Contributor
|
The opinions expressed about Pathfinder Society in this thread are not what Pathfinder Society is attempting to achieve. While conflict can happen (because people are people) our goal is to set up the missions in such a way as they won't *specifically* cause conflict. Seeing that two missions in this scenario could actually cause specific conflict (bordering on PVP) was unforeseen and has been taken into account for future scenarios.
I find this discussion really interesting. I've played in two scenarios already (Silent Tide and Hydra's Fang), and the only thing close to PVP I experienced was when the halfling in our group kicked the barbarian in the "tender bits" in an attempt to get him angry so we could pass a particular challenge in Silent Tide. We all had a great time and none of the players actively got in each others' way.
I particularly enjoyed working to secretly pass messages and accomplish ancillary goals without informing other factions what kinds of things would support Andoran's cause. None of that was a detriment to enjoyment of play.
I am a bit leary of the idea that future scenarios will have to be shaped in such a way to prevent characters with differing moral viewpoints from coming into conflict is a bit troublesome. I fear that going that route will lead to extremely "vanilla" missions accented by colorless faction objectives.
Sam Weiss is correct in that a system that ultimately raises one faction above all others by definition creates competition. It does not, however, have to be anything more than FRIENDLY competition. Those who want to trample on others' enjoyment of the game by constantly provoking conflict where none is required just so a fictional organization can be declared the "winner" at the end of the season should removed from the game table.
I say, let the creativity of scenario writers shine, expect players to play by the rules presented in the Guide, and leave the responsibility of enforcing those rules with the GMs.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Sam Weiss is correct in that a system that ultimately raises one faction above all others by definition creates competition. It does not, however, have to be anything more than FRIENDLY competition. Those who want to trample on others' enjoyment of the game by constantly provoking conflict where none is required just so a fictional organization can be declared the "winner" at the end of the season should removed from the game table.
The in-world effects of the faction war are not, as I understand them, going to affect PCs directly in terms of anything more than the flavor of the world, but the points one particular character amasses do have an impact on their gear and extra abilities. The only time I can see a huge problem emerging is if the faction missions conflict in such a way that it's either one PC or another that gains the point, and thus gets closer to reaching their next tier goal for their faction. Even HFI doesn't have this, as it's entirely possible for both Andoren and Chelaxian Pathfinders to accomplish their mission. The issue here is that their missions' success depend upon making a huge moral choice, which players in the other three factions will have input into, and might unintentionally prevent both from getting their points. My PC is Osiriani, but she was very adamant that Du Moire should die, even though other players didn't feel the same way and I got no known benefit from killing him. Had it been the opposite, I could have prevented several players from getting their prestige. Additionally, the Qadira mission could be jeopardized if the rest of the party wants to bribe the guards instead of fighting them, as attaining the log book isn't going to happen if they are still alive. Thus, a Qadiran is likely to instigate combat that could put the rest of the party in a rough spot in terms of HP and resources.
|
Contributor
|
Fair points. You're right about the in-world effects of faction dominance. And I completely forgot about the impact of Prestige Awards in terms of competition. PAs definitely raise the stakes for achieving faction goals, and could encourage players to strive to accomplish their objectives at the expense of the team.
I think the more noble intent is to encourage creative solutions to these problems. If I were playing a Lawful Good Qadiran character, I'd either have to figure out a different way to get those log books, violate my alignment, or miss the objective entirely. It does require some thought on the player's part (and probably some free-thinking on the part of the GM), but it's not impossible.
I believe this is okay, as long as there is sufficient variety in the kinds of faction goals presented across the scenarios to allow players to at least have a chance of completing multiple goals without repeatedly violating their alignment/character concepts.
It may mean, however, that tweaking (i.e., reduction) is required in the PA totals required to gain access to better benefits. If only Chaotic Neutral characters can "legally" accomplish every goal without violating their moral principles, then it's going to be tough to gain the next tier of PA benefits. I'm not staring at the Guide at the moment to figure out how long it will take to get to the next tier, but if I recall, it will take 10 scenarios-worth of PAs just to get to the first tier. I don't know if that's too difficult or not, but I think it's worth looking at.
|
|
Fair points. You're right about the in-world effects of faction dominance. And I completely forgot about the impact of Prestige Awards in terms of competition. PAs definitely raise the stakes for achieving faction goals, and could encourage players to strive to accomplish their objectives at the expense of the team.
I think the more noble intent is to encourage creative solutions to these problems. If I were playing a Lawful Good Qadiran character, I'd either have to figure out a different way to get those log books, violate my alignment, or miss the objective entirely. It does require some thought on the player's part (and probably some free-thinking on the part of the GM), but it's not impossible.
I believe this is okay, as long as there is sufficient variety in the kinds of faction goals presented across the scenarios to allow players to at least have a chance of completing multiple goals without repeatedly violating their alignment/character concepts.
It may mean, however, that tweaking (i.e., reduction) is required in the PA totals required to gain access to better benefits. If only Chaotic Neutral characters can "legally" accomplish every goal without violating their moral principles, then it's going to be tough to gain the next tier of PA benefits. I'm not staring at the Guide at the moment to figure out how long it will take to get to the next tier, but if I recall, it will take 10 scenarios-worth of PAs just to get to the first tier. I don't know if that's too difficult or not, but I think it's worth looking at.
