A Pathfinder Society Scenario designed for levels 1–4 (subtiers 1–2 and 3–4).
Goblin patriarch, merchant, and Pathfinder Society ally Yigrig Moneymaker needs help! The cunning goblin merchant has big plans to build a bridge that will connect two promising trade partners, but something is stirring up the local wildlife and convincing the lions and other predators of the Katapeshi plains that goblins are more tasty than can possibly be true. The PCs must find out who's responsible for the trials Yigrig's family faces before the lions of Katapesh devour the entire goblin clan and end the chance for trade between two desert cities.
Written by: Adam Meyers
Scenario tags: Repeatable
[Scenario Maps spoiler - click to reveal]
The following maps used in this scenario are also available for purchase here on paizo.com:
I played this scenario at a low-tier table with a mixture of play levels. I also own the scenario.
Lions of Katapesh is a fun, quick scenario that seems to draw inspiration from the real life Tsavo Man-Eaters (something a player at the table quickly pointed out), but with a twist! The scenario's writing is at its best when playing with its goblin NPCs, who come off as two-dimensional caricatures, but are endearing regardless. Our GM also used some great accents to help each character stand out (which led to a great "what?" moment toward the end).
Overall, it's hard to point to any one part of the scenario that stands out. The combats aren't particularly hard, and the skill challenges aren't particularly challenging. They aren't easy and we definitely had some close scrapes, but nothing about these challenges were particularly memorable.
The scenario's faults, on the other hand, are more readily identifiable. Simply put: Lions of Katapesh suffers from poor design choices that hinder its challenge and engagement throughout the scenario. The issue begins with the initial skill challenge, which is also tied-in with the scenario's reward scheme. Without going into details, you want to do well early because you are rewarded for it later. This by itself is not particularly egregious. This appears to be the new normal for Pathfinder 2E rewards, and while I don't approve of what I refer to as "luck-gating" (gating treasure bundles behind doing well on skill checks rather than making meaningful in-game choices), at least this feels consistent and somewhat fair.
What makes this challenge problematic is that various events throughout the scenario can eat into your crop of successes, effectively diminishing successes without a way to build them back up. And while I could appreciate a mechanic like this if the party was undertaking a grueling or arduous task, but this is simply not the case. Many of us where surprised that there were no other options to claw some of our lost successes back, or perhaps even earn new opportunities to generate successes.
There are additional problems when it comes to the mechanics behind how you lose successes. While the scenario offers you choices for how to prevent these loses, they are effectively meaningless and do nothing. Our group immediately lost a success despite our best preparations, and unless the GM misread the encounter section, it does not seem like there was much more we could have done to prevent it--other than get lucky, of course.
The group's impression at the end of the scenario is that it was a fun, but punishing, repeatable, and that it was almost impossible to protect your accumulated successes without some incredible luck.
My own impression is similar. For all its humor and character, Lions of Katapesh lacks strong mechanics to stand on. Its encounters oscillate from bland to unfair, and its skill challenges are rather easy, yet constrained. Overall, I think it is a solid 3-stars. It's neither the worst scenario I've played, nor the best, but somewhere distinctly in the middle. However, with a bit of polish and playtesting it might have been a far more memorable and enjoyable experience.
With significant time to rest and recuperate, this adventure does not seem to meaningfully challenge the party, with the only risks being
Spoiler:
a) failure to raise the morale of the goblins sufficiently to get all the treasure bundles (and only one opportunity to raise morale.)
b) the big cats going first in Encounter B, and getting to a goblin before the party even gets to act.
Encounter B suggests that the players get to do quite a bit with Fences, but fails to clarify how the enemy interacts with the fences.
Encounter C is an oddly staged encounter, with the initial enemies made of such paper that the action economy for the "Boss" is a 1vParty.
Spoiler:
Getting the big cats out of Encounter B to be around for Encounter C seems unlikely to happen at any tier of play.
I GM'd Subtier 3-4 at 21Challenge Points with 5 players, and the enemies (especially with given tactics) posed little threat.
I think the goblin silliness saves it from being a 1* but all the interesting aspects to this scenario were names of goblins that I created rather than the scenario.
