|
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).
Actually I disagree, it has to do with movement and it has to do with interpretation of obstacles, under the charge rules no obstacles can be in the way including allies, so is a trampled opponent a obstacle? It clearly say an ally is. So under the rules allies block charges but enemies being trampled are undefined.
|
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).Actually I disagree, it has to do with movement and it has to do with interpretation of obstacles, under the charge rules no obstacles can be in the way including allies, so is a trampled opponent a obstacle? It clearly say an ally is. So under the rules allies block charges but enemies being trampled are undefined.
Trampling creatures can not charge. Therefore, they are not subject to the charge limitations.
|
|
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....".
Yes, I did read your posts, as well as the dozen of other posts by others with the same interpretation of the interaction of the rules. From your post, I'm not sure if you understand the WHY of the debate, though. Hint: it's the movement aspect of the charge. Nothing else.
It's not that anyone is misunderstanding your interpretation, just that others do not agree with the way that the particular rules in question interact. Thus why there is an ongoing debate, and thus why I created the post in the Rules forum. Restating your interpretation, valid as it may be, doesn't do anything to resolve the debate, as the opposing view is just as valid, since the intention of the ability is at question.
If you'd like to try and help resolve the debate, please head over the post that I linked earlier and hit the FAQ link.
|
|
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).Actually I disagree, it has to do with movement and it has to do with interpretation of obstacles, under the charge rules no obstacles can be in the way including allies, so is a trampled opponent a obstacle? It clearly say an ally is. So under the rules allies block charges but enemies being trampled are undefined.
The straight line, obstacle, etc. issues that come up as part of the charge are peripheral to the original argument (though no less important, once there is an actual clarification made). The entire reason why this became a debate was because of the amount of movement allowed as part of the trample. If there is an actual developer reply about the intention, the rest of the issues will fall into place.
|
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....".
The problem is that, as written, you could not even Trample someone under normal circumstance because that same Full Round Action that prevents you from taking another Full Round Action, i.e. charge, would also prevent you from taking a Move Action (shy of a Quick Runner Shirt). And since Trample does not include any text that states you can move as part of a Trample, then "as written" this is an unusable power. So obviously, there is a problem with interpreting this ability "as written."
|
|
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....".The problem is that, as written, you could not even Trample someone under normal circumstance because that same Full Round Action that prevents you from taking another Full Round Action, i.e. charge, would also prevent you from taking a Move Action (shy of a Quick Runner Shirt). And since Trample does not include any text that states you can move as part of a Trample, then "as written" this is an unusable power. Obviously, there is a problem with interpreting this ability "as written."
No, there's no problem on our end. We can't read their minds. They needed to have thought about this a little more when they wrote trample. I do completely agree with what you wrote, because there clearly is no movement provision at all in the trample ability. They need to write the way things actually work in these abilities.
I suppose such a movement provision might include the ability to be coupled to a charge. However, this provision does not exist currently, as so a GM would have to fiat rule a movement rate. I will say that charging would not be permitted under the 3.5 version, as it lists a movement rate and describes the action as a full-round action. The simplest explanation is that Paizo forgot to copy that movement rate language, but we obviously can't know without a ruling.
As it stands now, the preponderance of evidence is for some movement value X attached to the trample ability, which is a full-round action in and of itself that precludes charging.
|
|
And no one is saying otherwise. They are saying that since it acts like an overrun, which can be used while charging, a trample should get double movement." Hint: it's the movement aspect of the charge. Nothing else."
But I don't think a trampling NPC is eligible for a charge.
June said this earlier: "In essence the Trample ability is a special kind of ability that combines Overrun and Charge in a full-round action."
This is patently not supported by the language of this ability. That's basically what I've been talking about. As to how far they do move during a trample? I have no idea. I clicked the FAQ.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
At this point I am envisioning solving the problem (at least in PFS) by issuing 3XL Quick Runner T-shirts that say "Keep Calm and Trample" to all trampling monsters in PFS. PFS PCs would not be able to abuse the sudden abundance of these shirts since they aren't allowed to own them.
|
|
I clicked the FAQ.For that, I thank you. Would that others were so understanding in these disagreements.
FWIW, trample is often catastrophically bad enough that tacking on a charge on top of it seems almost too good to be true. That being said, the tramplers can often get more than targets with the trample if they don't use the charge mechanic, making it cause more overall damage, but less to a single target. (The charge target)
|
|
I honestly think that the intent of the design team was to keep trample working the same way that it did in 3.5, but that with the combat maneuver system, they thought it would be easiest to work one of those maneuvers into the ability. Just that all the fiddly bits didn't end up working very well together. It's possible that the intent was to only allow a trampling creature a single move, though. Hopefully we'll get clarification on the matter.
