Developer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had forgotten about those letters in the "Faction Talk" forums. Thanks for reminding me!Look at the full letters posted in the "Faction Talk" forums. The emails we were sent included a link to there. Zarta's letter includes the following tidbits:
Once we know the weaknesses of each side, I can pull strings to ensure that the conflict lasts long enough for us to accomplish what we must.In the meantime, learn what you can about the crusaders’ foibles and their fortifications’ flaws. Our plans cannot come to fruition without that.I actually printed out the letters from the three faction heads and gave them to the players before the game.
Yep, and remember that some factions' goals might evolve over the course of the season. The goals listed in the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play are broad goals that do their best to describe the extended goals over the whole season, but as we can now see, a few factions started the season with one belief or intention and must quickly learn to cope with another.
For once, it seems, the faction heads are not omniscient.
|
As a player of this at GenCon, I have to say that Sir I's self-conflict was not at all evident, at least as portrayed by our GM. After he ordered us to abandon the peasants, even after we saw two killed by the vermleks, I scored extremely high on a Sense Motive check and got nothing except, "He thinks the overall mission is more important."
At that point, yeah, we all assumed he was either just a nasty, evil person, or just a total dick-weed. When he refused to come with us to rescue the torture survivors, my (Andoran) PC ripped into him hard. When he relented, "just so I can laugh as you're torn limb from limb," we were just like, "Yeah, whatever."
When he turned on us, it wasn't shocking, because we expected it ... but we just figured he was a hiding-in-plain-sight (and not very well) BBEG. When the GM explained why Sir I was so messed up, we just had no investment in understanding the guy or caring about him, because we never really got a chance to get beyond "huge dick."
I think this one could be great, but it's really gonna take a delicate GM-touch to walk the line between "WTF?" and sympathy.
|
Can I ask why this mod was the Cheliax mod? Being that priests of Asmodeus unless given foreword to cast undetectable alignment are basically disqualified from being able to complete this mission?
Well, there is the possibility of a diplomacy check to allow someone of evil aura in, though difficult unless there's someone in the group specialized in it.
In all fairness though, anyone walking around with an evil aura should probably be extremely proactive in knowing where they are headed and carry around a potion/scroll of undetectable alignment with them everywhere. I know of one chaotically aligned Hellknight (via the faction boon) who refuses to stand before another Hellknight without having it cast.
|
|
Can I ask why this mod was the Cheliax mod? Being that priests of Asmodeus unless given foreword to cast undetectable alignment are basically disqualified from being able to complete this mission?Well, there is the possibility of a diplomacy check to allow someone of evil aura in, though difficult unless there's someone in the group specialized in it.
In all fairness though, anyone walking around with an evil aura should probably be extremely proactive in knowing where they are headed and carry around a potion/scroll of undetectable alignment with them everywhere. I know of one chaotically aligned Hellknight (via the faction boon) who refuses to stand before another Hellknight without having it cast.
I think it's the responsibility of the player not to break everyone's verisimilitude by claiming their chaotic character is a Hellknight, despite the lack of mechanics forcing this, in the same way that my illiterate barbarian would not have Profession: Scribe as a dayjob despite the lack of mechanics forcing this.
Well, I suspect that the PCs will be in a tough spot, as Sir I is distracting/holding off the small demon horde that is rushing towards the PCs.
Edit: He hasn't done anything illegal or wrong really, as he won't have attacked the PCs, so I suspect that he will keep leading patrols until he get's killed.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
My only concern is whether or not my players will be able to keep track of all of these different goals over time.
Let's say that next week, a new 7-11 is sent out, and the Andoran faction is "Get evidence to put Aspis Joe in jail!" Let's further say that Player A's highest level character is a level 3 when this 7-11 is out. By the time he's able to play the 7-11, if the faction goal has changed entirely, how is Player A supposed to know what the goal was at the time of scenario release? What if Player A wasn't even a part of the campaign then, and is coming into the campaign a year from now?
|
|
Can I ask why this mod was the Cheliax mod? Being that priests of Asmodeus unless given foreword to cast undetectable alignment are basically disqualified from being able to complete this mission?
You can make a diplomacy check or bluff check to convince them to let you in. You can also ask other players to maybe take notes on things for you.
|
Can I ask why this mod was the Cheliax mod? Being that priests of Asmodeus unless given foreword to cast undetectable alignment are basically disqualified from being able to complete this mission?You can make a diplomacy check or bluff check to convince them to let you in. You can also ask other players to maybe take notes on things for you.
