|
@Thod - Only one character used the paste. They spread out a bit in the forest, and slept in separate tents in the thick of the jungle. The person who took last watch didn't actually want to take watch and chose to sleep. Tracking down the scent to particular tent, somewhat away from the rest of the party and the campfire, would you cast entangle? I didn't CdG of course, and I actually turned my attention to the rest of the party after "waking" DougDoug's character up.
Kyle
Thanks for your answer. I'm in shock !!!
An 8th level adventure. You go through a jungle in a hostile environment - and the group spreads out and doesn't even have a watch?
I would expect such behaviour from a beginner party - but even my Fools Errant group would act in a more survivable way. You don't need a stealth 28 - a stealth 2 is probably sufficient to surprise a sleeping character on his own.
I don't think it can be blamed on the designer if the group acts like that. But if this happens in my game it would sour the whole experience.
I hope I'm not coming over too strong here - but in a situation like this the characters ask - kill me, kill me. I hate as GM to be placed in such a situation where the most appropriate answer is - kill the PC.
Please tell me at least they had alarm spells up or anything else to protect them?
Thod
3rd session started at temple. After foyer fight the group went to the shrine, which was the best fight ever. Had a player made for disarming. He got a 36 to disarm 6-arms, and the look on his face when I said nope was priceless.Just got better when she then stepped up and said "i'll show you how it's done' and took his adamantine bill. Than the archer shoots an arrow and swat. He really hated that every one had deflection.
Please tell me at least they had alarm spells up or anything else to protect them?
Thod
Nope. To be fair they weren't spread "way" out, but even 10-15 in thick jungle is a lot. The person on watch had a +24 perception, but like I said, chose not to stay awake.
This was just after a little inter-party conflict. The paladin didn't react to kindly to the oracle of bones animating the rakshasa. We had a little "hand-waved" PvP, and the group was fractured until the oracle of bones died and her "sister" replaced her.
|
|
Please tell me at least they had alarm spells up or anything else to protect them?
Thod
Nope. To be fair they weren't spread "way" out, but even 10-15 in thick jungle is a lot. The person on watch had a +24 perception, but like I said, chose not to stay awake.
This was just after a little inter-party conflict. The paladin didn't react to kindly to the oracle of bones animating the rakshasa. We had a little "hand-waved" PvP, and the group was fractured until the oracle of bones died and her "sister" replaced her.
Kyle
Thanks for the information. The module isn't good for a disfunctional group that doesn't work together. In this circumstances I do understand a low rating as players and GM wouldn't have as much fun as they should.
I hardly dare to ask - did you do this for your fourth star?
Congratulation by the way.
Thod
I absolutely believe that PFS should be entirely ignored when designing Pathfinder Modules.
Even as a PFS player, I agree. Forcing PFS design constraints on the modules would be a poor choice.
|
Shadowdancer not to tough. 10' range on shurkins sucked. They than went through the tunnel and came in the back way for the oracle. The ranger than just charged,and with human favorite, and think a crit, she didnt last too long.
Than unto the fight I thought would kill them. Note that with all his spells, it can be a huge hassle to do this encounter. Didnt know till halfway through that displacement and blur both work. It took them awhile to damage him because the images worked. Bad side is that even with +17 on will save I failed against Confusion and so rolled randomly to determine who he would attack when he did. This hurt because kept picking the high AC guy, where if chose would have picked the others off first. Eventaully they slowly beat him down.
I did change one small part, inwhich gave him blink instead of invis, for the contingousy. couse didnt work since his last action was to hit himself, thus knocking himself out.
Over all opinion is that it is too long for 3 sessions of PFS. The sandbox investigation can take up alot of time, and a more experinced Gm will probably make the Temple BBEG's go longer. I liked it alot and had hoped they had fought the wizard first, so had more time than tying to get done for the next use of table.
As far as I can tell, none of Kyle's criticisms were PFS-specific. Of course, there's one notable difference -- under PFS rules he's not supposed to rewrite the module substantially. But personally, I think saying that a module is playable after substantial revision is a backhanded compliment at best and a stinging rebuke at worst.
Note, I think Kyle offered a detailed criticism, which is a good thing. My concern, as I mentioned is if the very nature of a PFS play experience was responsible(not at all/partly/wholly) for the issues presented, and if so, can we identify those. If the issues were not related to PFS play experience, cool, but as I mentioned, it is interesting that two major PFS players offered stinging criticisms. Perhaps that is just a coincidence.