That depends if other Scenarios would give more then 1 PA.
|
|
Paris and yoda's posts both express exactly the sort of things I meant when I chose the word "inevitable" to describe the probability of conflict.
None of those things are even vaguely outrageous.
It would take an extremely bland campaign to never have any of them.
They can all very easily tip over with just a single missed cue between players as to character motivation. (Which is the heart of what happened in the game with me and Heather.)
At best, a specifically crafted party, with everyone contributing to a single, overall group goal, and mutually supporting player goals, and with unified backgrounds, can avoid almost all of this. That is going to be the extreme exception rather than the rule in organized play.
|
I find it peculiar some people are so emotionally attached to their characters already. Locally all Chealiax vs. Andoran disputes have been met with humor, since the PCs and players are indeed different persons. Sure the character could be upset but ah well, it's a personality question.
I understand that some people might get worked over minor issues and take stuff WAY too seriously. This produces conflict between players, but I honestly think that would be their very own fault.
Initially players in the local region (Finland) were hoping even more conflict between characters, but we knew it wouldn't work very well globally.
|
And that statement is nonsense.
As I said, it is totally absurd to think that you can create a competition and not have people compete within it.
This does not in any way require overt disagreement, which you must assert for your position to be in any way defensible. Everyone can fully work together to the overall goals, but they are, absolutely and inevitably, going to be competing on the other aspects.
Um, unless it's "overt disagreement," it's not a problem, and we don't need to waste time talking about it. I'm not interested in random sophistry, I'm concerned with dealing with problems in the game.
What you are suggesting is some peculiar situation where the quarterback must call an equal number of running and throwing plays so the running backs and wide receivers are never in competition for who gets the most plays, gains the most yards, or scores the most touch downs, and that indeed those running backs and wide receivers must always advance the same number of yards each time so as not to compete.
Or it suggests that a pitcher must not try for so many strikeouts, and indeed must allow a certain number of batters to reach first, so that the players can register a number of put outs, and the infielders can register double plays.
No, I'm suggesting that the players need to do their jobs and make sure the team wins, and yes, that does mean putting their individiual interests aside for the sake of the team's success. Players who allow their egos to get in the way of their play are justly called on it in the world of sports, and "gloryhounds" who lack a sense of team spirit are normally bounced off of teams eventually. They are disruptive and trouble for the sport as a whole.
Of course I'm not suggesting that competition is automatically a problem. But your initial proposition went well beyond saying, "Everyone's going to compete." You said, "First, competing factions are inevitably going to cause competing players. There is absolutely no way around that. The moment you introduce any aspect of competition, people are going to compete. And just as inevitably, that is going to lead to conflict." Competition is fine, even though I still would deny it is inevitable; it's not an issue on its own. But competition that "lead[s] to conflict" is a problem, it is not inevitable, and it should not be excused. It is what happens when players put their characters ahead of everyone else's, and what happens when PCs refuse to cooperate with their adventuring companions. In both cases, it is against the rules that the player and character are obligated to abide by, and should not be tolerated.
|
|
Um, unless it's "overt disagreement," it's not a problem, and we don't need to waste time talking about it. I'm not interested in random sophistry, I'm concerned with dealing with problems in the game.
Then why are you bothering with random sophistry?
Obviously there was a problem in a game.No, I'm suggesting that the players need to do their jobs and make sure the team wins, and yes, that does mean putting their individiual interests aside for the sake of the team's success. Players who allow their egos to get in the way of their play are justly called on it in the world of sports, and "gloryhounds" who lack a sense of team spirit are normally bounced off of teams eventually. They are disruptive and trouble for the sport as a whole.
Of course nothing of that sort happened in this incident.
That is what you continue to fail to understand.It is what happens when players put their characters ahead of everyone else's, and what happens when PCs refuse to cooperate with their adventuring companions. In both cases, it is against the rules that the player and character are obligated to abide by, and should not be tolerated.
Again, did you fail to read my entire post?
I addressed this.Including all the consequences of forcing a GM to choose whose role-playing is more important, and how player will begin to feel doing such is irrelevant if it must always be sacrificed to random selection or fiat whenever someone decides to object.
Just saying "stop disagreeing" does nothing to address the underlying issues. It is just another form of bullying that is also against the rules and should not be tolerated.
|
Contributor
|
I realize that my evidence is anecdotal, but so far every Pathfinder game I've played or run, the players were willing to cooperate to allow everybody to achieve their faction goals.
And I'm going to answer Sam's question about how does the DM decide whose role-playing is more important, at least from my perspective. It's the person who has an assigned goal and is matching their role-play to the goal.
Player one: We must kill this man! He is evil and corrupt!
Player two: We can't execute prisoners. It is wrong.
Player one: <Makes lengthy in character defense of his position>
Player two: <Does same and it becomes apparent there will be no budging>
DM: Player two, I get where you are coming from, but you're interfering with player one's faction goal.
Player two: Ah. Oh. I need to go search the hold again. Don't kill him while I'm gone, unless he tries to escape!