If this had happened in my game, I probably would have let the player in question make the necessary checks from outside, or ask questions of the soldiers stationed outside.
|
|
Anyone figure out how to wield the commoners as shields in the first fight? The best I have done is to keep a commoner in front of me during the first few rounds, but that doesn't quite match up with the tactics.
Also, anyone try to summon the dretches? Both times I have GMed it I have had half the party not feel threatened by the mass inflict wounds tactic. I am thinking of using the dretches to put pressure on the laggers across the water. I just don't want to roll a 4 and have it tpk.
|
|
eh, a bit to reply, but anyway. As our gm had said to us. Its a huge diplomacy with a very large negative modifier due to the cleric radiating evil, and whenever he asked questions, he was told the guards take up arms and will attack if you continue to ask questions.
All in all, a horrible mod from the player perspective at Gen Con. Maybe it's different but the chelixians at the table were hosed at that point.
|
|
Anyone figure out how to wield the commoners as shields in the first fight? The best I have done is to keep a commoner in front of me during the first few rounds, but that doesn't quite match up with the tactics.
Also, anyone try to summon the dretches? Both times I have GMed it I have had half the party not feel threatened by the mass inflict wounds tactic. I am thinking of using the dretches to put pressure on the laggers across the water. I just don't want to roll a 4 and have it tpk.
Both times so far the party has thrown an entangle on all the guys, so the commoners couldn't move out. (I admit, the first time, that was totally my fault since I got all entangle-happy.) I've never seen the commoners do anything. I forgot about the summon ability and will probably have them try it when I run it again on Tuesday. Here's hoping!
The trick with the mass inflict light wounds tactic is to target 2 PCs and the vermlek (or 3 vermleks!) so that they do damage and heal. It's not insignificant damage at low levels.
|
|
Minor question for this scenario.
At high tier the swarm does 1D6 Dex, 2 consecutive saves to overcome.
1D6 what? Is it Damage, Drain, Bonus? The creature writeup doesn't say in the book or on the PRD. I'd expect it to be damage but the other power the swarm has requires the target to be helpless before it works and Ability Damage can never make a target helpless (immobile but not helpless).
|
|
Minor question for this scenario.
At high tier the swarm does 1D6 Dex, 2 consecutive saves to overcome.1D6 what? Is it Damage, Drain, Bonus? The creature writeup doesn't say in the book or on the PRD. I'd expect it to be damage but the other power the swarm has requires the target to be helpless before it works and Ability Damage can never make a target helpless (immobile but not helpless).
Poisons almost always do damage, not drain. Take a look at Core Rulebook, p. 560: when a poison does drain it is called out specifically.
|
|
Poisons almost always do damage, not drain. Take a look at Core Rulebook, p. 560: when a poison does drain it is called out specifically.Minor question for this scenario.
At high tier the swarm does 1D6 Dex, 2 consecutive saves to overcome.1D6 what? Is it Damage, Drain, Bonus? The creature writeup doesn't say in the book or on the PRD. I'd expect it to be damage but the other power the swarm has requires the target to be helpless before it works and Ability Damage can never make a target helpless (immobile but not helpless).
Lots of poisons do damage, several do drain and these are all called out in the stat block. THIS poison doesn't say one way or the other which is why we asked.
I could ASSUME one of the too options but I'd prefer to simply ask what was intended since I long since learned to never make assumptions on what someone else intends. That way leads to sitcom situations.|
|
I don't think you need a ruling from Mike on this, Mathwei ap Niall. Just take a look at the Core Rulebook page I mentioned above. Ability drain by poisons is not listed as XdX Cha, but simply as X Cha (i.e. it is only ever a single point per failed save). Ability damage is shown as XdX, unless it is extremely weak poison (i.e. low cost) that only does 1 point of ability damage. This convention can be found throughout the Bestiaries as well.
|
|
where does it say this?
The reason I ask is this type os guestimation is what causes trouble on other rules.
It doesn't say "when a poison lists ability loss as its consequence, this ability loss is always in the form of ability damage, unless it is specifically listed as ability drain". It also doesn't say in the Core Rules: "Whenever damage for a weapon is listed it is always lethal damage unless it is specified that the weapon causes nonlethal damage." It simply lists weapons that deal nonlethal damage as having the "nonlethal" special ability.
|
|
I'm curious as to how many groups interact with Sir Ilivan. When I played it at GenCon, other people at the table were very interested in finding out about Sir Ilivan and the GM got to introduce us to his story. The two times I ran it, the party seemed not interested in his story, with one group even saying "Look. We won't ask you about your past. Let's just pick up and move on." after the Worldwound pollen encounter. I'm curious if this is normal for most groups or if they really focus on interacting with Sir Ilivan. Also does anyone have any tips for trying to get PCs interact with Sir Ilivan?
