years weren't so I don't think that's a general problem). However, if the wording is deliberate I'd just like to point out that the above line allows an interpretation like "if things turn sour the GM is actually expected to make changes so that the party doesn't TPK... (/ flee / lose rep or treasure bundles)", which I can't agree with.

I reskinned the entire Lions of Katapesh scenario to turn all the antagonists into characters from the Lion King, including replacing the sphinx on the map with pride rock...

I think this and similar non-mechanical changes are a great way to enhance a scenario, especially one that the players probably know anyway...

Unrelated... I just now noticed that my stars/sigils/novas don't appear correctly. does that happen to others?

Yes.

Does use "alternate" maps extend to VTT for encounters that don't have maps and can be added?

Enhancing the scenarios with new maps or NPCs adding additional explanations (maybe to new players) was never prohibited. (I would never have run anything if it had been...)

As someone who ran her own custom campaigns and custom adventures up until Covid time I absolutely welcome the change to give GMs a bit more freedom to adjust a scenario to their current party of players. I have, however, a few concerns about the new wording.

- I'd still emphasize the fact that society play should strive for a consistent experience, meaning new (and established) GMs should absolutely not feel pressured to make any changes to the scenario (apart from obvious typos and possible clarification of inconsistencies), and maybe first aim to run them as written before adding their own creative bits.

- as someone who enjoys the storytelling aspect of RPGs the most, and with speedruns seemingly becoming more popular these days I'd like to point out that syles like this should not be treated as a norm and should only be allowed if the GM and all the players are in consensus and everyone at the table understands what a speedrun will be omitting ("yeah, we all know what the briefing says, let's get to the fight...")

- I do have concerns about how scenario corrections are handled these days. We're all humans, we all make mistakes, writers, editors, reviewers as well, this is absolutely normal. However, in an optimal case I'd like to see the later changes actually make their way into the scenario with the pdf being republished. Because I think nowadays a GM who doesn't have access to some resources (e.g. someone who didn't buy the VTT modules and is not a VO) will have difficulties collecting relevant official information on the later corrections.

- the wording "run combat encounters without deliberately increasing difficulty" suggests that deliberately decreasing difficulty is fine, was that deliberate and if yes, how would this affect the consistency of game play ?

- does the usage of alternate map only apply to allowing GMs to redraw the map (which has always been the case) or does the earlier wording of "no changes to terrain" not apply anymore either ? Meaning could a GM set a given encounter on a completely different map with completely different terrain features?

I think I could go on with the questions. What I'm trying to point out is: the rules of a campaign should still be rules, it should in an optimal case be obvious what is allowed and what isn't and somehow define the areas where GMs have their creative playgrounds. And people are different. Some do love creative freedom, some feel pressured by it, some others even abuse it. I wouldn't want players or GMs leave society play because the rules aren't clear.

In the last couple of years I kept missing the uniqueness each scenario had in the earlier seasons. Most of those were really good at creating a unique atmosphere for their location, be it Finnadar Forest, the Forest of Spirits, or Immenwood, Razmiran or New Thassilon, they excelled at introducing the different ambiances or at painting a snapshot of the locations. They also added unique or at least special plot elements, even mini-games to scenarios (yes, also exploring unknown territories, but I loved the fight against the elements in e.g. Tarnbreaker's Trail, the castle renovation and conspiraton part of Lodge of the Living God, the explore-against-the-clock part in Burden of Envy, the babysitting of the crazy iruxi in Fantastic March of Urwal only to mention a few). In comparison, last season felt many times repetitive with a scenario containing three fights and a chase / discovery-influence or two. [I must say I don't hate the chace or infiltration / obstacle mechanics as long as they're not part of every second scenario, but I loathe discovery-influence with passion by now...] And there were not many memorable locations, NPCs, exciting plot-twists with the exception of Csilla's story (the Equal Exchanges line), where I really enjoyed the scenario plots and the encounters in general I just couldn't relate to Csilla at all. Maybe she was introduced in PF1 somewhere and people knew her. I just didn't, so to me the story arc began with some random masked entity having trouble.
As for the Pallid Peak arc that was mentioned: we had two nice scenarios leading up to the special where I really waited for the great revelation, exploring a long lost dwarven city, but then the special cut off at the gates !!! I expected some follow-up on that in season 4 or 5, maybe a metaplot arc, or just a high level scenario or another special.
On the other hand I'm happy with season 6 so far, 6-00 had a great ambiance pirating near the storm, 6-01 has the starts of a maybe good plothole, probably some NPCs who might become interesting later, and a few good fights, 6-02 revisits the Mountain of Sea and Sky and Tian Xia - always a pleasure :) - while we're suffering the after-effects of a god dying. Given the plot it had to happen in a remote location, great idea to bring back Kayajima again.
Here's to hoping things change or bring back some of the old atmosphere...

