Risen from the Sands

[Sarta]

Running this for PFS players was not the problem. Most are experienced players and many have optimized their characters for tough fights.

My real concern is the experience brand new players to the game have. Killing an entire table of newbies or having them watch min-maxed PFS players save them in very difficult situations can scare them away from PFS. Their take-away is that scenarios are much too hard and players must min-max in order to survive.

[GM Lamplighter]

What Will said. I think the PFS audience can handle challenges like this module, but as the Free RPG organizer stated, Free RPG is aimed at getting people to try new games. The only issue here that I saw was the mismatch between the scenario difficulty and the pre-gens.

Thanks, Rob, for sharing the behind-the-scenes info no this! One more reason I love Paizo is this sort of dialogue with your fans.

[Thod]

I hear a lot that this module is too dangerous, too deadly for beginners.

I can see why this is the case - but there are steps to help as GM with a table of new players.

We did have 3 tables with 12(13) players total and 7 newly handed out PFS numbers. The death count was zero.

I informed myself here about the first encounter in the GM discussion prior to the game and had a phone conversation with the second GM to ensure it isn't as deadly as it could be - which turned out more or less that we applied the tactic that the author of the module has contributed now (albeit late).

The other aspect is - you don't have to do everything. Running away is an option - leaving before death is an option.

As GM I can metagame and can tell the group - I think you are out of healing now and you have a bad, bad feeling that behind this door only death will await you. Maybe turing around is an option.

Especially if you already run late. Not every single room needs to be explored. I rather stop the group one room short and finish with 10 minuts to spare as to overrun half an hour and use that time to do a TPK.

As GM I also set the pace - depending how much roleplay I do - or if I leave out as much as possible to hurry them on. Strong groups I can hurry on to experience more rooms - while surviving and having fun, weaker groups I can spend more time explaining, roleplaying - missing maybe a room or two - but have fun while surviving.

I had a group of 13 year olds with pregens high-fiving themselves when they left the pyramid with the loot from the false tomb. With more time and a better group I would have given hints to find the real one. As they barely had survived up to this stage I rather preferred them leaving the tough stuff undiscovered - and stay alive.

I even roleplayed that part:
You see some camels on the horizon when you leave the pyramid. Seems another group of tomb robbers is on the way to the pyramid.

They left as quickly as possible - only to be told that once in town that another adventuring group did find the real tomb and got home with even more treasure.

But the important part was - before they left they asked - when can we play again.

[Qstor]

can the module still be run as an official PFS event or do we have to wait till Paizo places the pdf up?

Mike

[Gargs454]

Rob McCreary wrote:

One other point I'd like to make is that the module wasn't written as a PFS scenario - it was written as a standalone adventure that was then sanctioned to be run for PFS credit. This is an important distinction, I think, when people talk about too many combat encounters for a 1 XP scenario, or the inability to use other 4th-level pregens. Those sorts of things had not even been addressed when planning and writing the adventure.

Honestly, seeing how many PFS people were running this for Free RPG Day makes me think that going forward, we should construct our Free RPG Day offering as a PFS-friendly scenario first, standalone adventure second.

I can't make any guarantees - although I'm Senior Developer at Paizo, I'm just the writer of this particular adventure, and as I said before, the Free RPG Day module serves many masters. A lot of the planning and goals for Free RPG Day are out of my hands, but I will do my best to pass along the concerns and recommendations raised this year to hopefully make future years better for everyone.

Thanks again for your comments!

Rob: Thanks again for the continued insight. Obviously I can not speak for everywhere, but I can say that in my area, there is a pretty strong PFS presence and most of the PF games at the FLGS are PFS. Its pretty much always been that on FRPG Day the games were designed as PFS by the GMs, if for no other reason than to provide a glimpse into an easy way for new players to get involved. Obviously, the biggest obstacle that I think most new players face is simply finding a group, which PFS helps overcome pretty easily.

That said, I also think that the fact that the module was not designed as a PFS adventure does make me feel better as to how it played out. Obviously, if you are not running the module for PFS, the GM can modify the adventure based on how things are playing out.

[FLite]

From what I heard from the table next to us, the one death was from someone going unconscious while raging. I heard several other people go down, but I don't think they died.

[JohnF]

I consider running only PFS tables to be contrary to the spirit of Free RPG Day - surely the idea is to encourage casual walk-ins to sit down at the table and try a new game. In at least two of the four stores where one local PFS group were providing the GMs (only one of which currently hosts PFS games, although we're working on changing that) we had players who had perhaps an hour or so of time; they got to play at our table for a while, then move on to whatever else they had to do. Suggesting that they have to commit to a four-hour (or longer ...) slot, let alone saying that they have to wait several hours before a seat will even become available, doesn't seem to be the best way to reach out to new players.