Also, I feel like the knowledge check in the beginning about Sir Ilivan gives away too much. The 10+ to 20+ is okay, but 25+ gives away too much. That info really should be given out as the players find out about Sir Ilivan.
On the plus side, I'm really liking the vermlek encounter. It's a tough encounter without being frustrating. Also it's great to see the looks on people's faces when they recognize the monster from
I will say that 4 prepared casters is a little hard to run. In order to make it easier, I ended up making a grid to keep track of who had cast what. It's available on the Shared Prep Drive under Wardstone Patrol Notes.pdf.
If at all possible, try to run this at subtier 6-7. It's much better that way. Not only is the chronicle sheet got awesome stuff on it, but the enemies are cooler.
|
|
All three of my tables have made the diplomacy checks so far. 2 of those though would not interact with him for the first check. It was only after I continued to role-play Sir Ilivan that they came around to at least role playing back.
The first encounter is a blast. Killed my first player with mass inflict light wounds last night. Poor lvl 4 rouge failed 4 will saves and dropped to -11, failed the stabilize check, went to -12 and died. That table seemed to underestimate the verleks and the whole party came into range, which was exactly what I was waiting for.
I agree that the vermleks @ 6-7 can use some tracking. Thanks for the tracker.
|
|
I'm curious as to how many groups interact with Sir Ilivan. When I played it at GenCon, other people at the table were very interested in finding out about Sir Ilivan and the GM got to introduce us to his story. The two times I ran it, the party seemed not interested in his story, with one group even saying "Look. We won't ask you about your past. Let's just pick up and move on." after the Worldwound pollen encounter. I'm curious if this is normal for most groups or if they really focus on interacting with Sir Ilivan. Also does anyone have any tips for trying to get PCs interact with Sir Ilivan?
Also, I feel like the knowledge check in the beginning about Sir Ilivan gives away too much. The 10+ to 20+ is okay, but 25+ gives away too much. That info really should be given out as the players find out about Sir Ilivan.
On the plus side, I'm really liking the vermlek encounter. It's a tough encounter without being frustrating. Also it's great to see the looks on people's faces when they recognize the monster from
** spoiler omitted **
I will say that 4 prepared casters is a little hard to run. In order to make it easier, I ended up making a grid to keep track of who had cast what. It's available on the Shared Prep Drive under Wardstone Patrol Notes.pdf.If at all possible, try to run this at subtier 6-7. It's much better that way. Not only is the chronicle sheet got awesome stuff on it, but the enemies are cooler.
The Vermlek encounter is by far the most interesting encounter in this scenario but it's far easier to run if you stop thinking of them as prepared spellcasters. I'll spoiler it for those who don't want to know the tactics to make it easy.
Each round should actually go like this:
Vermlek 1: Evil eye-Saves first target, don't care if they make their save the still take a -2 to all saves. Cackle
Vermlek 2: Evil eye-Saves first target, don't care if they make their save they take an ADDITIONAL -2 to their saves for a total -4 saves.Cackle
Vermlek 3: Ill Omen above target, No save.
Vermlek 4: Cast Hold Person above target. Telepathically order commoner to go coup de-grace the now held target
The target should now have to make 2 DC 15 will saves with a -4 to their roll and take the lower die roll. Each round you have an extremely high chance of taking a target out of the fight.
The next round move number 1 to the bottom of the list and move the rest up 1 place. Rinse and repeat.
That way you get to do this trick 4 times per fight while still leaving 2 PC's functional but occupied with the commoners.
Witches are full casters but the spells are secondary. The hexes are the key to playing these guys well.
And before any says anything about evil eye not stacking read this.
Stacking: Stacking refers to the act of adding together bonuses or penalties that apply to one particular check or statistic. Generally speaking, most bonuses of the same type do not stack. Instead, only the highest bonus applies. Most penalties do stack, meaning that their values are added together. Penalties and bonuses generally stack with one another, meaning that the penalties might negate or exceed part or all of the bonuses, and vice versa. [/b]
I'm fully expecting this to be one of my favorite fights of all in season 5. Though the final encounter for #5-03 has me drooling with anticipation.
|
|
Yes...you could do that but I avoid pulling out the coupe de gras when not called for in the tactics. I saw that tactic the first time I looked at the ill omen / hold person combo. I have not used it yet and probably won't. Plenty of other tactics on the board that don't turn the entire table of PCs against you.
|
|
It doesn't say "when a poison lists ability loss as its consequence, this ability loss is always in the form of ability damage, unless it is specifically listed as ability drain". It also doesn't say in the Core Rules: "Whenever damage for a weapon is listed it is always lethal damage unless it is specified that the weapon causes nonlethal damage." It simply lists weapons that deal nonlethal damage as having the "nonlethal" special ability.where does it say this?