So as long as the faction goals don't conflict with each other, players should be able to work it out. I know not everyone plays this way, but that's the way it's gone for me so far, and it's what I hope for and expect at my table.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Let me ask: are faction goals supposed to be secret?
Because, if they are, Craig, your example doesn't work.
Many faction goals are just benign and unobjectionable, but some of them require the PC to go against other PC's ethics or lay claim to loot that should, by rights, be party treasure.
If people object to this, and faction goals have to be secret, there's either going to be immediate tension, or some players are going to come away from sessions thinking other players are jerks.
|
Contributor
|
Faction goals are always secret 'in character.' They do not need to be secret out of character. None of the faction goals that I have encountered require a PC to claim loot that has any value other than as a faction goal McGuffin. The structure of loot in PFS pretty much precludes this anyways.
EDIT: I do get that sometimes faction goals will go against another PC's ethics if that PC has been built around a strong ethical stance. My whole point is that a faction goal SHOULD trump another player role-playing their character's ethical stance, given the structure of the scenarios, if it would otherwise lead to conflict.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Faction goals are always secret 'in character.' They do not need to be secret out of character.
Why are they secret "in character." What's wrong with everybody knowing that my character's a pathfinder, and everybody also knowing that I'm also an agent of Qadira?
Some people aren't good enough role-players to ignore out-of-character knowledge. (And you're sugesting they meta-game and run with out-of-character knowledge anyways.)
If being secret about our faction goals to the other players at the table is fair game, then lying about our faction goals should also be fair game.
Which lends itself to terrific scms, because, you're right, people will bend over backwards to see how they can be "friendly" and let everybody else accomplish their faction goals. So, if I announce "Saving this man's life is my faction goal," people will help me save his life.
I think it's the secrecy that's messing people up here, not the factions or the faction goals themselves.
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would be perfectly happy with a structure whereby the factions were open and friendly and thus the PCs could act in character to support each other's goals. I'm not sure how it would work, but I'm sure it could be done.
Right now, that's not what we've got, and I don't think it's necessary to change from what we've got (although I have no objections to such a change).
Again, I'll speak anecdotally. So far I've seen the metagame faction thing work two ways.
1) A PC picks up the McGuffin and says "I'll hang onto this. It might be useful later." The other players look at that player and nod knowingly, and overlook the fact that they know he just completed a faction mission. They could argue, but choose not to.
2) A player says "Guys, I really like this clever plan you've come up with. Help me come up with a way to make it work for my character, so I can achieve my faction goal, which your plan would otherwise prevent." The other players proceeded to help.
I don't think I've run into the example I gave previously where two PCs argue ethics and then they resolve it by one player conceding to the other's faction goal. But I would completely do that if it were me.
So all of these look a little meta-gamy. Unfortunately I don't see a way to avoid this kind of metagame while having both faction goals and a 'No PvP' rule. And frankly, I personally would rather keep both those rather than eliminate the metagame.
Anyways scenario one happened several times, and never caused a big problem. Scenario two has happened in one of the nine PFS sessions I've been involved with. The secret of the factions only needs to be broken if that kind of conflict arises.
Also, if players can't separate player knowledge from character knowledge, they are going to have trouble with this whole structure to begin with, because they already know that every other player is in a faction. which I guess is Chris' point. Still, I don't see it as being a huge problem based on my experience so far.
It may require the DM to occasionally say "You don't know that" which can happen in any game, and is really much less onerous than the extremely rare instance where a DM might need to say "You aren't allowed to attack the other players."
I think it might be helpful if the guidelines for running scenarios included advice to the DM for when PC conflicts arise over/because of faction goals. I still thank that the general guideline should be "The PC who is trying to achieve their faction goal should not be prevented from doing so by another PC.
|
Contributor
|
If being secret about our faction goals to the other players at the table is fair game, then lying about our faction goals should also be fair game.
Which lends itself to terrific scms, because, you're right, people will bend over backwards to see how they can be "friendly" and let everybody else accomplish their faction goals. So, if I announce "Saving this man's life is my faction goal," people will help me save his life.
Sorry, I just wanted to address this particularly.
First, I don't believe that allowing characters to keep faction goals secret automatically means that characters or players should be allowed to lie about faction goals. And since Characters are supposed to keep the fact that they are in a faction secret, they shouldn't really be claiming that something is a faction goal in character, true or not.
Regardless, my second comment on this is that I don't see how this could ever be advantageous. Why would claiming that saving the npc's life is your faction goal help? The only case that I can think of is if you intentionally lied to say that your faction goal is contradictory to another PC's faction goal, at which point (IMO) the DM should call them out on it, because they are intentionally trying to create PvP conflict, which is against the rules.
Do you have another example? If it's a problem, let's solve it, but I don't see how this is ever going to be an issue.
|
Faction goals are always secret 'in character.' They do not need to be secret out of character.Why are they secret "in character." What's wrong with everybody knowing that my character's a pathfinder, and everybody also knowing that I'm also an agent of Qadira?
Because this is a shadow war for the control of the city, While its ok that someone knows who you're working for, your faction leader most likly doesn't want the other factions know what route they are taking to further the fame and influance of the faction in the city
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Because this is a shadow war for the control of the city, While its ok that someone knows who you're working for, your faction leader most likely doesn't want the other factions know what route they are taking to further the fame and influence of the faction in the city.
