A Pathfinder Society Scenario designed for levels 1–5.
The fiery inquisitions that raged through Mendev during the Third Mendevian Crusade may have been damped but never truly extinguished. Fanatics have reignited the witch-hunts in eastern Mendev, and in doing so they have captured and accused allies of the Pathfinder Society. Unless the PCs intercede and put a stop to this mob justice, their allies' deaths will spark a new wave of internecine executions throughout the crusader nation.
Content in “Scars of the Third Crusade” also contributes directly to the ongoing storyline of the Silver Crusade faction.
Written by Jason Brick.
This scenario is designed for play in Pathfinder Society Organized Play, but can easily be adapted for use with any world. This scenario is compliant with the Open Game License (OGL) and is suitable for use with the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game.
Product Availability
Fulfilled immediately.
Are there errors or omissions in this product information? Got corrections? Let us know at
store@paizo.com.
This scenario is very complex to GM, and requires a ton of prep to do so properly. Even so, you need a few recommendations that my first table made to me to make that WORK.
GM tips:
1) Expose the players to how the mechanics work, tell them upfront that it is OK to split up, and they'll do much better.
2) Ignore aid another on the rumor investigation skill checks, if they roll to "aid" ask them their number and instead use that for their own successes, otherwise the mechanics needlessly punish PCs for having multiple PCs in one location.
3) Preroll your rumors so you know what you'll tell the PCs each time they get one from the true or false rumor list.
4) This is suggested in the module but allow various locations people want to go to investigate in a given phase to exist. e.g. If they go to the tavern (at the hearth and harvest), treat it like the beer garden.
5) Overplay how strongly NPCs react to intimidate and other negative things. Although this can backfire when you have a frustrated investigator decide to make an entire conversation about a touchy subject to someone after they note this reaction.
After following the changes I recommended above people enjoyed my tables at paizocon, but my first table had people telling me they hated it, which really stung because I tried my best to prepare this very complex scenario.
From a player perspective it is really satisfying if they can drive the story and figure things out, but if certain things happen it really becomes out of their control, and they feel like they can't figure anything out.
Edit, a lot of recent reviews are favorable. I have to say that calling a scenario much better with prep when that prep involves what community GMs have made up to fill in the gaps of a scenario, is really just saying that the scenario could have been improved by including those things.
The players can't drive the story. The best the players can do is to roll to find information, and hope they fail enough rolls to trigger the ending. The information can't lead them to the enemy, and the situation can't be resolved until they confront the enemy, so a spate of good rolls results in the players learning every rumor but not triggering the final encounters.
The module itself is poorly edited, with several typos.
While skill-based modules are sorely lacking -- there are plenty of modules where you lose unless you can defeat the BBEG in combat, there aren't enough modules where you lose unless you can make a DC X skill check in skill Y -- this is a poor attempt at it.
That is, if you hate combat and love high skill check rp/investigation, this is for you. If not. . .
I had pretty high hopes for this, (finally an actual Mendev Crusade sort of scenario), but really it's none of that. It could basically take place anywhere, and actually kind of seems more like anywhere but Mendev.
From a DM's perspective, it's needlessly complicated. It tries to capture something from Before the Dawn part 1 in the Town Sentiment track and mesh that with The Stolen Heir and other almost exclusively investigation scenario it leaves a lot of things unanswered.
It really needs something to spice it up, and probably 4 or 5 random combat encounters (Season 5, you are failing me).
It's a pretty big Red Flag to me when a Scenario has a GM sidebar noting that they have gone out of their way to make a lot of class features and character abilities not work or purposefully not give info just so the precious story can. That's just bad storytelling, and not only does it not equal fun, it usually just leads to frustration.
Another issue I have is that it suggests that the party split up, (sort of) and gives penalties for them not doing so. However, that's like Rule 1 in PFS, (you don't split the party). That this aspect was even included is beyond me, and what's worse, why would any players even think to do this, ever.