If you're running multiple tables at the store, then having some of them be PFS-reportable tables serves as a good advertisement for the health of the local PFS community. But if you've only got one table, filling all the seats with people who could just as well play that scenario in a couple of weeks at a regular game night, to the exclusion of somebody who turns up an hour later and wants to try this game he's heard so much about, just doesn't sit well with me.

At the table I ran, we had four or five players - one PFS regular from our group, two players who don't play PFS (or even Pathfinder) at present, but who are looking to play at that store if we get PFS started there, and one or two seats filled by other players (although not always the same players throughout the game).

Remember - Free RPG Day is for the benefit of (and paid for by) the stores; it's not a promotional event for PFS. It's a good opportunity for PFS to reach out to game stores in your local community by offering to provide GMs, and to build relationships, but the interests of the store should come first.

[R D]

John Francis wrote:

[...]

surely the idea is to encourage casual walk-ins to sit down at the table and try a new game.
[...]
If you're running multiple tables at the store, then having some of them be PFS-reportable tables serves as a good advertisement for the health of the local PFS community. But if you've only got one table, filling all the seats with people who could just as well play that scenario in a couple of weeks at a regular game night, to the exclusion of somebody who turns up an hour later and wants to try this game he's heard so much about, just doesn't sit well with me.

It sounds like having only one table available for your event made it tough to balance priorities! This might not be applicable to your specific situation, but here are some ideas we've implemented in my lodge (for all kinds of events, not just for FRPGD):

- We have run the Ambush in Absalom quest (takes about an hour).

- We've also done kid's track tables (also takes about an hour).

- At PAX East, we did special 1-hour mini scenarios. (If a player completed all the mini scenarios, they got a boon.)

- At some events we have a "PFS Concierge" table for questions, help creating a new character, etc. (See our OGC event signup site for an example.)

Asking a new player to come back in an hour (or a fraction of an hour) or having them work on making a character while awaiting a free table may be more palatable for you. YMMV.

[Jeffrey Fox]

Thod wrote:

Surprise still can happen. My second table had Quinn scouting 50 foot ahead close to the end of dim light. He heard the pyramid (it can only move 30 feet in the surprise round - so still in darkness - but it was too late when he saw it.

The causeway with the pyramid doesn't have dim light, it's normal light due to the slots that let the light through.

[Akerlof]

We had several new players coming due to a con the previous weekend, and after spending a couple hours helping several of them create their first characters I decided to add a table of Among the Living to allow them to play their own PCs instead of another game of pregens.

We ended up with two tables of 4 for Risen from the Sands and a table of 6 at Among the Living, and things worked out pretty well. I put my experienced players at one table under a new-ish GM and handled the walkups at my own table. Two of the experienced players decided on pregens after I repeatedly warned them of the danger level (calling it Bonekeep lite the week after we'd played Bonekeep did the trick) so they traded a level 3 Gunslinger and a Level 3 Rogue/sorcer/going to be arcane trickster for a Bloodrager and a Swashbuckler.

My table had 1 of each pregen.

Overall the games went well. They were challenging and I softballed a few things:

Softballs:

I only had the pyramid move 30' at a time (wasn't sure if it could double move and trample anyway) and only had it trample. It didn't take AoOs.

I might have had the Mimic's constrict ability wrong: I only did damage to the player once a round rather than do its normal attack damage and then constrict. I'll have to read up on those rules.

I didn't have the construct guards stay on one target, instead rolling randomly each time to see who they would attack. This was after the Mummy encounter and they were pretty ragged to begin with.

I let the Investigator's Stone Fist ability cut through the hardness 8.

I let the Investigator and Bloodrager use Spellcraft to identify items even though they didn't have Detect Magic. I explained that this isn't how the rules work but since they didn't even have the option to do it right, and they were using pregens that didn't give them a choice in the matter, I wouldn't take out the fun of finding cool new toys.

My experience in the spoiler:

Playthrough:

The first fight was scary, but the pair of two handed Power Attackers bashed through the hardness in about three rounds, while most made their saves to avoid being overrun.

They had trouble hitting the swarm with alchemits's fire, but one of the players came up with the idea of pouring an oil flask on one of the squares the swarm was in and then lighting it. I counted that as another alchemist's fire and that plus a lucky alchemist's fire early on finished the swarm off.

The next fight beyond that appeared more dangerous to the players than it actually was. They took damage, but not significant amounts and the one enemy that was not like the others didn't even get a full attack in.

After that, we had a chance to actually do some RP with the harem, giving me a chance to get the whole "the Pharaoh has come back as a god, finally we've got some worshipers for him!" The players had fun, all made their will saves though and started the fight before they got bored.

