A Pathfinder Society Scenario designed for levels 1–4 (subtiers 1–2 and 3–4).
Following the trail of one of the first Pathfinders, the PCs travel to the town of Sauerton where an old ally helps them find important clues. These clues lead the PCs into a dangerous wilderness to an old tower whose history goes back even farther than the Pathfinder Society itself. As the PCs navigate numerous threats with opposing interests, will they find the hidden keys to unlock the secrets of the Open Road Pact, or just another trail obscured by the passage of centuries?
Written by: Michael Sayre
Scenario tags: None
[Scenario Maps spoiler - click to reveal]
The following maps used in this scenario are also available for purchase here on paizo.com:
Really awesome! probably my favorite 2e scenario so far, although Bandits of the Immenwood was good too!
Firstly, the scenario is pretty much a dungeon crawl, but it didn't necessarily feel like it because the build-up and transition is pretty smooth and well done. You start the adventure with a handout from your Venture-Captain, so pretty basic breefing. Then you meet a contact, who leads you to another contact, who points you to a possible point of interest. Journey there doesn't go without hickups, but the actual crawl doesn't really start before you get there, and the social beginning of the scenario sets a tone quite different from other crawls.
As to the crawl itself - the encounters aren't too deadly or difficult, but they are interesting and provide a sufficiently threatening feel. There's some more socializing in the middle that provides the PC's and players a breather, and possibly more socializing in the end too.
For Society play, it's probably best if the GM reminds players to "do as their characters would" during the scenario, because despite the very railroaded nature of the crawl, the actual outcome of the scenario can vary VERY wildly between different runs (although due to the tendency of players... doing as players often do, without spoiling too much, many parties probably reach the same conclusion).
I've rarely seen a scenario that hands players this much agency in the matters, let alone in a scenario this dungeoncrawley.
BOSS FIGHT: The boss fight can be, and probably will be, very tough, probably even deadly. Probably many could even consider it Unfair in the way it works and how easily it might kill PC's (despite the 2e's tendency to not kill PC's very easily) - but PC's and players should probably realize that the odds might not be in their favor, given how the end goes down. On our group, 3 out of 4 PC's (levels 2, 2, 2, 1) went down, two saved themselves with hero points, and one was saved by healing. Nobody died, but it could have been a TPK.
A note to GM's: Apparently the two boons should not be mutually exclusive even though they may feel like they sorta are. There might be an update on the matter in the GM thread once the dev's confirm this.
We had a blast with this scenario, the initial investigation had plenty of character and my bard spent the whole first in-game afternoon collecting stories from the rambling old man.
The Good
We have been itching for combat scenarios and this one satisfied the group.
One of our players that just hit level 2 was complaining that they didn't feel like they got a chance to feel out the combat mechanics of their class during their 3 level 1 scenarios. They were uncertain if they wanted to continue with their current class and lock it in by playing at level 2 during this game. So it was good to give everyone a chance to break in their dice.
Our session went 5 hours, longer than the 3.5 we have been averaging, but no complaints here as we have been getting sloppy with start times. Is we would have started on time and stayed on topic I think we would have been done in 4-4.5 hrs.
The dynamic battle fields were a high point, everyone had fun interacting with them.
The maps looked easy to draw and it was convenient to be dropping small maps on the table that didn't require everyone to move their books every time there was a new map.
The boss had us chewing on our nails wondering if this was where we would all die.
The Bad
N/A
The Ugly
I'm enjoying the challenge point adjustment system but it continuous to confuse. I'm the event organizer and was answering questions for the GM running this game. We added up challenge points and checked against the organized play guide to determine that this game would be played with low tier, 5 player adjustment, with a level bump to the adventure. So I kept emphasizing not to forget the level bump, little did I know that the adventure had its own scaling that didn't use the 5/6 player adjustments. So we did most the adventure scaled twice, until we got to the boss where the adventure scaling was an inflated level bump and the GM decided that maybe we were doing it wrong and ran the boss with only the as written scaling in the adventure.
Although we survived the double scaling through the whole adventure, the added hit points added some extra time to the adventure and removed some character's ability to spend time in the spotlight. (The +10 hp meant that some characters were not one-shotting enemies that they normally would while the barbarian was still one shotting enemies, making it feel like we needed them to carry the team).
as long as your players are told that this is a dungeon crawl ahead of time, then it's pretty good. If nobody knows its a dungeon crawl, then it sorta doesnt feel as fun. the final boss is a bit overtuned, or at least my local playstore thinks so, just a little bit. if the ghost could give us some info on him, perhaps in an attempt to get us to set him free, then it might be a little more fair.
it can really turn into a "this looks like we're all going to die" situation REALLY fast with him though. Scary fast.
The Good
It's nice to come back to a site where we did something well in PFS1 and get a pat on the back. There were several fun NPCs to interact with.
As a dungeon crawl it's straightforward with some good old classics.
The Bad
There are some weird railroady bits and unexplained inconsistencies with PF1 lore.
Spoiler:
Zarta just taking the dude off your hands comes totally out of left field and you get no choice in the matter.
Outsiders respawning if killed outside their home plane is D&D lore, not Pathfinder (1); I couldn't find anything in Pathfinder 2 that had changed that.
Some enemies take a long time to kill while posing little threat and this can drag things out. It may take some tight reins GMing to finish this one on time.
The Ugly
A 6-player low tier party can end up being forced to play the high tier due to challenge points, but the boss is totally OP for them and this will probably result in a TPK.
