Thanks - I'm not sure why that other link didn't work...I chose this particular scenario because I was looking for a mod to run which could showcase the new Dwarven Forge set Return of the Ancients - it went over very well!
(Pics here: http://www.dwarvenforge.com/dwarvenforums/viewtopic.php?id=3626
Freakin' awesome. I blew up the maps to 1"=5' scale and yours are still WAY better.
(fixed the link; I think the first address you listed was wrong, but I saw it posted in another forum so I switched the address too)
Thanks for the pics! Really brings the setting to life.
|
I'm running this scenario on friday, and I'm still unsure about how to convert it from 3.5 to Pathfinder. I know I've seen the general guidelines for conveting season 0 scenarios somewhere, but I just can't find it anywhere. What do I do about the encounters in this scenario?
Do I run the Zombies, Shadow, Scorpions and Snake as they are written in the PF Bestiary, or as they are written in the 3.5 Monster Manual? They are all a bit tougher in the bestiary, but so are the Pathfinder PCs, compared to 3.5.
If I run the monsters in their 3.5 version, do I convert abilities such as Poison and Incorporeality to their Pathfinder versions, or do they stay the 3.5 way?
|
I'm running this scenario on friday, and I'm still unsure about how to convert it from 3.5 to Pathfinder. I know I've seen the general guidelines for conveting season 0 scenarios somewhere, but I just can't find it anywhere. What do I do about the encounters in this scenario?
Do I run the Zombies, Shadow, Scorpions and Snake as they are written in the PF Bestiary, or as they are written in the 3.5 Monster Manual? They are all a bit tougher in the bestiary, but so are the Pathfinder PCs, compared to 3.5.
If I run the monsters in their 3.5 version, do I convert abilities such as Poison and Incorporeality to their Pathfinder versions, or do they stay the 3.5 way?
I've run this scenario a lot, so here's what I recommend. For the undead, run the zombies as the 3.5 version. Run the shadow out of the Bestiary with the PRPG rules for incorporeals.
The scorpions are the trickiest. I used the giant template plus gave them 2 racial HD. That only made them CR5, but it's as close to the 3.5 stats for huge scorpions you'll get. Then you have to do another stat block for the Shadow Conjured scorpions, both large and huge. If you don't have the time, just use the 3.5 rules and give them 1-2 strength damage a round on a failed save, 1 successful save ends.
Same goes for the snake. I use the Monster Advancer from the d20PFSRD located here, but you'll need to look it over since it doesn't advance everything quite right. On the scorpions you'll need to adjust the constriction damage and poison DC.
Players seem to enjoy the scenario even though as a GM I get annoyed with the way the tests are inconsequential so long as you kill the monsters. The scorpion encounter is very deadly for 1st level PCs, so be sure to give them every chance they can get to catch a break.
|
|
I didn't have this saved, I just printed it and carried it with my copy of the scenario. Keep in mind that Josh does not advocate advancing monsters like this, and he would be happier if we all would just use the 3.5 SRD stat blocks. :)
Act 5
3 giant scorpions; 1 real and 2 shadow conjurations. At the end of the round shuffle the real scorpion among the false ones (but track the damage on each of them). The text says the illusionary scorpions are like the shadow conjuration spell, but a DC 14 Will save negates any damage when the false scorpion lands a hit. Shadow conjuration damage is only 20% of real damage, so for the large scorpions we're talking 1d2 damage a hit. Large Shadow conjuration scorpions only have 7HP and should "pop" quickly if the players are lucky. If they aren't, and they can't make a DC 14 Will save, they will be scared out of their wits as the giant scorpions claw/claw/[grab+constrict]/sting the snot out of them. This fight is what makes this whole scenario interesting to me.
Tier 1-2 shadow conjuration stats are identical except for all attacks only do 1d2 damage if the DC 14 Will save is made. The illusions are semi-solid so they may still grapple and constrict when they hit with a claw despite the Will save. Tier 1-2 shadow conjuration scorpions can only absorb 7HP of damage before they disperse. The scenario text says no poison damage if the Will save is made. Bah! 20% chance the shadowstuff poison works seems fair game to me.
Tier 1-2
Giant Scorpion CR 3
N Large vermin
Init +0; Senses darkvision 60 ft., tremorsense 60 ft.; Perception +4
DEFENSE
AC 16, touch 9, flat-footed 16 (+7 armor, -1 size)
hp 37 (5d8+15)
Fort +7, Ref +1, Will +1;
Immune mind-affecting effects;
OFFENSE
Speed 50 ft.
Melee 2 claws +6 (1d6+4 plus grab), sting +6 (1d6+4 plus poison)
Space 10 ft. Reach 10 ft.
Special Attacks constrict (1d6+4)
STATISTICS
Str 19, Dex 10, Con 16, Int -, Wis 10, Cha 2;
Base Atk +3; CMB +8 (+12 grapple); CMD 18 (30 vs. trip)
Skills Climb +8, Perception +4, Stealth +0; Racial Modifiers +4 Climb, +4 Perception, +4 Stealth
SPECIAL ABILITIES
Poison (Ex) Sting-injury; save Fort DC 17; frequency 1/round for 6 rounds; effect 1d2 Strength damage; cure 1 save. The save DC is Constitutuion-based and includes a +2 racial bonus.