Hi, Captain. I see where you're coming from, and you're right, that the shadowy faction leaders certainly wouldn't want that common knowledge. But they presumably have secret agents in and around Absalom whose loyalties are, first and foremost, the advancement of those secret plans; we're not those secret agents.
Our characters' first loyalties are to the Pathfinder Society in general, and our teammates in particular, and only after that to our faction leaders.
"So, sorry to drag my allies into our confidence, O Great Satrap, but keeping this information secret makes it more difficult for me to achieve my mission with my teammates, and my mission comes first."
|
|
So as long as the faction goals don't conflict with each other, players should be able to work it out. I know not everyone plays this way, but that's the way it's gone for me so far, and it's what I hope for and expect at my table.
Here's the thing though; my faction goal was irrelevant.
Technically as an Andoran all I needed was his ring. It was strongly suggested he should be dead when I got it, but the superior factor for me was the background I had conceived for my character.The core issue was alignment interpretation and character background role-play, not completing the base mission, and not completing a faction assignment.
I have seen that multiple times in LG play.
I was involved in one where I wound up pushing the other players into a position that would achieve the mission the way I wanted it to end but not the way they wanted it to end. I was able to do that because I remembered more of the background than they did, and they were less than thrilled with the result.
I was involved in another where I kept suggesting an "alternate" resolution of an adventure but everyone else was afraid it was too far outside the bounds and was impossible to do. Meanwhile another player was planning something similar, and setting it all up with casual notes to the DM. He succeeded in the end, and the rest of us were not actually hosed, but it could easily have been worse with other groups.
Then there were all the times that, as with this, some bad guy simply surrendered, particularly if he was some "untouchable" type person.
One of the more dramatic, though not very well known, occurrences was a number of players who actively worked to "explain" to the campaign staff why allowing Wastri, whose portfolio includes bigotry, should not be allowed as a PC deity no matter the RAW on alignment. They did so by creating characters who were very deliberately "inappropriate" in their attitude towards demi-human PCs. (Lesson: "You can play a bigot as long as you are nice about it" is not a functional rule. Second Lesson: Do not wait for your players to teach you that lesson.)
So again, the issue is deeper than just faction missions. Those are a relevant stress point that should be kept in mind, but they are just one of several that will inevitably exist in an organized play environment, and that must be kept in mind.
Which, from Joshua's responses, appears to be the case, so I am not upset, and am just trying to clarify my position.
|
Contributor
|
Okay, from the above discussion, I thought the faction goal was the catalyst here. I'll still stand by my statements in that regard (faction goal trumps background choice) and feel it is somewhat relevant since there are faction goals that require someone to be dead, that other PCs might want to not kill.
As far as non-faction ideological clashes. That's a tough one, you are right. I really don't enjoy PvP, and although I don't mind ideological conflict between PCs in my home game, OrgPlay doesn't seem like the place to get deep into it. OTOH, I don't want to take every last bit of grit out of PFS either. I think diverse characters give depth to the game, and I don't want to lose too much of that.
Well, I'm sure it will work out in the long run, especially with these forums to allow us to discuss what does and doesn't work.
EDIT: One improvement I would certainly make to this scenario is to rule that the villain breaks the terms of his surrender at the earliest opportunity, by attacking or trying to escape. I think it would be pretty in character for him anyways.
|
Contributor
|
So...
I just ran this adventure at Draconis in Montreal, and had more or less the same scenario come up. There was a Taldan Paladin, and while he didn't stop the Chelliaxians from completing their mission, he felt that it was a pretty serious RP conflict. In all honesty, he had some difficulty playing his character alongside Chelliaxians at all.
He made a pretty strong case that the problem stems especially from the existence of the Chelliaxian faction, which is pretty demonstrably an evil organization, regardless of the non-evil alignment of the faction members. In addition he felt that some of their actions were at least arguably evil, and made more so in that they were evil acts in support of an evil organization.
Now I'm not advocating getting rid of the Chelliaxian faction, and I'm willing to bet that similar arguments could be made about other factions in other cases. But it has made me think pretty seriously about what the faction missions should be like in order to avoid this kind of problem.
Mostly, I wanted to pass along his feedback, because it seemed pretty important to the player, and I think he had a point.
The Rambling Scribe
|
|
We've been very open and clear about this being a playtest season. We love this sort of feedback, thrive on this sort of feedback, and cannot grow the system without it.
In the spirit of constructive feedback:
1) All of my players and myself loved the module! We especially loved the sea-going atmosphere and the theme-appropriate challenges.
2) I was unclear as to where to position the consortium guards during the encounter in the Underdocks.
3) While I'm not entirely sure it was intended to be literal, one of my players took it that way. Part of the Andoran faction goal (involving Du Moire's heart) seemed a bit extreme for the tone of the faction. Just to avoid confusion and specifically alignment issues, the wording of the faction goals might need to be clarified & simplified. Although we love the flavor text in the goals -- our Chelaxian aligned player made us all listen to the first sentence of her goal because she loved it so much.
