schattenstern's page

Well the adventure has a interesting setup, but then it goes down the drain:
The first encounter has very strong creatures but the following skillchallange is just insane:

After 2-11 this means back-to-back catastrophes of scenario design.
This scenario feels like it was written for/playtested by a party of rogues and not a normal balanced pathfinder party.
This combined with a trap that does not work as written and most likely a wrong adjustment in the first encounter just add insult to injury.

Having a lot of the enemies being able to hit you on a 4 also feels GREAT and makes for FUN gameplay for everyone at the table and not just the GM… PLEASE do not use APL+2/3 encounters anymore … But even for GMs there is too many missing information to consider this a good sandbox.

As a level 1 scenario it seems to be aimed at new players, but while 1 of the 4 parts is fine and has nice RP opportunities, the second part (spells) has a great setup (solve a situation with stuff given to you) the “solutions” teach the players things that DO NOT WORK within the rules. (Using stuff against a creature that is immune against it or using spells against illegal targets)
The 3rd setup (swords) has a potential TPK in the first round of combat and RAW one encounter (the brooms) is impossible as they are immune against nonleathal which everyone has to deal.

The final part not only has the betrayal but also this guaranteeing 2 hard back to back encounters which WILL kill new players.
I can only warn against running this for new players, as they will get slaughtered and be taught completely wrong things.

This scenario was quite interesting, and while short it had a good social part, one combat part and a good two-parter in the starship.

The chase was a interesting changeup and worked better than the vehivle chases in previous sceanrios, as the rules seem to flow better and less new rules to focus on.

This scenario was quite solid.

I liked the setup of the final encounter.

One small criticism regarding the chase:

This adventure has a good mix of combat and non-combat encounters and an appropriate number of failsafes for a low level adventure.

Also even as a part of a series it can work good without playing the other parts.

After a lot of very dissapointing scenarios (espceially with problematic mechanics) this season this is finally a scenario with a good story and the mechanics to back it up.

The callback to Reign of Winter was fitting and the interaction with the town was very well made.

More of this kind of design would be nice.

Well this scenario is just tedious.
I very much like the idea of "building" a starship to use (and the showcase of new starship mechanics (+1 Star in the rating) the rest of this is just BAD.
Our table played lowtier and after 3 turns of the first starshipencounter everyone HATED the ship, that was shooting worse than a pegasus, had the limited fire issues of the drake and was slow as the Gorgon.
The ship had no damage (not really fixable as we had the highest DPR configuration) and NEEDS to be in close range to do it (while being slow and not very maneuverable. (It could be somehow fixable if the Turret gets a LONG RANGE heavy weapon and the point defense in NOT IN THE AFT but in the Turret)
It does not help that the first combat is

The second encounter is ok-ish, as the enemy wanting to go close solves the issues of that catastrophe of a ship.

The one ground encounter is not better as it uses the age olf mummy problem that should be known to cause wonky math, as using 5 overlapping auras WILL disable players no matter how low the DC is.

The 2 Stars are ONLY for trying out the new systems which were fresh, if not for that it would be a 1 Star scenario.
And including this many new options at once will lead to option paralysis for every player not very into starshipcombat.

Not only has this scenario a very wierd retcon - that does not make a lot of sense in character

The scenario has a nice story and (in lowtier) solidly balanced combat encounters. Do more adventures like this.

This scenario had a interesting story but it was a complete MESS in execution.

There were massive editing mistakes, like copy and paste Errors, and missing skills to roll. The riddle is just plain unfair if you are not having English as a primary language.

Now to the worst part:
The Chase:
The skillchecks are FAR too hard for requiring a success on average per PC. THIS IS NOT FUN, especially with only 2 Skills (sometimes 3 per skill) and requiring a roll of about 10 on an invested character.
THIS DESING is discouraging a lot of players in my lodge and it SHOULD NOT BE USED AGAIN.

For the story and encounters I would give 3 stars, but this skillchallangedesign will remove 2 stars for a final total of 1 star.

This was a very solid story with fitting encounters.
You can do more of it.

This was a very interesting and challenging scenario. Especially the sceond combat was extremely interesting.

This scenario has a interesting story and a very unique and interesting final encounter.
I would like to see more encounters like this that are that interesting and use unique environmental options that are flavorful and fit the theme that well.

The setup for the scenario seems to be a fine follow-up to the earlier iruxi scenario, BUT…

The number of enemies is completely out of line with what PCs can reasonably save against (hightier with adjustments). This was the worst developed encounter I ever played since the catastrophe that is 3 Seugathis or 8 mummies in PF1. This encounter design is prone to TPKs, unfun to play and even the incapacitation trait ONLY matters for level 6 players. While this would make a fine balancing for a encounter for a group of only level 6 players this makes it completely unfun to play but also WILL lead to one or more players going AFK for quite some time.
I hope whoever is responsible for this NEVER writes/develops anything again, this is BAD design. (and similar encounters were already very hated/criticized in earlier scenarios so there is no excuse of “trying something new”)

This encounter alone is responsible for a 1star review.
The scenario is also a fail regarding being a repayable as there is not a lot of variance in it (and especially with the story of the first encounter being that illogical that it breaks all suspensions of disbelief…). This was one of the worst experiences I had in 6 Years of organized play… Congratulations on topping “gems” like SFS 2-02 or PF 8-05 or PF2 1-16/1-17 in a negative way. The final skillchallange is too overtuned and mathematically stacked against the PCs. This all contributes to this being the worst replayable currently offered in all of organized play. (4 out of 6 in skills where you realistically need to be expert to have a chance to meet the DC 22. NEVER EVER do something like that again where every check is a skill where there is a chance to not be trained in)

The second encounter showed a lot of potential, but the number of effects cause a bit of confusion at the table.
By far the funniest encounter was the optional, as it had a great RP-setup. (If not for the MASSIVE problems with the first encounter it.