Again, I started the Pharaoh encounter with some chatting, arrogance, and assuming that these adventurers were here to worship him but not particularly surprised that they were just tomb raiders. Again they initiated the fight before they got bored with the chatting. Only the swashbuckler failed his save verses the aura, and it was minimum duration. The Warpriest held back so I sent the minion after him and focused the boss on the bloodrager. For some reason the PCs thought the minion was the bigger threat than the boss and tried to focus it down, but when I rolled a 4 for the boss and asked if a 20 hit (the boss had a flank) the table let out a collective gasp and realized that they were in a serious fight. The Bloodrager went down in two hits (made both his saves,) but got a solid shot in on the boss and helped take out the minion. The Investigator took one hit but was wearing the phylactary so he didn't need to save, and I think healed himself up enough to either suck up another hit or I switched to the Warpriest when I saw the Investigator was no threat, at all. The Warpriest finished it off in a couple rounds, with help from a panache pumped attack or two by the swashbuckler.

The other table lost their Bloodrager in this fight, I think it was to a crit from the boss, who put the PC 1 point away from death. The PC's turn followed immediately and she failed to stabilize, without the Cleric getting a chance to channel. They were glad that they brought pregens, and this poor player has had the most PC deaths in our group, including dying in Bonekeep the week before.

After healing up, they went out the boss's front door, fought those two things and took some serious damage. At that point they called it since they had burned through all their healing by that point, and it was also getting late.

Overall, my table had fun, and I think the other table did as well. I gave my copy of the module to one of the walkups because he wanted to integrate it into his home game.

I've lost players over PFS not being challenging enough. I've also had a player or two consider wandering off after getting shocked by the major step up in danger between season 1-3 tier 1-5 scenarios and season 4-5 tier 3-7 and 5-9 scenarios. You can't please everyone with danger level, but several of these encounters can go from "challenging" to "we just got TPKd and I don't even know what we did wrong" based on a couple dice rolls. The lack of printed tactics gives GMs more room to adjust than your normal PFS scenario, so that helps tailor the experience.

My feedback on the overall module: There are a lot of auto-damage encounters here. While that adds to the epic feel of the module, it's more damage output than I think the core game expects. PFS groups where everyone has a stupid stick should handle it fine, but integrating it into a home game might need a GM to provide some healing largess or adjust their WBL expectations to account for the resource expenditures.

Due to hardness/DR, damage output and auras, there are at least 3 encounters that are more difficult than their CR would indicate. Two of those encounters, however, can be bypassed in other ways: Run away, close the door and look for another way in. And you know what? It's good to teach new players that "it's OK to run away!" The third encounter can't, and it also includes a debilitating aura effect. I know the Bestiary marks this as a CR 5 enemy, but auras like that make encounters a crap shoot: No matter how good your tactics and how well your team works, if you have a couple key people roll poorly, your group is hosed. I don't like that kind of encounter design, especially for an introductory adventure.

Finally, the swashbuckler. The poor player who picks this character simply sits on the sidelines. At least the Investigator can handle all of the out of combat encounters wonderfully, but the Swashbuckler doesn't get any bones thrown her way. That's unfortunate because I'm really excited about the class.

[Thrawn007]

James McTeague wrote:

UndeadMitch wrote:

This may have been mentioned earlier in the thread, but does anyone find it funny that none of the pregens have the ability to identify magic items? None of the pregen with Spellcraft have Detect Magic, and the only pregen with Detect Magic doesn't have Spellcraft.

Wow. That's actually pretty frustrating.

We were frustrated with that as well. One of many things.

I will say we got through 3 tables with only one death, although GM errors saved 2 of the 3 tables from potential TPK's. (Heck, one was a sure thing TPK without the error.)

(I personally don't think I ran the constrict right, and forgot the pyramid was immune to crits until after the encounter...either of those would have potentially wiped my table. Fortunately everyone made their will saves at the end, and the party took the quick route to the end, leaving half the pyramid unexplored when limping out.)

[The Fox]

Thrawn007 wrote:

(I personally don't think I ran the constrict right, and forgot the pyramid was immune to crits until after the encounter...either of those would have potentially wiped my table. Fortunately everyone made their will saves at the end, and the party took the quick route to the end, leaving half the pyramid unexplored when limping out.)

Why would the pyramid be immune to critical hits?

PRD wrote:

Construct Traits (Ex) Constructs are immune to death effects, disease, mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects), necromancy effects, paralysis, poison, sleep, stun, and any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects, or is harmless). Constructs are not subject to nonlethal damage, ability damage, ability drain, fatigue, exhaustion, or energy drain. Constructs are not at risk of death from massive damage.