Also, David, from reading your last post, I think maybe you have the impression that the trample + charge argument might involve a creature charging a target and making that charge attack as normal, and then trampling everything in its path as well (if not, I apologize for reading too much into it). As far as I'm aware, no one has been advocating that as a possibility - the argument really all comes down to the movement allowance while trampling and nothing else. The peripheral issues that do come up aren't present in the scenario in question (it's a straight hallway with no obstacles and no creatures other than the PCs), and all of those attendant issues were likely overlooked in the larger sense because of that.
|
|
I clicked the FAQ.For that, I thank you. Would that others were so understanding in these disagreements.FWIW, trample is often catastrophically bad enough that tacking on a charge on top of it seems almost too good to be true. That being said, the tramplers can often get more than targets with the trample if they don't use the charge mechanic, making it cause more overall damage, but less to a single target. (The charge target)
I don't know what you're thinking people are doing to make it do more damage. The charge is JUST allowing to move double. Seriously, that's the only thing June's been trying to say.
The only damage done on a trample IS the listed trample damage to a target regardless of if it's moving single or charging(double)...
|
|
Oh I thought that GMs were trampling and then getting a charge attack with the thing.
So forcing it to use the charge mechanic is actually a nerf in this case, not a buff. Because the conditions for charging are actually a bit draconian.
Wow trample is really poorly worded.
Welcome to the monkeyhouse. :)
Thanks for clicking the FAQ link, also.
|
|
Reading through to run on Wednesday for PFS players. Things that have me concerned about killing characters:
* Pyramid encounter. For reasons discussed.
* Mummy Rot.
The afflictions are made especially dangerous by the fact that the nearest settlement is 7.5 days away by foot, 4.5 days away by camel. (And maybe more, if you bother to be strict about encumbrance and hauling back the treasure?)
The Periapt looks more dangerous to me than has come out in this thread. Check my understanding here.
This engraved gem appears to be of little value. If any character keeps the periapt in her possession for more than 24 hours, she contracts a terrible rotting affliction that permanently drains 1 point of Dexterity, Constitution, and Charisma every week. The periapt (and the affliction) can be removed only by application of a remove curse spell followed by a cure disease and then a heal, miracle, limited wish, or wish spell. The rotting can also be countered by crushing a periapt of health and sprinkling its dust upon the afflicted character (a full-round action), whereupon the periapt of foul rotting likewise crumbles to dust.
First: you don't have to wear the Periapt to trigger the curse. It's triggered "if any character keeps the periapt in her possession for more than 24 hours."
Second: with CL 10th, a Spellcraft check of 25 will identify the Periapt as a Periapt of Wound Closure (the only one of the 3 listed related items that has a CL of 10th). It takes a Spellcraft check of 35 to identify the item as cursed and learn its properties. That's impossible for 2nd-4th level characters. (With the rarest exceptions: 4th level Wizard with Int 20 and Skill Focus [Spellcraft], rolling 20.)
Third: the curse requires serious magic to remove, the kind that's inaccessible to characters of this level.
So is the (let's say randomly-rolled) PC who's unlucky enough to transport the Periapt back to civilization doomed to rot away? The only way I can see to save that PC is by having an NPC identify the cursed item and tell the party that the only way to save their comrade is to give up the periapt of health found elsewhere in the pyramid, then ruling (i) that like a potion found and drank during adventuring it doesn't count against treasure total and (ii) that "counter" includes removing the ability damage. Since the adventure looks to be tough enough without that parting shot, I hope giving that to the party is within PFS guidelines.
|
|
(And maybe more, if you bother to be strict about encumbrance and hauling back the treasure?)
OP Guide, page 21:
We assume that you have enough bags, backpacks, or muscle to haul around the loot you find or, in the case of an urban scenario, immediate access to markets and bazaars where you can sell your goods.
|
|
June said this earlier: "In essence the Trample ability is a special kind of ability that combines Overrun and Charge in a full-round action."
This is patently not supported by the language of this ability. That's basically what I've been talking about. As to how far they do move during a trample? I have no idea. I clicked the FAQ.
I think your taking this out of context. The unquoted parts are what I wrote below is what spawned dozens of posts on this thread as you can see I actually had a stricter interpretation by having the 10' movement, striaght line and double movement. It might be able to double move without going in a straight line.
roysier wrote:
Cire wrote:
In terms of trample, it does not require the use of a charge (see overrun). You can trample them anyways. Choosing not to I guess is an option.
Since both Trample and Charge are full round actions they cannot be done in the same round.I wonder how many GMs are killing people due to a misunderstanding of the Trample Rules. The Pyramid should only be able to move 30 ft with a Trample Action.
I know a lot of GM's killed characters in a certain other scenario 5 when they allowed a critter to trample in a surprise round.