Goblin silliness and freeform in part B saves it from 1*
This scenario has little to recommend it. The fights are not especially challenging, the NPCs not particularly interesting. It's not actively awful, but it doesn't keep one engaged.
Have run this twice now (both low-tier). Here are my thoughts.
Part A: Seems fine, parties enjoyed the antics with goblins, and the combats with the variable secondary monsters were passable if not memorable. The minions are almost too easily taken down, granted it's a moderate encounter. Both parties were looking for clues about why the caravans were being attacked and were sad that there wasn't some indication as to why.
Spoiler:
It seems awfully hard to actually destroy a wagon. I focus fired one the second run to see how far down I could burn it. I only got it to halfway. Parties are easily making the DC 14 reflex save, and the PCs seem to know not to let them burn for long. It's unclear if the goblins should die in the initial attack as the wagons burn. It appears they should but isn't called out.
Part B: This portion is meant to provide parties with an opportunity to go off rails and do their own thing, which is good for the replayability. However, there isn't much incentive to do so. And given the nature of the encounter here, it does make the final encounter easier if you play it a certain way, but ultimately could impact player's treasure bundles without them realizing it if they're not careful. Overall, the camp design doesn't quite fit with how many goblins are meant to be there, though goblins probably don't mind squeezing to sleep 4 to a square.
Spoiler:
In both games the parties immediately searched for the tracks after reporting in with the job site boss. One group actually decided to not immediately go to part C, but it required me to say that the party had arrived close to dark (something that's not explicit in the scenario as I read it). This prompted them to camp for the night, and setup some defenses. We calculated that most of the goblins can actually fit inside the infirmary, so they boarded up the windows, setup the walls around the infirmary and waited. The climb speed on the monsters proved useful as they were able to circumvent the watch and got to eat some gobbos. Both managed to retreat but were severely wounded. It appears that this is meant to make part C much easier at the expense of potential loot lost. If a party knows how much morale they have they can "spend" some of it to make part C a cakewalk. I expect future runs as players know the scenario to
Part C: As written it can be a very hard fight if parties immediately go, though this varies depending on the primary antagonist. Nothing fancy here, just a straight "boss fight". The primary antagonists who can speak make for interesting villains who can explain their motivations in combat banter. The one who cannot is just a bruiser and the scenario suffers for his lack of background that can be communicated to players.
Spoiler:
Keff was hard due to scaling (~90 HP) and the Maul ability. Vanu Mas moderate, with increased mobs, lucky crits can really snowball a party. Overall both parties thought that the combat was balanced, as did I. Be very aware if you run this that in low tier there should not be any repeat monsters from part A. The layout of the statblocks make it appear that they are distinct from the tiers, but they very much are not. Simply placing (Tier 3-4) next to "Secondary antagonists" could've saved this GM some headaches. The overall layout design does little to distinguish the tiers and variants. Indentations or other visual guides would've been useful.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Yay! More Repeatable Scenarios. I am very very glad there are a number of repeatable scenarios, please keep it up. It makes it much easier to get new players up to speed with more experienced players, and makes creating more characters per player easier.
I’m running this in a few days and I request clarifications ASAP on a discrepancy in the scenario concerning
spoiler:
the DC of the Survival check to Track the lions to their layer.
Scenario spoiler:
page 10 wrote:
Track the Felines: A PC can attempt a DC 20 Survival check to Track the felines to their lair. If the felines have attacked and killed at least one goblin, the PCs gain a +2 circumstance bonus to this check and can do so untrained, as the fresh blood dragged across the desert is easy to follow.
Scenario spoiler:
page 12 wrote:
First, a PC who succeeds at a DC 15 Survival check to Track can follow the leopards or lions to their lair. The PC gains a +1 circumstance bonus to this check if the felines have killed a goblin and escaped with its body, or a +2 circumstance bonus if a member of the party succeeded at a Nature check to Recall Knowledge regarding where the felines might be hiding.
Why has the above question never been answered when this is a very popular repeatable scenario for beginning players? Please, someone, anyone at all, answer this.
Why has the above question never been answered when this is a very popular repeatable scenario for beginning players? Please, someone, anyone at all, answer this.
I'm guessing the lower DC is for subtier 1-2 characters and the higher DC is for subtier 3-4 characters