4) It would be nice to see advice in all PFS modules on how to shorten the module for time-constrained games that run long for convention & game day settings (such as the advice presented in Silent Tide). Additionally advice on how to scale the challenges for weaker and/or smaller groups would be welcomed too. Sort of a "scaling the adventure" sidebar or an encouragement to purchase war dogs if necessary.
5) My players and myself agree that we have enjoyed the wide variety of environments, combats, and combatants encountered in the modules so far. Please keep it up!
6) We would love to see more reoccurring NPCs in addition to Adril & Osprey. And perhaps a module centered around Adril could be written so that PCs can get to know him better. A mini-portrait of the Pathfinder Chapterhouse and the Venture Captains would be great.
7) Introducing story elements in each mod pertaining to one or two gods would help the PCs to begin to learn about the religions of Golarion. Murder on the Silken Caravan did a good job with Lamashtu.
Thanks for the awesome module and the great story and I hope you folks at Paizo keep up the great work!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He made a pretty strong case that the problem stems especially from the existence of the Chelliaxian faction, which is pretty demonstrably an evil organization, regardless of the non-evil alignment of the faction members. In addition he felt that some of their actions were at least arguably evil, and made more so in that they were evil acts in support of an evil organization.
I prefer to say the paladin class itself is faulty. It's compatible with awesome character ideas! Locally there's only one player with a paladin, whose int/wis are low enough to make the paladin be unable to grasp the concept Chelish people are slightly more evil.
Funny how no one seems to remember "oh right, Darcy killed a whole village full of innocent women and children". Personally I think not even the most righteous paladin would give a trial to such a butcher.
|
|
Funny how no one seems to remember "oh right, Darcy killed a whole village full of innocent women and children". Personally I think not even the most righteous paladin would give a trial to such a butcher.
I had a paladin at my table, and she basically focused on this element - and the trial-in-absentia that I made up, admittedly, though it seemed like a pretty safe addition - and that, along with the definite ping! of her detect evil, made her feel pretty comfortable with Du Moire's death.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Ok, just ran this event and my thoughts:
There seems to be a theme of GMs putting that combat in deep water when the scenario says the water under the boat is "a few feet deep."
Did you also put the encounter in deep water? :-)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
There seems to be a theme of GMs putting that combat in deep water when the scenario says the water under the boat is "a few feet deep."
Did you also put the encounter in deep water? :-)
Quibble here. It says the Shallows is "a wide rocky
bay only a few feet deep and closed off by immense seawalls thatfunnel all traffic into the maze"
It also makes it pretty clear that you're out in the harbor proper, outside the maze "As you reach the outer locks..."
"...the front doors to the open harbor where dozens
of galleons and merchant ships bounce softly on their moorings..." (are they all flat bottom boats?)
"A few hundred yards outside the maze, the Pathfinders are ambushed by sahugin."
And it is strongly inferred that it's more than 3 feet deep where the encouter happens. "Even if convinced the PCs aren’t the ones who killed Myraxus, in their eagerness to get their hands on Du Moire first, the sahuagin simply leave the PCs to drown."
I had one of my players roll 1d20 to determine depth at random. so of course he rolled a 14.
Hmm. I see your perspective now. Food for thought for future scenarios.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Lastly (for now), what is the grapple check for the Sea Cat Cub ? Neither its BAB nor its STR are listed, so I can't calculate it myself, only come to an "educated guess" by looking at the Sea Cat entry in the MM.
It's full statblock is included on page 8. Perhaps you overlooked the second half at the top of the second column?
|
|
There seems to be a theme of GMs putting that combat in deep water when the scenario says the water under the boat is "a few feet deep."
Did you also put the encounter in deep water? :-)
That's because there is no where in the module that states the encounter takes place in shallow water. Here is the box text
bay only a few feet deep and closed off by immense seawalls that
funnel all traffic into the maze. Strung between them, a host of
steep maze walls crusted with seaweed, barnacles, and small
shellfish create narrow passages just wide enough for rowboats
or rafts. Lashed along the sides are free-floating docks which
allow longshoremen to help pull boats through or to the side for
quick inspections. Every so often, a series of rusted spikes forms
a crude ladder leading to the upper maze, where guards keep
watch amidst strange shadows cast by weathered devices such
as giant winches and claw-like crane arms. Water splashes softly
throughout, creating an eerie echo, and the entire structure
groans with ominous creaks and strains as if you were traveling
through the belly of a great beast. Thankfully, navigating out of
the maze is far easier than navigating in, and the ever-watchful
eyes of Enforcers on the walls fall almost entirely on the cargos
of incoming merchants.
As you draw closer to the end, the sounds of angry waves
slam against the outer walls and echo like hordes of chanting
goblins. As you reach the outer locks, a grizzled longshoreman
calls down to you from above, telling you to hold tight. The
first gate opens with a lazy moan, and he ushers you to move
your craft into the small chamber ahead. Once inside, he lowers
the gate behind you, then he bids you good luck as he slowly
cranks apart the front doors to the open harbor where dozens
of galleons and merchant ships bounce softly on their moorings
in the water.
As you can see it only mentions how deep the water is prior to the water locks. So as soon as you exit the water locks it talks about how the area is how dozens of galleons and merchant ships reside which suggest deeper water. No where does it state the water is still shallow and yet is even suggesting it's deep water. Might I suggest they add this to an errata for Hydra's fang?