Edit: Also, why didn't your group rest, recover, and go back in to explore the remainder of the tomb? I have the feeling that most groups tried to do this in one continuous push.

[pauljathome]

The Fox wrote:

Edit: Also, why didn't your group rest, recover, and go back in to explore the remainder of the tomb? I have the feeling that most groups tried to do this in one continuous push.

The preamble to the module makes it clear that other groups are on the way.

Deciding when others (and who) show up is one way the GM can make the module easier or harder to better fit the group.

Admittedly, when I ran it it was the experienced player who suggested resting. I don't think the inexperienced players realized how many of their resources would reset.

[The Fox]

Other groups are on the way, sure. It also says that you can reach the tomb in a week by foot or 4 days by camel. I suppose a GM could decide that anyone who walks there is skunked by a competing party by 3 days and finds the tomb empty.

[Sabrina X]

"Finally, the swashbuckler. The poor player who picks this character simply sits on the sidelines."

Try playing a witch with the Slumber and Flight hexes. At least I could wield a nasty CLW/Infernal Healing wand. And to make matters worse I was paralyzed the whole final encounter (when my party could have REALLY used some in-combat healing!).

I still had fun but seemed as it would have been more appropriate for 4th level characters. A party of 2nd level PFS would likely need to be scraped of the floor.

What I haven't heard about the goal of the adventure was that it was to introduce players to the 'Osirion' Adventure Path. I think it did a good job at that.

[pauljathome]

The Fox wrote:

Other groups are on the way, sure. It also says that you can reach the tomb in a week by foot or 4 days by camel. I suppose a GM could decide that anyone who walks there is skunked by a competing party by 3 days and finds the tomb empty.

I'm not sure how you got that last bit from what I said. Clearly no vaguely reasonable GM would ever do that.

If I was running for a party of 6 level 4 PFS characters I would very likely NOT allow them to rest. I'd tell them that they know that another party was just behind them. I think that is perfectly reasonable and perfectly within my rights as a GM.

[Akerlof]

Sabrina X wrote:

"Finally, the swashbuckler. The poor player who picks this character simply sits on the sidelines."

Try playing a witch with the Slumber and Flight hexes. At least I could wield a nasty CLW/Infernal Healing wand. And to make matters worse I was paralyzed the whole final encounter (when my party could have REALLY used some in-combat healing!).

I still had fun but seemed as it would have been more appropriate for 4th level characters. A party of 2nd level PFS would likely need to be scraped of the floor.

What I haven't heard about the goal of the adventure was that it was to introduce players to the 'Osirion' Adventure Path. I think it did a good job at that.

When you build a character like a witch or enchanter or archer, you should realize that sometimes the adventure won't go your way and you'll be stuck on the sideline. It's the downside of building a character who isn't very flexible. But it was your choice to make a character with that weakness.

Putting a pregen into a module who can't participate in any of the important fights is a whole different story. It's not the players getting sidelined because of a choice they made, it's players getting sidelined by the choices the writers made. Since the writer had to use a swashbuckler, he could have adjusted the encounters so that character could bypass the DR or Hardness (either by using different enemies who didn't have hardness but had DR/Magic or something instead, or giving the Swashbuckler an adamantine rapier to bypass the hardness.)

The other pregens seemed to have at least something related to the adventure itself: The investigator looked like he was purpose built to run this adventure (having Ancient Osirion, trap sense, stone fist prepared, etc.) The Blood Rager and Warpriest were both general purpose characters who hit hard enough to punch through DR, and the Warpriest specifically had scrolls of Hide From Undead and Remove Fear which can both prove very useful.

Contrast that to Jirelle who spends 1050 of her GP on a Potion of Good Hope and spent her feats on Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes and Skill Focus (Bluff)? The Skill Focus could actually have been useful for the two RP encounters... If she were able to communicate without a shared language somehow, and it's a racial bonus feat anyway. Combat Reflexes, though? She has Combat Expertise, why not Improved Trip or Power Attack or something useful? (Actually, she has a 10 Int, how does she have Combat Expertise in the first place?)

[TriOmegaZero]

Akerlof wrote:

(Actually, she has a 10 Int, how does she have Combat Expertise in the first place?)

Swashbuckler bonus feat, I imagine. Although looking at it, that would mean she is missing another feat.

[Kyrand]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Akerlof wrote:

(Actually, she has a 10 Int, how does she have Combat Expertise in the first place?)

Swashbuckler bonus feat, I imagine. Although looking at it, that would mean she is missing another feat.

Swashbuckler finesse lets her use her Charisma instead of Intelligence for that particular prerequisite.

[Gargs454]

Akerlof wrote:

The investigator looked like he was purpose built to run this adventure (having Ancient Osirion, trap sense, stone fist prepared, etc.)