The non-fitting descriptions for the map were indeed extremely confusing, and we had to pretend some doors were not there. And usually when the secondary success condition is the same as the primary (which I assumed here given the lack of other information), it would be explicitly staten in the scenario.
Concerning the transition from B2 to B3, I just let everyone wait until people managed their will saves, which sort of took the flair out of the trap room and the puzzle room as well.
I don't actually think it's the most disastrous ending the season could have had... it could have been a scenario with three discovery-influence rounds and two chase encounters...

Then again I bought this product from this site and it wasn't cheap. And now I had to set up my maps and journals manually for my game tonight, instead of having it delivered by the module which it promises to do at the start of each month. And today is the 12th.

I'm scheduled to run 5-11 in two days and I'm trying to figure out whether I should just port it halfway manually to Foundry as in the old days, or whether the update with the scenario will arrive in time. Timingila says maybe Monday, is there an official planned date from Paizo for this ?

I think story-wise I enjoyed one-shot four the most, and I kind of assumed you played all of them :) If you're asking which one is best to prepare for offline, then one-shots are indeed a good idea, they also include the module map and you just have to print it for the players. Same with the pregens. If you're looking for a follow-up adventure for Beginner's Box then Troubles in Otari if you have multiple sessions, or Q15 or B6 for a short session.

Just finished running this module and I thought I'd post the maps I made for chapter 1 and the remake for Aliriel's Sanctum (which I did because the original was too pixellated in Foundry and also contained the markers for the secret doors.
Grid size is 150 px for all maps.
Maps for Shadows at Sundown
Enjoy and happy gaming !

Also the Waldgeist (option D for high tier) in the first fight is relatively harsh compared to the others as it might bestow slowed or petrified to multiple characters with unlimited duration as it seems, so some extra foreshadowing might be in order if you roll that version.

Wow, really cool maps.

But i dont see a grid om them. MAybe i am a bit og noob, but can anyone help me, how i get grid on the maps?

There's scaling info on most of the maps.

Unfortunately the journals are missing from the two new scenarios (5-03 and 5-04).

While running this AP I made the maps for the scenes artjuice hasn't done, including lots of custom scenes for chapter 2 and 3. Download Maps

I'm assuming the replays for Ehu etc. still have to be tracked separately in Starfinder. Still, great news that replays will now be available for Pathfinder 2 as well. Not sure how the amount of replays after player seats was calculated, judging by my available replays.

I just started running this. I love the unique vibes of a true wilderness campaign and the story plus the various side encounters seem to be really exciting. Players were fascinated in session 1, I hope this stays for a while :)
I'm missing various stuff from the AP. I already bought two items on drivethrurpg for this, Mammoth Lords Pack which has an awesome map for the camp (but not much else) and Mamoth Pack which has some nice descriptions for the spirit animals to flesh out characters. I did not use the custom backgrounds, I wanted to avoid people going meta about their animal choices.
For the weather generator I was looking into some Foundry mods but they seem to be pretty basic, so I ended up going with this.
I'm using artjuice's remakes for the battlemaps here, they are wonderful.
Was not really satisfied with the hexmaps, I think a wilderness campaign should at least make players feel there is a whole wide world around them to go to and explore even if they end up running from enemies in a straight line. So I created a continuous hexmap for books 1 and 2. The additional hexes will probably end up just being decoration depending on players' choices.
So, all in all very positive so far, hope RL issues won't bug the AP too much. I really can't wait to run the next session. :)

I was thinking of redrawing them in Incarnate but I can see you were faster :) Thank you very much for sharing, @artjuice, the maps are beautiful !!!

Awesome map, thank you very much for sharing :)