'As you slowly move away from the locks you discover shallow trails used by small boats such as row boats, and one appears to head towards the Hydra's Fang.'
|
There seems to be a theme of GMs putting that combat in deep water when the scenario says the water under the boat is "a few feet deep."
Did you also put the encounter in deep water? :-)
My DM, when asked by the party druid , responded "the water is
deep, probably 60 - 80 feet". She smiled and then cast entangleunder water, directly under her rowboat. The sahaugin was entangled
and thus easily dispatched. The spell was then dismissed and we
were on our way.
It should be noted his reason for the deep water was the harbor
needed to be deep enough for large ships.
|
|
There seems to be a theme of GMs putting that combat in deep water when the scenario says the water under the boat is "a few feet deep."
Did you also put the encounter in deep water? :-)
That's because there is no where in the module that states the encounter takes place in shallow water. Here is the box text
** spoiler omitted **
As you can see it only mentions how...
i just ran HFI last night as the first PFS mod for a full table of players.
had it not been for this thread, i would never had known that the intent was for the encounter to take place in shallow water. that would have been very bad for that party: the cleric was flat-out unable to make a swim check (-12 overall to her swim checks) and the party tanks weren't much better off (-10 each). as it was, i made the water about 5 feet deep - enough to still make it a big factor in the combat (and make it possible to do things like duck under the overturned boat), but not enough to make it outright deadly in and of itself (though the unconscious scale-clad barbarian who was momentarily lying on the bottom might disagree with that assessment)... this also got rid of the strangeness of sahaugin swimming around in 2 or 3 foot deep water.
when all was said and done, it was still a TOUGH encounter, and it sent them into the final battle low on hp and out of all healing except 3 cure minor wounds.
in the end, though, they succeeded by the skin of their teeth - at one point, the party's rogue was alone and unconscious in a sinking dinghy surrounded by chum-seeking sharks, and two thirds of the fighting line was unconscious or staggered. i think it was a truly memorable introduction to PFS for all involved.
|
Contributor
|
Man, again with the water thing!
For clarification, I didn't place a depth on the Harbor, because harbors have varying depths.
However, its a harbor and its meant to have ships anchor in it. Large ships, with too much draw to dock close to shore. The encounter with the sahuagin takes place in the harbor, in water most likely over the player's heads, but not so deep that they couldn't attempt to touch bottom without drowing.
Its a tough encounter, especially with armor. Pretty much, you're going to loose your armor if you fall in. Its a little less tough with the Beta rules (basically because the beta characters are a little tougher).
Also, sahuagin are a bit tougher than the original critters I had intended to put there, however, folks will eventually understand why they got switched to sahuagin.
If Josh says cool, I'd tone down the Frenzy thing. The Strength check makes it way too easy for them to flip the boats.
Other things that might help- flipped row boats don't typically sink. Sure they don't move too well, but it does give you something to hang on to.
I think one of the problems with this mod was definitely my over-familiarity with boats and harbors and stuff, so I probably assumed too much could be cut back when I was scrounging for word count.
|
Contributor
|
actually, I'm still waffling here..
My original intent was that the water depth near the seawall was between 4 to 6 feet (depending on the tide); and increased gradually by about 1 foot every 10 yards until it reaches a depth of about 14 to 23 feet (depending on what kind of rocks are on the bottom)
To approximate depth use 13 +1d10.
For those of you who are curious, that's about the depth of New York Harbor.
|
|
Why are they secret "in character." What's wrong with everybody knowing that my character's a pathfinder, and everybody also knowing that I'm also an agent of Qadira?
Absolutely nothing's wrong with it. My own character and his partner are very overt and proud Andorans. What's important for players to know is that MOST Pathfinders, regardless of where they're from, are not fighting a secret shadow war. That's something pretty much constrained to the players and select NPCs. They are not likely to have any reason to believe the other players' characters are agents of a faction.
That being said, there's a good way to get out of any kind of conflict I think without having to announce to the other people at the table what your mission or faction is imho. I've never run into any issues of players going against one another (though I didn't run Silken Caravan which was accidently set up that way, and in my group it was just an 'oh well you don't get your PA' situation). Players should also realize they will not get their PA every single session.
Our Taldan PC has outright refused one of his faction missions because he's a Paladin and thought it was an improper act (I forget which one). Kudos to him for it, I'm the smart LG character and playing for the good guys.
ANDORAN! F*** YEAH!
|
|
I recently got my copy of Guide to Absalom and noticed that its data on the government of Diobel contradicts that presented in this adventure. It's not a big deal, and I think the biggest difference is that the module names the local ruler as Chancellor Kelves Ragewynd while the sourcebook has Teriarch Aven of House Arnsen.
My instinct is to go with the sourcebook info, insofar as it is even relevant - if it were actually relevant to the plot, I'd probably go with the module's take on things. However, we should consider setting precedent here for the campaign protocol when sourcebooks and modules contradict each other. This is also something that might be noted in the next revision of the campaign guide.
So, what do the powers that be say? When the sources contradict, which one is the authority?