The reason I ask is this type os guestimation is what causes trouble on other rules.
That's really not a very good argument. The core entry for weapons does state that "All weapons deal hit point damage" as the very first statement when it talks about weapons. There is no such statement when it comes to poisons. As a matter of fact there is nothing in the entry for poisons (especially this poison) that states it only does ability damage/drain.
For instance there's the Sassone leaf residue which does 2D12 Hit point Damage.Since this entry doesn't state one way or another what type of damage it does and there are no set rules for what poisons do as default this question has to be asked.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
I'm curious as to how many groups interact with Sir Ilivan. When I played it at GenCon, other people at the table were very interested in finding out about Sir Ilivan and the GM got to introduce us to his story. The two times I ran it, the party seemed not interested in his story, with one group even saying "Look. We won't ask you about your past. Let's just pick up and move on." after the Worldwound pollen encounter. I'm curious if this is normal for most groups or if they really focus on interacting with Sir Ilivan. Also does anyone have any tips for trying to get PCs interact with Sir Ilivan?
I've ran this 3 times now - twice at GenCon, once locally. Each group interacted with him a little bit.
One thing that I did was to emphasize in the mission briefing that the Society expected the PCs to cooperate with Ilivan. I also had Ilivan asking the PCs about their past missions - sharing old war stories is a great way to bond.
Two of my three groups were successful. One of the successful groups was a bit sour, talking about tropes, plot deaths, etc. The other successful group really got into it, with a paladin even risking his life to save one of Sir Ilivan's fingers so that resurrection could be cast.
Then there was the group with the bad ending.
Unfortunately, the party composition doomed them from the start. One of the PCs had a Shard of Greed from the Shattered Star AP, and interpreted it to mean that she had to act abrasively throughout the entire thing. A second PC was a Chelish noblewoman who rode a sedan chair to the mission briefing and brought her porter along. A third PC was playing a character who appeared to have some sort of mental disorder. The three of them made it their life's mission to antagonize Ilivan throughout the scenario, with he noblewoman going so far as to make fun of the fact that he killed his comrades when they were talking to the soldiers at Fort Portolomaeus.
Bizarrely enough, even though this was the best justification for the bad ending, the party got really, really mad at me when I failed them. Never had a table turn on me like that before.
|
|
It doesn't say "when a poison lists ability loss as its consequence, this ability loss is always in the form of ability damage, unless it is specifically listed as ability drain". It also doesn't say in the Core Rules: "Whenever damage for a weapon is listed it is always lethal damage unless it is specified that the weapon causes nonlethal damage." It simply lists weapons that deal nonlethal damage as having the "nonlethal" special ability.where does it say this?
The reason I ask is this type os guestimation is what causes trouble on other rules.
That's really not a very good argument. The core entry for weapons does state that "All weapons deal hit point damage" as the very first statement when it talks about weapons. There is no such statement when it comes to poisons. As a matter of fact there is nothing in the entry for poisons (especially this poison) that states it only does ability damage/drain.
For instance there's the Sassone leaf residue which does 2D12 Hit point Damage.
Since this entry doesn't state one way or another what type of damage it does and there are no set rules for what poisons do as default this question has to be asked.
Just let it be. It is an obvious typo in the prd. Concidering how difficult that creature is and the fact that it does 1d6 Dex, it should be damage. Just take Alex's word on it, he wrote the scenario.
|
|
A "how to guide" for using coup-de-gras.What's your reasoning for doing this?
Reasoning? Why because they are witches and that's how witches work in combat. Debuff the crap out of a target and then use your save or suck abilities.
The tactics do specify that they are to:The vermleks telepathically command the two armed humans to attack the PCs. The disguised vermleks then use their spells and spell-like abilities to cripple and harry the PCs. A vermlek uses evil eye on any PC who approaches within 30 feet.