The scenario is ok-ish, but it does not capture fe feeling of the maze (mostly extraplanar stuff) and the revieal of the "traitor" was not very... interesting.

Player review:
This scenario was great. It served as a great finisher of the dispassion storyline and delivered good background on Datch.
Mechanically it has one of the best spaceshipcombats and a very interesting boss encounter. The skill challenges fest fair, but the scaling of the saves in that challenge was weird as they used the same table as the skills.

The scenario was quite good, the story was interesting, and the skill challenges felt fair. Especially allowing perception (so everyone is at least trained) was a VAST improvement compared to the other 3-6 two-parter.

I played it in hightier and felt the combats more annoying rather than challanging. A big offender here was the Encounter B.

I felt the scenario started a good plot"line" but the encounter felt slightly undertuned as the CR was too far below us.

I liked the scenario, it explored a new facet of the world and had interesting NPCs and interaction.

The scenario was a bit short but done well.
If I would rate it based on that it would be 4*, for the crap of requiering a crit sucess for a treasure bundle (and then on a hard check AND only allowing one skill) I remove 2 stars for a final verdict of 2*.

I liked the story and combats in this adventure and the skill challange in the middle felt different enough to make it novel.

The scenario was good and the story was ok, but the briefing included the most facepalmworthy moment since a very long time. In-world the setup would not be solved by the level 1-4 PCs but by the stewards, especially if in the current plot with datch the society would not be able to risk the possible fallout.

Well if it were not for the first part of this two-parter, this would be by far the worst scenario of the second edition, if you include the first part it only is the worst.

This suffers from the same problems I already explained in that review: Having a connection to the metaplot that is only revealed to the GM and the players only get a complete mess of incoherent stuff. Having the GM explaining for half an hour what happened in the two-parter AFTER the game is not a sign of good writing.

Other problems include the same problem regarding having everyone roll in skill challenges (and expecting over half of the players to succeed) MIGHT work in subtier 1-2 but in tier 5-6 the question is only if the untrained players fail or crit fail as they have no reasonable chance to contribute. This is BAD game design especially if you require MORE than half successes. This is just annoying and especially bad if 2 of the 3 blocks require you to use skills from the same set of Skills (all Wis based in one and all CHA based in the other block) Also some of the checks (for example the Athletics Check in A) are completely inconsequential.

The Chase: Who thought this was a good idea? No scaling for high/lowtier and needing as many successes as players is just insane. Whoever did this part did not think about any the consequences this will cause. So this is just complete mess and one of the least thought out mechanics I have seen since the reverse influence in the wayang adventure in PF1.
Also having the treasure bundles not adding up is another problem with either the writing or the development of the scenario.

And you should REALLY include in EVERY note to your writers for PF2 Scenarios: DO NOT USE SINGLE BOSS ENCOUNTERS. They do not work at all in the system. And doing one after an encounter and a chase which will have the players damaged without time to recover is just plain stupid.
I really, really hope to never see this kind of adventure design ever again. This two-parter ranks at the worst 5 things I have seen published by paizo even if I count the whole emerald spire levels as single releases. It is exceedingly rare to see a scenario that is a complete train wreck mechanically and story wise.

I cannot in in good conscience offer or schedule this two-parter.

The metaplot is here somewhat relevant for the first time but the messaging to the players is not that coherent. The GM gets information, but it is not given to the players in a reasonable way.

I think the skill part of this adventure was completely unfair.
Forcing everybody to roll on checks and requiring a lot of successes for the is plain unfair. Especially with the penalties for failure/crit failure are very harsh as you are forced to roll untrained checks for after the first/second round most of the time.

The first encounter is just BAD.
Having a hard timer of 5 turns for 2 encounters is very optimistic and giving one enemy at will of an stall spell is bad design.

After the forum ate my long review here is the short version:

This scenario is the worst scenario I have ever played in organized play (281 sessions PFS and 56 sessions SFS)

The encounter mechanics are needlessly punishing (AOE autodamage with autostagger), the setup for the "run away encoutner" is so bad that the players have no idea that they are expected to run away until it is too late and the one choice that seems relevant does not even have a reporting condition.

I can only HIGHLY advice to never run this for newer players or in lowtier (where a crit can likely permanently kill a PC because of massive damage)

This scenario was very fun to play but it was far too easy in the lower tier. We managed to bypass every encounter but the final one (and after hearing what they were they would have been very easy).

One thing I really like about this scenario is the skill mechanic in the final encounter and the debriefing, this solves some problems of the "I aid automatically" and "He has 40 bluff, I don't need to talk at all"

The only real problem I have is that the encounters are too easy especially if you can bypass them easily and the final one is a not difficult enough if you consider that the players will likely have had none combat before.