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
Ran this as the first Pathfinder session ever at our FLGS. The first encounter with the thugs and the little girl lead the quote of the night was either...
"Can I just smash the little girl with my hammer?" from the barbarian wielding an Earthbreaker. When it was revealed that she was a wizard, that became... "See... she was on the encounter map... that means I CAN smash her with the hammer!"
And in the aftermath of the same encounter... when the wizard was unconscious...
"Can I search the little girl... wait, that came out wrong..." from the cleric. This lead to wizard replying, "If it had been a little boy, would you have bothered to ask first?"
I almost forgot the saughin encounter until they were almost in sight of the ship. The fight lead the pirates to start making ready to sail, which made access to the ship a little more difficult. Only the rogue made it aboard at first, leaving him to face off against the four pirates by himself... this would have been bad had the barbarian not soon joined him. Du Moire escaped in the confusion, taking the potion of invisibility to aid his escape. The party happened to spot his boat out on the harbor rowing with nobody aboard. The barbarian used a crossbow at long range to try and hit him.... and rolled a natural 20! Not enough damage to stop him, but still impressive.
I ruled that the final two rewards of the Tier 1-2 would NOT be presented, since Du Moire escaped.
|
|
I ran Hydra's Fang last night.
Act 1 was really a bad situation for PCs due to bad rolls from them and awsome rolls from me.
One player left the table outright in frustration (the week before I had run Decline of Glory and the players had had a tough time with all the ghouls) and the remaining 4 players were in for it now.
Acts 2-3 went fine. The bribed their way throught act 2 and in act 3 they killed the sahuagin which where unable to tip the boat (lucky).
Act 4/5 was bad. Very bad. The party started carving their way into the ship trying to open up one of the damaged areas of the hull. This was triggered by lack of effective ranged weapons, climbing skills and rope w. grapplinghook (all of which the player who left after act 1 had :( )
The PCs cut straight to act 5. and found themselves in the dark cargo hold wading in water and corpses and with no other light than the faint light from the crack in the hull.
When the lacedons attacked it took them 3 rounds to paralyze the whole party.
Ghouls are very bad news for 1st lvl characters!
TPK
|
I would like to get some help/advice on a possible situation that might occur.
I'm currently GM this for my home group. They play Tier 4-5. I know it is a challenge for the group - but nothing they could not overcome with intelligent play. We have currently paused as we ran well past midnight and only managed act 1 and 2.
The situation is that they burned through 80% of spells and seem to inclined to rest up a night to get spells back.
I will remind them, that speed was of importance - and knowing Du Moire I wouldn't expect him to wait for a full day after learning Katiya and the other got slaughtered and the guards attacked as well. It is late morning now in game term - and if the group sets out next day I'm inclined to play out act 3 with and then let them know - the ship has sailed away.
What are you opinions for a pro/con to handle it this way. I can't tell what the group decides - I'm having a week time to wait for feedback here and be prepared.
Below is detailed what happened so far. The group had lots of fun - but they didn't play smart yet. One of the reasons I'm less inclined to give them a days time as the current situation is self inflicted.
The action so far:
Act 1 ended up as the longest ever fight I gmed. They went into the house - it took 2 rounds to kick in the door to the storage.
Then the Sorcerer3/Fighter1 went in on his own to 'help' the girl in distress - to be peppered by three arrows (being still on AC12 not having any buffs up didn't help). Two magic missiles from Katiya also went into him (she had won the initiative) before the witch manages to charm Katiya - and the monk throws a smoke stick into the entrance.
It follows a stalemate with Katiya beeing lured out on her own while the rogues don't dare to pass through the smokestick area into an ambush.
Then the cleric decides Lubor might not be dead after all - so she goes in to retrieve the body. She manages with some damage taken - and lures the thugs closer to the door.
A summoned dog doesn't survive the two flanking thugs with sneak (20+ damage in one combat round). The whole smoke really hampers fight on both sides. A Colour Spray into the fog is ineffective (all thugs in range should have full concealment - so I can't see that working and the player agrees not a good idea due to the smoke).
Just as the smoke stick is close to expire the sorcerer adds an obscouring fog centered around the doorway. So more delay of any fighting.
The witch and Katiya go for a drink.
Finally some damage from the group by using a burning hands - catching three and thanks to missed saves and high rolls they are nearly down.
In the fight around the doorway the monk has the great idea to use the new reposition maneuver and grabs one of the thugs and repositions him in the middle of the group.
Unfortunately this means the sorcerer/fighter is flanked by two of them - so all of the healing going in to him is gone with two sneak attacks hitting him.
Some misses along the fight due to the obscuring mists prolong the whole fight - but finally the group manages to get the thugs down.
Katiya gets dealt with when she comes back from the pub. As a last action she manages to unleash a touch of idiocy on the sorcerer/fighter - Int -6 / Wis -4 / Cha -6 - ouch. At least they have a scroll of lesser restoration - other vice being on Cha 10 isn't a good place to be as Sorcerer.
So after an epic (at least time wise) fight the group manages to get to the guards. It starts to go badly when they leave the diplomacy to the half-orc monk - so fight becomes inevitable.