If it wasn't what they wanted to happen then why would the only tools they gave us to use are evil eye, ill omen, hold person and a scythe? (not to mention scythe wielding minions)
What else are they supposed to do, throw flaming spheres around the battlefield and hope the 11 points of single target damage a round does something before they get curb stomped?Now admittedly I plan to make the minion move 10 feet before starting the CDG so it doesn't complete until the following round. This gives em one extra chance to save AND lets their party come to their rescue as well. It is a team game after all.
After the first 2 rounds it becomes significantly less effective but it keeps the pressure on the party to see what's happening.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I think if the developers wanted you to be able to CDG characters in this combat there would be two things in this scenario:
1 - The obvious hex to use with CDG (sleep)
2 - A statement in the tactics instructing you to go for this move.
This scenario is a great scenario with a lot of fun interactions and combats. If you start doing something like this (something that players universally despise when it is used against them) you will invite criticism that is unwarranted.
Considering how much direct impact players' opinions have on scenarios and how they are perceived, there is no reason to use this tactic and over-inflate the danger level for PCs. Even The Great and Feared Kyle Baird has made the following statement: Just because you see the perfect path to easily killing PCs written into a stat block does not mean you need to walk it.
|
|
Also, Evil Eye doesn't stack penalties like that.
Witch, Evil Eye Hex: Can I use this hex more than once on a target?
You might want to read that again, it states YOU can't affect the same ability with multiple uses of evil eye. If you have 4 separate witches using evil eye then you fall under the rules I quoted above. If all 4 of them wanted to hit you with evil eye that round you could have a -8 to any of the evil eye choices.
@Drogon, Is this tactic capable of killing a character each round? Absolutely. Will it ? Almost certainly not.
Remember only the first save against hold person is likely to take, after that then the target gets an additional save before the CDG completes at which point the ill omen has worn off, and probably one of the evil eye's as well. Leaving them to make a DC 15 fort save with a -2 at 8th level in a fighter type most likely. AND this only has a chance of being required if the party decides to ignore this characters plight.
Overall it's a scare tactic with an intentionally slight chance of success and the added benefit of pushing the PC's to work together.
A bit metagamey but GM's need to be meta-gamey to keep the overall experience alive.
|
|
Given that magic, by default, does not stack with itself, I don't see why multiple witches would be any different than one witch.
Now, you can argue that because it's a Su it doesn't have to obey the standard magic rules, but I don't expect many people to agree with you.
Edit: Also, that FAQ calls out that it should follow the standard stacking rules. Which means multiple hexes from multiple witches overlap, not stack.
Here, I'll quote it for you again.
Stacking: Stacking refers to the act of adding together bonuses or penalties that apply to one particular check or statistic. Generally speaking, most bonuses of the same type do not stack. Instead, only the highest bonus applies. Most penalties do stack, meaning that their values are added together. Penalties and bonuses generally stack with one another, meaning that the penalties might negate or exceed part or all of the bonuses, and vice versa.
BUFFS overlap so you can't stack them. Penalties however SPECIFICALLY state they do stack with each other. Evil eye is a penalty and stacks with other penalties, including other evil eyes.
|
|
Thanks for being condescending. It makes me feel appreciated. From what you quoted, SKR's note about "this doesn't violate penalty stacking rules" would be completely redundant, since you're saying means that their IS no way to violate those rules. HOWEVER, he then goes on to say it works like Bestow Curse, which means it falls under a different set of stacking rules. Let me quote those for you.
Stacking Effects: Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves. More generally, two bonuses of the same type don't stack even if they come from different spells (or from effects other than spells; see Bonus Types, above).
Right.
Spells that provide..Are we using any spells here?
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Also, Evil Eye doesn't stack penalties like that.
Witch, Evil Eye Hex: Can I use this hex more than once on a target?
You might want to read that again, it states YOU can't affect the same ability with multiple uses of evil eye. If you have 4 separate witches using evil eye then you fall under the rules I quoted above. If all 4 of them wanted to hit you with evil eye that round you could have a -8 to any of the evil eye choices.
@Drogon, Is this tactic capable of killing a character each round? Absolutely. Will it ? Almost certainly not.
Remember only the first save against hold person is likely to take, after that then the target gets an additional save before the CDG completes at which point the ill omen has worn off, and probably one of the evil eye's as well. Leaving them to make a DC 15 fort save with a -2 at 8th level in a fighter type most likely. AND this only has a chance of being required if the party decides to ignore this characters plight.Overall it's a scare tactic with an intentionally slight chance of success and the added benefit of pushing the PC's to work together.
A bit metagamey but GM's need to be meta-gamey to keep the overall experience alive.
We have differing opinions of what keeps the experience alive, I think.