Tier 1-2 shadow conjuration stats are identical except for all attacks only do 1d2+1 damage if the DC 14 Will save is made. The illusions are semi-solid so they may still grapple and constrict when they hit with a claw despite the Will save. Tier 1-2 shadow conjuration scorpions can only absorb 15HP of damage before they disperse. The scenario text says no poison damage if the Will save is made.
Tier 4-5
Deadfall Scorpion CR 5
N Huge vermin
Init -1; Senses darkvision 60 ft., tremorsense 60 ft.; Perception +4
DEFENSE
AC 18, touch 7, flat-footed 19 (+7 armor, -2 size, +4 natural, -1 Dex)
hp 76 (7d8+45)
Fort +9, Ref +0, Will +1;
Immune mind-affecting effects;
OFFENSE
Speed 50 ft.
Melee 2 claws +10 (1d8+8 plus grab), sting +10 (1d8+8 plus poison)
Space 15 ft.Reach 15 ft.
Special Attacks constrict (1d6+4)
STATISTICS
Str 27, Dex 8, Con 20, Int -, Wis 10, Cha 2;
Base Atk 4; CMB 12; CMD 21
Skills Climb +10, Perception +4, Stealth -5; Racial Modifiers +4 Climb, +4 Perception, +4 Stealth
SPECIAL ABILITIES
Poison (Ex) Sting-injury; save Fort DC 17; frequency 1/round for 6 rounds; effect 1d2 Strength damage; cure 1 save. The save DC is Constitutuion-based and includes a +2 racial bonus.
Act 6
Tier 1-2
Garundi Monarch Cobra CR2
N Large animal
Init +4; Senses low-light vision, scent; Perception +9
DEFENSE
AC 14, touch 9, flat-footed 4 (+0 Dex, +5 natural, -1 size)
hp 17 (2d8+8)
Fort +7, Ref +3, Will +1;
OFFENSE
Speed 20 ft., climb 20 ft., swim 20 ft.
Melee bite +5 (1d6+3 plus poison)
Space 10 ft. Reach 10 ft.
STATISTICS
Str 16, Dex 11, Con 18, Int 1, Wis 13, Cha 2;
Base Atk +1; CMB 3; CMD 13
Feats Improved Initiative, Weapon Finesse (Bite)
Skills Acrobatics +8, Climb +11, Perception +9, Stealth +4, Swim +11; Racial Modifiers +4 Perception, +4 Stealth, +8 Acrobatics; modifies Climb and Swim with Dexterity
SPECIAL ABILITIES
Poison (Ex) Bite-injury; save Fort DC 15; frequency 1/round for 6 rounds; effect 1d2 Con; cure 1 save.
Tier 4-5
Giant Stele Serpent CR 4
N Huge animal
Init +3; Senses low-light vision, scent; Perception +9
DEFENSE
AC 16, touch 7, flat-footed 7 (-1 Dex, +9 natural, -2 size)
hp 36 (3d8+23)
Fort +9, Ref +2, Will +1;
OFFENSE
Speed 20 ft., climb 20 ft., swim 20 ft.
Melee bite +9 (1d8+7 plus poison)
Space 15 ft.Reach 15 ft.
STATISTICS
Str 24, Dex 9, Con 22, Int 1, Wis 13, Cha 2;
Base Atk 2; CMB 7; CMD 16
Feats Improved Initiative, Weapon Finesse (Bite)
Skills Acrobatics +7, Climb +13, Perception +9, Stealth -1, Swim +13; Racial Modifiers +4 Perception, +4 Stealth, +8 Acrobatics; modifies Climb and Swim with Dexterity
SPECIAL ABILITIES
Poison (Ex) Bite-injury; save Fort DC 17; frequency 1/round for 6 rounds; effect 1d2 Con; cure 1 save.
|
|
Keep in mind that Josh does not advocate advancing monsters like this, and he would be happier if we all would just use the 3.5 SRD stat blocks. :)
Hmm. I'm picking Josh up in the airport in a few hours, and he's probably going to play in this scenario, or at least sit in on some of it. How should I run the monsters, and abilities like poison and incorporeality if I want to do it the Josh way?
And thanks a lot for the numbers, I so rarely convert that it's still heavy work for me.
|
|
Keep in mind that Josh does not advocate advancing monsters like this, and he would be happier if we all would just use the 3.5 SRD stat blocks. :)Hmm. I'm picking Josh up in the airport in a few hours, and he's probably going to play in this scenario, or at least sit in on some of it. How should I run the monsters, and abilities like poison and incorporeality if I want to do it the Josh way?
And thanks a lot for the numbers, I so rarely convert that it's still heavy work for me.
Two mistakes I saw. The Deadfall Scorpion's constrict damage should be 1d8+8 and its poison DC should be 18. The conversion program didn't adjust the special abilities.