I'll give you the Ancient Osirion (and Linguistics) and trap sense, but keep in mind that Stone Fist did nothing for the Investigator in this adventure since the only critters with hardness had hardness 8.

Your point in general remains though.

[TriOmegaZero]

Kyrand wrote:

Swashbuckler finesse lets her use her Charisma instead of Intelligence for that particular prerequisite.

Well, I can see a lot of my Cha based characters dipping a level of Swashbuckler now. Thanks for the headsup.

[Misroi]

Rob McCreary wrote:

One other point I'd like to make is that the module wasn't written as a PFS scenario - it was written as a standalone adventure that was then sanctioned to be run for PFS credit. This is an important distinction, I think, when people talk about too many combat encounters for a 1 XP scenario, or the inability to use other 4th-level pregens. Those sorts of things had not even been addressed when planning and writing the adventure.

Honestly, seeing how many PFS people were running this for Free RPG Day makes me think that going forward, we should construct our Free RPG Day offering as a PFS-friendly scenario first, standalone adventure second.

I can't make any guarantees - although I'm Senior Developer at Paizo, I'm just the writer of this particular adventure, and as I said before, the Free RPG Day module serves many masters. A lot of the planning and goals for Free RPG Day are out of my hands, but I will do my best to pass along the concerns and recommendations raised this year to hopefully make future years better for everyone.

Thanks again for your comments!

I think that'd be a good idea, Rob. Free RPG Day is the first step towards the real goal - retaining anyone who was interested in Pathfinder and getting them to play over and over again. Paizo already has a way to promote regularly scheduled play, and that's PFS. If the Free RPG Day mod featured approximately six pregenerated PCs, was designed to be run in about four hours and gave out a mod sheet that could be applied to a new 1st level character, then I think it would go a long way to growing the hobby. Free RPG Day is just the foot in the door. PFS keeps them in their seats.

[The Fox]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Kyrand wrote:

Swashbuckler finesse lets her use her Charisma instead of Intelligence for that particular prerequisite.

Well, I can see a lot of my Cha based characters dipping a level of Swashbuckler now. Thanks for the headsup.

Dip three levels for a +3 to melee damage!

[Thrawn007]

Rob McCreary wrote:

One other point I'd like to make is that the module wasn't written as a PFS scenario - it was written as a standalone adventure that was then sanctioned to be run for PFS credit. This is an important distinction, I think, when people talk about too many combat encounters for a 1 XP scenario, or the inability to use other 4th-level pregens. Those sorts of things had not even been addressed when planning and writing the adventure.

Honestly, seeing how many PFS people were running this for Free RPG Day makes me think that going forward, we should construct our Free RPG Day offering as a PFS-friendly scenario first, standalone adventure second.

I can't make any guarantees - although I'm Senior Developer at Paizo, I'm just the writer of this particular adventure, and as I said before, the Free RPG Day module serves many masters. A lot of the planning and goals for Free RPG Day are out of my hands, but I will do my best to pass along the concerns and recommendations raised this year to hopefully make future years better for everyone.

Thanks again for your comments!

PFS friendly is definitely worth considering when developing. (Personally, I'm a fan of free RPG day being level 1 evergreen scenarios, as it will get far more play over time that way, and as a result, it's more worth going all out to build up extras around the adventure like getting exact minis.)

With that said, I think the most important aspect is that it will be friendly for new players, while capturing their imaginations. I think the scenario itself was great for getting people into the story and getting the hook. I just think on the other side, there were two many mechanics in this one that were not new player friendly, and their were too many situations where the pregens built to go with the scenario missed the opportunity to have some big chances to shine.

Now, I do want to make my last word on this topic...although I and many other game masters were worried about the complexities of this one discouraging new players I had three players at my table yesterday that were brought in through free RPG day this year. We had a good mix of veteran and new players last week, along with very experienced GM's (including our venture officers.) After playing the free module, we even got a GM to volunteer to run a PFS mod without prepping, so all the new players could get a second game in. So free game day did exactly what it was supposed to. So I do want to thank Rob for writing an adventure that helped to bring people back to the table. Whatever complaints we have, you hit right on the mark for us on the primary goal. (New players, also meant some core book sales for these new players in the last week, so it was a win for the stores and the playing groups.)

[Chris Mortika]

Rob,

Thrawn007 makes a good point: when you say that "marketing" is a major thrust of the Free RPG Day product, could you be more specific? Is Paizo trying to rev up its existing fan base for the ACG and the Osirion products, or is it trying to attract new players to the line? (My guess: the former.)