I'm really not sure what the goal for this one was either. While it offers a few different locations to find clues and evidence, for the most part a single character with a decent Diplomacy can solo this (and might actually do a better job without anyone else honestly with the penalty for others tagging along). Each gives suggested skill checks (with a lot of them being Diplomacy) but also suggests to let players use other skills with a good reasoning, and well Diplomacy kind of goes hand in hand with talking to folks, so that's really the only skill check you need to make in this one. Maybe Perception.
It also talks about how you can redeem <someone> at the end, but they are still listed as LG throughout and still have all their abilities to the max, so how exactly do they need to be "redeemed"? A smack on the head, sure. Shown that it's not ok to just murder those you hate. Certainly. Seems pretty hard to pin down what her actual alignment should be (you know outside of PLOT). There is one alignment that uses the law to enforce their will and harm others. There is also this one alignment that doesn't really care about what's real or right or ethical as log as you get what you want. Neither of them are LG, though.
I found this module to be disappointing as a player. It was all investigative, but we seemed to be chasing all over town for a finite number of rumors that were not that useful in solving the mystery. It seemed cumbersome for the GM to navigate. And our party did not have much fun in this mod. Maybe with certain character classes this would be more successful I prefer mods that let me have more combat and less investigating. If you love role playing and skill checks, you would enjoy it more. But I want to kill monsters....
Mike... I did not know it was being held until July 4th. I scheduled this 2 weeks ago and now I am supposed to run this on Sunday and now I am not going to be able to. It is not showing up on the purchase list. I wish you had mentioned this earlier. :(
So now I have people signed up and I am going to have to tell them I can't. (running both 5-22 and 5-23). :(
Mike... I did not know it was being held until July 4th. I scheduled this 2 weeks ago and now I am supposed to run this on Sunday and now I am not going to be able to. It is not showing up on the purchase list. I wish you had mentioned this earlier. :(
So now I have people signed up and I am going to have to tell them I can't. (running both 5-22 and 5-23). :(
The last four scenarios of the season have been held for PaizoCon for the past several years and it was no different this year. I apologize if there was any miscommunication on our end.
Paizo posted the availability and some of us scheduled events based on your statements. Now, like Deanoth, I have to spend time to change the event posting.
Thanks for wasting my time.
Hey, mistakes happen, and its just a game. :) At least now you have plenty of time to prep. From what I see, DMs are really going to need it, and I feel sorry for players whose DMs even attempt to run these cold. Especially Assault.
Plus, what would you have done if these hadn't been made available at all yet?
DM Beckett,
Mistakes happen, but rather than Paizo living with the consequences of their mistake, they decided to inconvenience their customers. "its just a game. :)" Pathfinder is just a game, but we're talking about my time that Paizo elected to make me spend, rather than their having a slightly less special convention. If it's so humorous to you, perhaps you'd like to reimburse me for my time?
Your comments show that you do not understand the situation.
"At least now you have plenty of time to prep"? Instead of being able to buy it now, and prep for next Saturday, I have to hope it's available Saturday morning, and rush my preparation for Saturday afternoon. I have _less_ time to prep.
As for what I'd have done if it hadn't been available at all, that's simple. If Paizo didn't state that the scenario would be available on 27 June, I wouldn't have scheduled it on 5 July.
When consulting with a client who arbitrarily changes a time on me, indicating that they think my time is a resource they can abuse, I charge a minimum of 8 hours. I don't think you're serious though and I don't discuss my rates in public.
I have a question about some of the mechanics in the scenario:
Spoiler:
For the 'Town Sentiment Track' table, the column for 16 doesn't give an encounter number, but I assume it should be number 5.
In addition, the final row for that table is only labeled '5.' Perhaps that row is a typo, and the '5' is supposed to continue from the last row (i.e. run encounter 5)? The remaining text would be describing the encounter if it is not occurring after encounter 4, then??
I also noticed that the "Other investigations" section on page 11 mentions making use of a 'Carousing' list for off-script investigations, though I couldn't find such a list in the pdf. I assume something was changed to 'Word on the street' at some point, but it could confuse some GMs.