Spoiler:
A level 5 monster defaults to counteract level 3, which low tier PCs can only beat with a natural 20 on a counteract check. Also the monster's defenses and terrain advantage negate any "superior numbers" the PCs might have.
If you can make sure that your party is properly in-tier then this is less problematic.
I have GMed this scenario now twice - and players enjoyed it a lot in both cases. This scenario is a pretty straight forward dungeon crawl. Players are awarded with lots of monsters to mow down. Sometimes all a player wants is to cut a notch in the haft of his battle axe for each enemy downed - and in this respect the scenario delivers plenty.
Just take care if you run with a table of 6. You might have to watch out for time.
There are one or two nicely build up bits that are not just a fight - but difficult to mention them here without spoilers.
If there is anything I would criticize then it is mapping.
Individually the maps are all great. But they connect in an way that rivals an Escher Painting. You leave some stairs in the middle of the South and reappear in the middle of the west etc. This just feels plain wrong.
Also huh, this is unrelated to Revolution on the Riverside I think, but funny there are two rebellion/revolution adventures in two months row :D
They're related in that they're both part of the season's metaplot rediscovering the adventures of the founding Pathfinders, though they don't directly interlink in a way that requires you to play one in order to get the full value from the other.
They're related in that they're both part of the season's metaplot rediscovering the adventures of the founding Pathfinders, though they don't directly interlink in a way that requires you to play one in order to get the full value from the other.
Is there any way to find out which adventures are a part of the metaplot?
They're related in that they're both part of the season's metaplot rediscovering the adventures of the founding Pathfinders, though they don't directly interlink in a way that requires you to play one in order to get the full value from the other.
Is there any way to find out which adventures are a part of the metaplot?
So far that's-
1-00: Origin of the Open Road
1-08: Revolution on the Riverside
1-11: Flames of Rebellion
The next entries should be a two-parter currently scheduled for March.
They're related in that they're both part of the season's metaplot rediscovering the adventures of the founding Pathfinders, though they don't directly interlink in a way that requires you to play one in order to get the full value from the other.
Is there any way to find out which adventures are a part of the metaplot?
So far that's-
1-00: Origin of the Open Road
1-08: Revolution on the Riverside
1-11: Flames of Rebellion
The next entries should be a two-parter currently scheduled for March.
Not sure if it's just me, but this keeps downloading empty zip files instead of the scenario?
Have tried an incognito window & tried the "problems downloading" button to refresh the personalization & blocking caching locally, and also tried another browser.
Not sure if it's just me, but this keeps downloading empty zip files instead of the scenario?
Have tried an incognito window & tried the "problems downloading" button to refresh the personalization & blocking caching locally, and also tried another browser.
I was able to download it, but I have no idea if my being on an employee account would affect the results we're each seeing. I'll ping tech so they can see if there's anything visibly wrong on the back end.
Retried again now & it's worked :D Probably something went wrong & got stuck in a cache somewhere along the way.
EDIT: To throw in something useful, 10/10 for the new GM synopsis's, Another great little addition added to the list of reasons I'm loving the new 2E scenario layouts!
Can we please get updated reporting sheets on the 2e adventures? The one that is included in the scenarios do not have enough room for players to write a 7 digit number followed by a four digit number. Under "Org Play #". The easiest solution is to swap "Class" and "Org Play #". Class is something we don't need when reporting.
There has been sufficient time to get this fixed. The community has produced half-page sheets that are better.
Please. Update the reporting sheets. They are not sufficient to be used.
I plan to post this message in all future releases until this gets fixed.
Michael Sayre,
I would like to make a suggestion or two in regards to flip-tiles
Since these appear to all be numbered/labeled, would it be possible to have those labels on future maps using them? Would make it way faster to find the correct map tile.
Also, please try and be cognizant of the price of these... each pack is twice the price of a flip-mat... so the investment to get three different packs is pretty extreme for one scenario (at about $90, retail)
I would like to make a suggestion or two in regards to flip-tiles
Since these appear to all be numbered/labeled, would it be possible to have those labels on future maps using them? Would make it way faster to find the correct map tile.
Unfortunately, putting the tags directly on the maps in the scenario is either illegible or unsightly to the point of interfering with necessary tags on the map. This is why we include a list of all the tile numbers for each map at the beginning of the associated encounter area with instructions for how to assemble them.
Quote:
Also, please try and be cognizant of the price of these... each pack is twice the price of a flip-mat... so the investment to get three different packs is pretty extreme for one scenario (at about $90, retail)
Thank you.
We're very cognizant of the cost of flip-tiles, which is one of the reasons we make a point of ensuring that if we use a flip-tile set during a season, we use it across multiple adventures. Two of the three flip-tile packs used in this adventure have been / will be used on at least one other occasion this season and season 10 of the PF1 campaign (numerous times in the case of Forest Starter Set).
For the folks who pay to print out custom maps, we've already saved them enough money this season to pay for the entire set of flip-tiles used in this adventure (at least based on local rates for flip-mat sized color printouts). For the folks who buy our products for every adventure they run, we can keep things a lot fresher with the flip-tiles than we were able to with just the map packs and flip-mats, and using the same tile set across multiple adventures doesn't mean we're recycling the same map(s).
Also huh, this is unrelated to Revolution on the Riverside I think, but funny there are two rebellion/revolution adventures in two months row :D
They're related in that they're both part of the season's metaplot rediscovering the adventures of the founding Pathfinders, though they don't directly interlink in a way that requires you to play one in order to get the full value from the other.
Can "metaplot" be added to the scenario tag, please?