[roysier]

June Soler wrote:

Roysier wrote:

And are you saying that trample ignores this rule in paragraph 3 below: "or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge." so I think you are saying you cannot charge through a ally unless you want to trample them but when you trample you can ignore this rule for the all creatures being trampled

Correct it ignores this rule as the only thing that this ability is getting from charge is the 10' start, the straight line and double movement). If an ally happens to be in the way, it has to make a save as well.

How I ran it as follows:

PC's traveled through causeway. One person had DV 60' so I alerted them that there was a 10' pyramid in the center. They waited at 60' for minute then sent Quinn who traveled to 40'(triggering the pyramid to move as stated in the mod, I had everyone roll init since both parties were aware of each other, so there was no surprise round).

It won intitiative so the pyramid as a full round action would trample through the causeway 30' or 60'. (remember Trample works like Overrun which is taken during your move or in this case as part of a charge(both as a full round action while the trample ability is used) So the pyramid tramples through everyone while its moving in a straight line (in the case of this mod). Causing everyone in the path of its movement area up 60' to make an AOO or make a reflex save for half damage.

Also if the area was large a creature could conceivably trample its entire movement rate 30' without going in a straight line. As the trample ability does not say it must move straight, only when charging does this take effect.

Hope this clarifies.

So it ends up that I am just going to expect table variation on the trample-charge rule. It seems if someone is a VO in PFS you can combine these. When I ask other GM's who know the rules well that are not PFS VO's they say you cannot combine them they are separate actions. Also, if you do a message board search on trample and stomp there are a few threads in the rules sections that concludes you cannot combine them. So it seems unless a FAQ comes from Paizo the rules can be translated 2 different ways.

[trollbill]

Chris Mortika wrote:

Rob,

Thrawn007 makes a good point: when you say that "marketing" is a major thrust of the Free RPG Day product, could you be more specific? Is Paizo trying to rev up its existing fan base for the ACG and the Osirion products, or is it trying to attract new players to the line? (My guess: the former.)

I am not sure why they wouldn't be trying to do both. Albeit they appear to have failed when it comes to the latter. Rob mentioned serving too many masters as part of the problem and likely these were at least two of those masters.

[pauljathome]

trollbill wrote:

Chris Mortika wrote:

Rob,

Thrawn007 makes a good point: when you say that "marketing" is a major thrust of the Free RPG Day product, could you be more specific? Is Paizo trying to rev up its existing fan base for the ACG and the Osirion products, or is it trying to attract new players to the line? (My guess: the former.)

I am not sure why they wouldn't be trying to do both. Albeit they appear to have failed when it comes to the latter. Rob mentioned serving too many masters as part of the problem and likely these were at least two of those masters.

"Failed" may be an overstatement. I think the new players at my table enjoyed themselves. They (hopefully) didn't realize or care how much softballing I did and hopefully had a good, exciting time. And the experienced player took the bullet and played the swashbuckler :-)

At least many of the anecdotal deaths were with experienced PFS players, not new players.

[trollbill]

pauljathome wrote:

trollbill wrote:

Chris Mortika wrote:

Rob,

Thrawn007 makes a good point: when you say that "marketing" is a major thrust of the Free RPG Day product, could you be more specific? Is Paizo trying to rev up its existing fan base for the ACG and the Osirion products, or is it trying to attract new players to the line? (My guess: the former.)

I am not sure why they wouldn't be trying to do both. Albeit they appear to have failed when it comes to the latter. Rob mentioned serving too many masters as part of the problem and likely these were at least two of those masters.

"Failed" may be an overstatement. I think the new players at my table enjoyed themselves. They (hopefully) didn't realize or care how much softballing I did and hopefully had a good, exciting time. And the experienced player took the bullet and played the swashbuckler :-)

At least many of the anecdotal deaths were with experienced PFS players, not new players.

Well, that's why I used the word "appear." I don't know if it actually failed or not. It just 'appears" to have failed based on the feedback on this thread and product reviews. Even if "failed" is an accurate word, I am sure it was not 100% failure.

[Shivok]

roysier wrote:

stuff...

Roysier,

I believe I've tried to clarify the trample rules on several posts. You even asked how I would interpret it. I provided ample information to include the actual way it was played in my session.

Yet you have thrown either the amount of GM stars I have or the fact that I'm a VO in a derisive manner in several of your posts. Frankly that's not necessary as I've addressed you in a respectful manner the entire time.

You asked about the Trample ability and I gave a response. You dont have to like it, agree with it, or accept it. At least you know how I'm going to run it at my table.

[roysier]

June - I'm not saying anything is wrong with your interpretation I think the rules themselves should be cleared up with a FAQ because as it stands it can be mixed up and as far as I can tell there is no correct answer it can be read either way.