In his great wisdom the monk decides to jump across the water onto the walkway with one of the guards. It's only 10 feet - I can do that ... Due to lack of running start - DC20 - and a bad dice roll - so he ends up in the water.
One of the guards gets a Cause Fear - so two guards shot an arrow each round while the Sea Cat rips into the monk - who proudly tells me - I can take it. Two claw attacks and a rend as well as a bite is nasty to watch. The water turns red.
I let him climb out - but don't ask me why the sorcerer/fighter just stands by next to the water. He had movement left - just seemed routed to the spot. Two claws and a rend later and he is down in a heap - really high dice roll on my part - minus 10 HP in one go with just two away from death.
He gets stabilized at -11 - and a Cure Moderate goes into him - (still down - but now stable at -1). The cleric (with some hints) drags him into safety away from the sea cat to pour a potion of cure moderate into him (luckily they got 4 of these in act 1).
The monk fights now on his own with the sea cat which slowly follows him. He insists on full attacks and 5 foot steps back - fine.
In the meantime two of the guards shoot an arrow each turn - not doing much - but wittling some HP down here and there - after all - everyone should feel part of the fight. Oh - and I completely forget that the Cause Fear has expired. Well - the group struggles enough - so no harm.
A round of bad dice rolling for the sea cat gives the group a needed break. They also finally figure out that moving away >10 feet allows to stay out of reach. Doesn't prevent one more attack when the sorcerer/fighter once again isn't moving - but once they manage after an epic struggle to get the sea cat down, there is no resistance from the guards. They get one down immidiately and the rest surrenders (it really only would have been a slaughter).
So 3 Cure Moderate potions, 2 Cure Moderate spells, 1 Cure Light hex and several charges of Cure light from wands - and most importantly 3 channel energy with one 11 and one 12 rolled on 2d6 - and the group still looks in decent shape - albeit it burned through a lot of spells.
The group had a lot of fun, luckily Pathfinder makes characters tougher compared to 3.5 - other vice it would have been fatal - and the group is overpowered in regard of healing resources (1 cleric, 1 witch, lots of potions in the scenario as well as carried and 3 wands of cure light spread over 4 characters).
Looking forward - it is good to know that the 3 Act is supposed to be in shallow water - and having to characters with elven blood will halp against the Lacendons. And maybe the group surprises me and all the rest works out a breeze.
And finally three characters have Mage Armour up (Witch, Monk, Sorcerer/Fighter) which should last long enough.
|
|
Hello all.
I am going to run this scenario this evening and I have a few questions about converting Katiya to a PF wizard.
Stats
Her stats seem a bit off. If my calculations are correct, then her point buy is 9 pts.
Str 10 (0)
Dex 11 (1)
Con 12 (2)
Int 14 (2) [12 +2 racial]
Wis 11 (1)
Cha 13 (3)
Should I use a 15 or 20 point buy?
Here are my stats for a 15 point buy:
Str 10 (0)
Dex 12 (2)
Con 12 (2)
Int 17 (7) [15 +2 racial]
Wis 11 (1)
Cha 13 (3)
And a 20 point buy:
Str 10 (0)
Dex 12 (2)
Con 12 (3)
Int 18 (10) [15 +2 racial]
Wis 12 (2)
Cha 13 (3)
I kept the original stats and just bumped up Int and a few other scores.
Spells
Also, what about spells. She should have 3 prepared, since she is an Illusionist. I fear that Color Spray might be too good. It is an enclosed space, so there is a good chance that she could take out the entire party (They are 1st and 2nd level).
I was thinking Magic Missile, Silent Image, and Grease.
Feats
Spell Focus (Illusion) [instead of Scribe Scroll]
Toughness (original feat)
Combat Casting
Let me know what you think. I grepped for Katiya, but I didn't find a conversion on the boards.
|
|
*casts animate thread*
So, I'm a bit confused about the chronicle. There's some rewards that come from the Andoran and Chelaxian embassies. Do these rewards only pertain to PCs of those factions? Or are these rewards for everyone? The text is maddeningly vague, but my nearest interpretation might be for the former, as it mentions that these rewards are for "for saving their home countries."
|
|
It's not on the Chronicle sheet, it's in the mod. Relevant section in spoilers (not that that's probably necessary, as this mod is five years old or so, but better safe than sorry):
By defeating the Hydra’s Fang and providing positive evidence
of Du Moire’s defeat, the Pathfinders receive the rewards
and blessings of the Chelish and Andoren embassies for
saving their home countries from entering into what was
sure to be a bloody war. Regardless of their public display,
the two countries remain at brutal odds. Not that any such
politicking matters much to the Pathfinder Society, which
is only pleased if its field operatives succeed in getting the
tablets. If something goes awry, such as the ship sinking
or Du Moire managing to escape, the Pathfinders are
expected to personally recover the tablets, even if it means
swimming to the bottom of the harbor. Of course, with all
the commotion surrounding the Hydra’s Fang incident, the
recovery must be delayed until a later date.
|
|
It's not on the Chronicle sheet, it's in the mod. Relevant section in spoilers (not that that's probably necessary, as this mod is five years old or so, but better safe than sorry):
** spoiler omitted **
Ah, well you are reading it as Pathfinder's home countries, I certain it means the embassies home countries.