Note x2, I think PFS is great, and I respect the hell out of the effort that Doug and Kyle put into PFS. This is just me making an observation with an interest in simply spurring constructive discussion.
This is why it's important for everyone to publish detailed reviews. Everyone's experience will average out and help generate a better picture regarding the quality of the product.
Everyone also needs to keep in mind that someone who has a negative experience is far more likely to write a review than someone who has an average to positive experience. That's just another reason to be as detailed as possible.
Agreed, and agreed. I should've mentioned that your review was thoughtful and thorough, and much appreciated. I suppose I am looking at my own PFS experience, and having noticed, as with most Living Campaigns, that the play experience is different than that of home play.
Anyway, it is all for the best.
Cheers!
I would much rather see designers stick with the paradign of normal play then try to cater to a PFS play experience, which, if what I have laid is correct, would make me think that everything created for normal play is not immediately apprpriate for PFS play. Lastly, I think it would be important to know from reviews what sort play experience and party make up.I entirely agree with this.
The idea that the Pathfinder Modules (not the PFS scenarios) are/could be designed around PFS is very disturbing to me.
I absolutely believe that PFS should be entirely ignored when designing Pathfinder Modules.
+1
GRU
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I've edited a few posts by moving the contents within spoiler tags. Remember that this is a product discussion page and may be read by people planning on playing the adventure. For detailed discussion of individual encounters, please hide spoilers or take the discussion to the more GM-friendly Pathfinder Modules subforum.
Thanks!
you didnt mention this "inner-party-conflict" in your review. Was it the reason the module went not as well as it should? If yes, then maybe you should be fair and correct your low rating or mention your team problem in the review.
My rating of this scenario has very little to do with how the party I ran it for faired. My review is based of the design of the story, encounters, investigation, and quality of the writing.
My rating of this scenario has very little to do with how the party I ran it for faired. My review is based of the design of the story, encounters, investigation, and quality of the writing.
Actually, the group composition and playing style can make this adventure terribly easy, if the players find the "antidote" to the common massive problem of the final fights.
which is "Dispelling" each and everyone who looked like a decently dangerous BBEG. Which the group I ran it for did : Wizard 9th, Oracle (of Lore) 8th, Barbarian 8th, Rogue 8th, Sorcerer ( Boreal) 8th. Experienced players, and they carry a bunch of Pearls of Power for extra spells/slots
I thoroughly agree with your description/evaluation of the silk factory's architecture.
The group liked the Weretiger encounter very much - probably because the tiger-in-the-night theme is so idiosyncratic of India for us - and considered it a highlight of the entire trip (they grew suspicious of the lycanthrope early, and layed out an ambush for him^^).
Thanks for the review Vikingson, glad your group liked parts of the adventure.
I'm curious about your 'antidote' for the final fights.
Use of consumables.
Apart from the mage armor potions for the monks, there is extremely little consumable use. The only other one I could find was Deepti drinking a potion of bear's endurance, which can also be manufactured by the wizard. The rest of the opponent's buffs come from spells.
Vendor - Fantasiapelit Tampere
|
Just so folks know... the modules are not designed around the Pathfinder Society at all. My assumption for folks who play them for PFS credit is that they're not trying to race through them in 4 hours, either, since some of the modules are pretty complex.
No kidding. We runned the Crypt of Everflame in 8 hours. on the other hand, pc:s wanted to play couple of days before the event's started. Mask of the Living god was six hours, and City of Golden Deat took two 5-hour gaming sessions. But I still like them more than Society scenarios. Next up is From Shore to Sea, Realm of the Fellnight Queen, Cult of Ebon Destroyers, the Harrowing and Curse of the RIven sky. I love it.
Thanks Mike, glad you and your group enjoyed it and thank you for the nicely detailed report.
Just some thoughts about things you mentioned:
I do appreciate your thoughts on the pace and components of the adventure. The end may have a little too much combat, dungeon crawls do tend to be that way. I'm also happy to hear that your PCs want to hunt down other cells of Ebon Destroyer cultists. I hoped to make the cult villainous enough that the PCs really want to put them down.
Matt Goodall