But I did notice all VO's I have asked said it can be done including a VL who I believe knows the rules better then anyone else. I went on to ask 3 other experienced GM's 2 of them 4-star gm's and they say it can't be done. So my belief is that at the main events Paizocon, gencon, etc, it's always run this way and hence everyone believes it is that way. But in the rules themselves it is unclear. So, the rules could even be intended to be that way. But the rules are in fact unclear and hence table variation should be expected.

This isn't the first time I noticed a rule being run one way by multiple experience PFS GM's because people have always done it that way but when you look it up the rule and it states differently.

[Shivok]

I too have experienced table variation with my ninja and stealth...believe me its frustrating so I know the feeling.

[David Bowles]

June Soler wrote:

roysier wrote:

stuff...

Roysier,

I believe I've tried to clarify the trample rules on several posts. You even asked how I would interpret it. I provided ample information to include the actual way it was played in my session.

Yet you have thrown either the amount of GM stars I have or the fact that I'm a VO in a derisive manner in several of your posts. Frankly that's not necessary as I've addressed you in a respectful manner the entire time.

You asked about the Trample ability and I gave a response. You dont have to like it, agree with it, or accept it. At least you know how I'm going to run it at my table.

It seems to me that both trample and charge are full-round actions. Trample does not state that it can be taken as part of a full-round action, but that it IS a full-round action. So I think that one can not charge and trample in the same turn, as both are separate, distinct full-round actions.

[Mulgar]

pauljathome wrote:

trollbill wrote:

Chris Mortika wrote:

Rob,

Thrawn007 makes a good point: when you say that "marketing" is a major thrust of the Free RPG Day product, could you be more specific? Is Paizo trying to rev up its existing fan base for the ACG and the Osirion products, or is it trying to attract new players to the line? (My guess: the former.)

I am not sure why they wouldn't be trying to do both. Albeit they appear to have failed when it comes to the latter. Rob mentioned serving too many masters as part of the problem and likely these were at least two of those masters.

"Failed" may be an overstatement. I think the new players at my table enjoyed themselves. They (hopefully) didn't realize or care how much softballing I did and hopefully had a good, exciting time. And the experienced player took the bullet and played the swashbuckler :-)

At least many of the anecdotal deaths were with experienced PFS players, not new players.

Saying most of the deaths were with experienced players is an assumption based on a biased sample. Is you average new player going to be the one that's just going to rage quit and never be heard from again? Is you experienced player more likely to come on these boards and complain?

If I remember correctly most of the reported deaths were at PFS tables. Does it mean that those were experienced players? Not Neccessarily?

[TriOmegaZero]

David Bowles wrote:

Trample does not state that it can be taken as part of a full-round action, but that it IS a full-round action.

Trample 'works just like the overrun combat maneuver, but the trampling creature does not need to make a check, it merely has to move over opponents in its path', which I take to mean that it can be used as part of a charge.

But then, this could be another 'Vital Strike is its own standard action and can't be used with a charge/Spring Attack/interpretive dance' situation.

[David Bowles]

That would be true, except that the first clause in the description causes trample to consume that NPCs full-round action to perform it. It works like overrun AFTER it has been activated, which consumes a full-round action.

Yes, this situation is EXACTLY like vital strike, except that vital strike requires a standard action and this requires a full-round action.

[TriOmegaZero]

So I just charge, using overrun to trample.

Or trample to overrun using charge.

Overrun to charge using trample?

[TOZ]

You know, it's things like this and swarms that are the reason I'm checking out 5th Edition...

[MYTHIC TOZ]

Before people get up in arms, I'm actually doing it because bugleyman is an awesome GM and I would join his game regardless of the system.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled rules argument.

[David Bowles]

Once you declare charge, that NPC is no longer eligible to gain benefits from trample. At least as written.

Language for regular overrun: "As a standard action, taken during your move or as part of a charge"

Language for tample: "As a full-round action"

Trample gives up the charge clause in exchange for the ability to hit multiple targets and not have to roll. I think this is pretty clear, and should not be subject to GM fiat.

[David Bowles]

TOZ wrote:

You know, it's things like this and swarms that are the reason I'm checking out 5th Edition...

That's cool, but realize that 5th ed has little chance of hitting Hasbro's required sales numbers and will likely suffer the same fate as 4th. NOT because of lack of sales or interest, but lack of ability to hit arbitrary numbers set by a suit.

[TriOmegaZero]

What does that have to do with anything?