The simplest, most non-contraversial way to run the Season One scenarios is to simply use the 3.5 SRD monster stat blocks. All you will need to do is compute the CMB/CMD and adjust stuff like poison to small doses over a period of rounds, like 1d2 Str per round with a single DC 17 Fort save to end the effect (large scorpion).
I get dissatisfied with the 3.5 monsters because Pathfinder RPG characters are much more powerful than their 3.5 counterparts. A 3.5 monster is balanced against a 3.5 character, but will be less challenging for a PRPG character since PRPG characters have more hit points, special abilities and faster feat progression.
Some players enjoy beating the snot out of monsters and don't like to be challenged. Some players are thrilled when a monster almost kills them in an epic fight. You rarely know who is going to sit down at your table unless you play with the same circle of friends. Most players will agree that they want a level playing field in the game, and that GMs should not be adjusting encounters without their consent. If someone's character is killed in this situation, they may read the scenario afterward and feel the GM ran the encounter incorrectly which leads to resentment. There was a thread about two months ago by a player who felt this way about his GM. What I am trying to explain is that converting 3.5 monsters to the PRPG rules is a judgment call on your part. You will be the one feeling responsible if you end up with a PC death or deaths at your table, and you will probably hope the dice did it and not you. But on the other hand, if your players crush the monsters and don't get a scratch on them in the process it can be just as discouraging.
|
|
If someone's character is killed in this situation, they may read the scenario afterward and feel the GM ran the encounter incorrectly which leads to resentment. There was a thread about two months ago by a player who felt this way about his GM....
I think this is the link to the thread Doug Doug mentioned. It's good to read it before running 3rd riddle!
|
|
If someone's character is killed in this situation, they may read the scenario afterward and feel the GM ran the encounter incorrectly which leads to resentment. There was a thread about two months ago by a player who felt this way about his GM....I think this is the link to the thread Doug Doug mentioned. It's good to read it before running 3rd riddle!
That's a good one, but I was referring to this one. The player's wizard with a 11 Con got critted and went from full to dead in one hit. He went back and saw the GM used a PRPG converted monster in the encounter instead of the 3.5 version. The player called the GM a cheater and probably hasn't returned to the campaign as a result of the aftermath of that disagreement.
Venture-Captain, Arizona—Tucson
|
I always try to feel out my players before a game, explaining that I'd like to modify the encounters to account for the changes between 3.5 and Pathfinder. I'll mention if I think the party is likely to demolish the encounters without breaking a sweat. If anyone at the table is the least bit uncomfortable with the idea, I'll run the adventure as written. (Be careful: Players can sometimes feel pressured into choices with which they're uncomfortable. Few people are comfortable saying that they'd prefer a "cakewalk". Be alert to potential unspoken concerns!)
Before the game, I'll also ask the players' permission to water things down a bit if I fear an encounter will maul them. Sometimes a short table or poor character mix leaves the party ill-equipped for something normally suited for their level. Other times, a player doesn't show up, leaving the party much weaker than they planned (e.g.: A Tier 5/6 adventure was planned, but the PCs that show up only average 3rd and 4th level).
Modifying adventures this way is not recommended, as it's easy to call it wrong. To be fair, treasure should also be reduced, something players may not desire.
|
I hate to say this, but I sure understand retiring this mod.
My character is Osirian so I was really looking forward to some “home” adventures. This is a true killer though.
Act 1
Act 2
Ghost was a nice touch, ancient osirion also a nice touch but not helpful, since it might as well have been common.
We only got to open the door to the library, so can’t say much about anything else.
I had much more prepped about act 2 but now that I've read this thread I see that the scorpions weren't right. I assume the mod was run as written and not with the changes here.
Thanks Doug Doug, your explanation of the scorpions would have made this much more fun.
|
|
The Third Riddle is a complex scenario to run and I sympathize with any GM running it for the first time. I've GMed it eight times and I have learned a lot through making mistakes. The scorpion encounter is hard but it's what makes the whole adventure memorable. The fight with the horsemen is supposed to be on the move, with the horsemen keeping pace with the wagons. Unless your party got out of the wagons and fought on foot, the horses shouldn't have been making full attacks. The scenario specifies that half the horsemen move into melee and half of them keep back and fire their bows. Has any GM gotten it perfect the first time through? Not likely. Perhaps your GM even figured that your party was tough enough to handle the encounter and went for the throat. Hopefully you did have some fun.
|
|
Thanks Doug Doug, I sympathize with our DM, just figured this showed the wisdom of retiring this one.
And lol some of our PCs didn't want the mounted combat, so yes we did stop. Fortunately with time to "circle the wagons". That worked to our advantage and was a ton O fun in a wild west kind of way.
Almost all of us stayed with the cover. Those that didn't ... were very glad we had a cleric and we all learned what a scalping (coup de gras) could have been! :-0
|
Venture-Captain, Arizona—Tucson
|
I wish this one weren't being retired: My players have enjoyed it every time I've run it, from the opening "Stagecoach"-style chase scene to the rest of the "Indiana Jones" trappings. The scenario does need work to smoothly convert it to Pathfinder rules, but I've always found it paid off well.