Sorry to keep posting, but I'm prepping this for PaizoCon and want to be sure that I'm ready for a smooth run (never GMed a con before). I noticed a few more inconsistencies:
Spoiler:
* Visiting the prisoners is noted as increasing the opposition track by +2 in the table on page 7, but only +1 in the development notes on page 9. Which is correct?
* There's a duplicate paragraph on page 14 on the topic of PCs ignoring the letter in encounter 4.
I have a question about some of the mechanics in the scenario:
** spoiler omitted **
In response:
It appears the 5 in "Encounter 5" got bumped down a line. Those last two sections ("Sheriff Tobias and Ekira…encounter as descried") are part of the same condition.
Carousing changed into just Beer Garden during development, as carousing wasn't technically a location name. Any mention of carousing as a location is an artifact of that change.
Looking at an earlier version of the scenario, the prisoner visit was only worth one point on the Opposition track. Go with that.
Keen to run this on the weekend, but due to the time difference between Australia and the US it might be a bit tight, depending WHEN on Friday it's released.
The above quote from Drogon, does anyone know if this is PM or AM?
I hope I do this right as this is the first time ever posting a Spoiler type item. I have a question regarding the investigation.
Movie plot spoiler:
It mentions that a group can only find "one rumor at a location for each actively investigating PC each phase", but later mentions that for "every two PCs that investigate a particular location in one phase, reduce their final number of successes by 1 for that phase". My main question is how to handle it if a single person gets enough successes to get more than one rumor? This is especially challenging for when they get one or more true rumors AND one or more false rumors. Examples include: Single PC gets 1 or more sucesses. Two PCs get 1 success (does it drop to 0?). Two PCs get 4 successes at the General Store. Four PCs get 4 successes at the General Store.
I tried to use the best examples, but hopefully you get the idea.
"This information is presented as true rumors and false rumors that the PCs learn as part of their investigations, and many of the locations around the town might provide the PCs one or more of each type of rumor depending on the outcome of skill checks."
-
Each location has a certain number of possible rumors that can be learned. For Example, Otto's Farm ha one true and one false rumor only. When you make the skill checks, you either get successes or not. If you roll high, (beat by 5 or more), you get additional successes. Again, using Otto's Farm, (1-2 subtier), it's a DC 12 Bluff, Diplomacy, or Intimidate check. If you get a 17, it's 2 successes. If you get a 22 it's 3 successes. However, if you had 2 players there in the same phase, it would be a -1 Success. So lets say you had 2 players go. One rolls a 17, the other a 19. That's a total of 4 successes right now, but because there are 2 players, they take a -1 to successes earned. Each player can only learn 1 Rumor, but the number of successes does not grant extra rumors, it indicates that the rumor they do get includes better information. In this case they would get 1 true rumor. If they had only gotten 2 successes, they would instead have gotten one true rumor and one false rumor, (see sidebar n page 10). In the case you mentioned, where they total out at 0 successes, that indicates (for Otto's Farm) that they receive 1 false rumor (page 10). Does that help? The way I'm understanding it, all the successes are totaled first for everyone present, then subtract the penalty for multiple players at the same place in the same phase. Once the final total is there, it dictates how many rumors can possibly be learned, (by the entire present party), but is limited by how many the location actually offers as well as limited to how many players are involved. So if you get 2 true and 2 false rumors as the result, but only have 3 players involved, they can only get 3 out of those 4. Once all the false rumors are given, every time they should get a false rumor, they are supposed to get an additional bit of info on that rumor that is supposed to cast it into doubt or prove it false, so I would probably hand out the false rumors first.
Keen to run this on the weekend, but due to the time difference between Australia and the US it might be a bit tight, depending WHEN on Friday it's released.
The above quote from Drogon, does anyone know if this is PM or AM?
8PM Pacific time Friday makes 7am EST Saturday in the East of Australia (11 hours forward),
I imagine when I go back home, I will have to will have to wait til Saturday for my new scenarios.