[Mat Black]

At this point, it is irrelevant to debate the issue without some official clarification/FAQ from the design team about the intention of the Pathfinder version of trample. Generally, the Pathfinder versions of things work "more or less" like the 3.5 version, and the difference in the wording of the abilities is what's causing disagreement here. For reference, the wording of the 3.5 ability is:

3.5 SRD wrote:

Trample

As a full-round action, a creature with this special attack can move up to twice its speed and literally run over any opponents at least one size category smaller than itself. The creature merely has to move over the opponents in its path; any creature whose space is completely covered by the trampling creature’s space is subject to the trample attack. If a target’s space is larger than 5 feet, it is only considered trampled if the trampling creature moves over all the squares it occupies. If the trampling creature moves over only some of a target’s space, the target can make an attack of opportunity against the trampling creature at a -4 penalty. A trampling creature that accidentally ends its movement in an illegal space returns to the last legal position it occupied, or the closest legal position, if there’s a legal position that’s closer.

A trample attack deals bludgeoning damage (the creature’s slam damage + 1½ times its Str modifier). The creature’s descriptive text gives the exact amount.

Trampled opponents can attempt attacks of opportunity, but these take a -4 penalty. If they do not make attacks of opportunity, trampled opponents can attempt Reflex saves to take half damage.

The save DC against a creature’s trample attack is 10 + ½ creature’s HD + creature’s Str modifier (the exact DC is given in the creature’s descriptive text). A trampling creature can only deal trampling damage to each target once per round, no matter how many times its movement takes it over a target creature.

The debate stems from the clarity in the amount of movement a creature can take as written in the 3.5 version, and whether the somewhat vague wording and rules interactions in the Pathfinder version was done intentionally to limit the amount of movement a trampling creature can take, or whether it was presumed that GMs would realize that because you can charge as part of a normal overrun, you can move up to twice your speed when trampling. The only thing any of us can really do is guess at the intention behind the wording change, and until there is an official post about it, arguing any particular interpretation isn't really productive.

[David Bowles]

The version you posted has the exact same language in the first clause of the first sentence. There is nothing in the description of the 3.5 version that leads me to think that trample was compatible with charge in 3.5, either.

[Robert G. McCreary]

Chris Mortika wrote:

Rob,

Thrawn007 makes a good point: when you say that "marketing" is a major thrust of the Free RPG Day product, could you be more specific? Is Paizo trying to rev up its existing fan base for the ACG and the Osirion products, or is it trying to attract new players to the line? (My guess: the former.)

Not coming from the marketing side of the company, I don't think I can be more specific. As the writer, I know the Osirion theme of the adventure was meant to tie in to the Mummy's Mask AP, and the pregens were meant to be a preview of and get people excited for the upcoming ACG release (just as we had pregens previewing the APG in Master of the Fallen Fortress a few years ago). However, I think can say that attracting new players was also a goal - that's pretty much the goal of Free RPG Day as a whole.

[Mat Black]

David, it does not have the exact same language at all. The 3.5 version of trample, which is what I posted, clearly states that a trampling creature can move up to twice its speed when using the trample ability. That, in essence, is what the debate about "can a trampling creature charge?" question comes down to - the movement - not any other aspect of charging (as trample does not require a to hit roll).

[trollbill]

David Bowles wrote:

The version you posted has the exact same language in the first clause of the first sentence. There is nothing in the description of the 3.5 version that leads me to think that trample was compatible with charge in 3.5, either.

I thought the whole point of whether or not you could charge with Trample was to determine if you could Trample while double moving rather than just single moving, or am I missing something? The 3.5 text quoted makes it appear you can do so as a double move. If you go strictly by what Pathfinder says, the ability wouldn't even work. It's supposed to work like Overrun, but Overrun is done as a Standard Action done during a Move Action. So if you treat Trample just like a Full Round Action overrun, then the only way you could actually Trample someone is either by charging or having something like a Quick Runner Shirt.

[Mat Black]

also, to try and reach some sort of official resolution on the trample/charge debate, I've started a thread in the Rules Forum. Please hit the FAQ button to help get an official answer from the dev team.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2r7x0?The-Great-Risen-From-the-Sands-Trample-De bate

[David Bowles]

No, the movement is not the important part. Did you read my posts? Trample , as written, may not be used as part of a charge since it is its own distinct full-round action. If you trample and charge, you are performing two full-round actions in a single round. There is a clause in regular overrun that does not exist in trample that allows regular overrun plus charge. There is no such language in trample. In fact, trample explicitly says, "As a full-round action....".

[TriOmegaZero]

David Bowles wrote:

No, the movement is not the important part.

Yes, actually it is. It has been a point of contention through this whole thread, the question of 'can a creature double move while trampling or not?'

In 3.5, Trample specifically said the creature could double-move. Pathfinder changed the wording, either for layout and word count reasons, or specifically to limit trample to a single move action. As shown in this module, people (including developers) still think you can double-move on a trample. So the question is 'which was the intended result of the change?'