Trample wrote: As a full-round action, a creature with the trample ability can attempt to overrun any creature that is at least one size category Smaller than itself. This works just like the overrun combat maneuver
Overrun wrote: As a standard action, taken during your move or as part of a charge, you can attempt to overrun your target, moving through its square.
Charge wrote: Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. Charging, however, carries tight restrictions on how you can move.
roysier wrote:
I know you have lots of stars but I think you are wrong. You can not overrun multiple targets unless you have the "Charge through combat feat". So how can you charge through a enemy and hit another enemy if you are not even allowed to charge through a ally.
I have not seen the stat block for the creature mentioned but does it have feats that allow it to bypass the normal overrun, charge, or trample rules?
Trampling multiple targets? yep that works. but charging through people and hitting people on the other side of someone while trampling. That is not in the rules even in the overrun rules. Is it in FAQ somewhere?
Wow. I guess when it rains it pours...
Roysier,
Here is the trample ability in full: Trample (Ex)
As a full-round action, a creature with the trample ability can attempt to overrun any creature that is at least one size category Smaller than itself. This 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. Targets of a trample take an amount of damage equal to the trampling creature’s slam damage + 1-1/2 times its Str modifier. Targets of a trample can make an attack of opportunity, but at a –4 penalty. If targets forgo an attack of opportunity, they can attempt to avoid the trampling creature and receive a Reflex save to take half damage. The save DC against a creature’s trample attack is 10 + 1/2 the creature’s HD + the 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.
In essence the Trample ability is a special kind of ability that combines Overrun and Charge in a full-round action. It has it's own effects(described above). It occurs when the creature moves over you, it's movement is part of the full round action so it could conceivable move it full movement or twice that as a part of a charge
(Trample). However unlike a normal overrun you can't choose to avoid it witout forgoing the AOO and making a reflex save.
Think of it like a rampaging elephant stuck in a 10' wide tunnel and your blocking it from escape, it rushes toward the exit stepping on anything in its path.
Hope this helps.
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.
|
|
(And maybe more, if you bother to be strict about encumbrance and hauling back the treasure?)OP Guide, page 21:
We assume that you have enough bags, backpacks, or muscle to haul around the loot you find or, in the case of an urban scenario, immediate access to markets and bazaars where you can sell your goods.
Thanks, Rob! I'm still relatively new to GMing PFS games, and the question hadn't come up for me before. Glad to see that this is hand-waved, as it should be. :-)
That particular paragraph** also contains the answer to my question about using up the periapt, in the example of the longsword found and sundered in the course of the adventure. So doubly helpful!
Since I'm comfortable taking "counter" in the periapt description to include removing the ability damage, I guess my only remaining question on the item is checking whether it's acceptable in PFS to have an NPC identify the cursed item for the party for free, or how to go about charging them for that. Current best guess if they aren't capable of identifying the item themselves: have them pay for a CL 1st casting of identify, assume the hired caster takes 20 on the roll.**** That's only 20 gp, which (coupled with the ruling on "counter" and the free-thanks-to-OP-treasure-rules periapt of health) removes any real threat or penalty from the item. A bit unfortunate, but I'd rather no threat than auto-kill.
(**** I don't believe that misidentifying a cursed item would count as the sort of "penalty for failure" that would rule out taking 20. Not a trap that would blow up in your face, e.g.).
I was looking at that page earlier today for something else and skipped over this particular paragraph on account of its opening sentence. It leads with, "A GM must be present in order for you to purchase items. This can be done before, during or after the adventure." So I assumed the rest of the paragraph was on that subject and skipped along.
|
|
"I think your taking this out of context"
Yeah, I am. The three contenders are now:
1) Trample allows a single move
2) Trample allows a double move
3) Trample allows a double move following the charging rules.
yup that's what it comes down to. I chose #3. but there definitely will be some tale variation. I FAQing the other thread also.
|
|
Interesting. Not as limited as #1, but not as powerful as #2. However, I find it very aesthetically displeasing that a single square of rough terrain can prevent a trample from a huge creature.
the only thing i'm using from the charge is the 10' start, the straight line and double movement. Rough terrain would only cost it 2 squares for every one traversed.
|
|
A thought, the tables that did survive 'rested' there is nothing to suggest (other than old school play-style and nova hate) that resting in this module is an issue.
For the first combat some people; avoided it with a tanglefoot bag and others used a create pit spell to their advantage.
We had read the the early playtests and warned our players accordingly; their parties when inside, grabbed the loot and left without exploring the remainder of the structure. But they could have rested and explored it the following day.
I would run this one again; balance levels 2's with appropriate gear might find it tough (granted) but a party of 4th level PC's should have a lot of fun.
Nothing other than the text blocks that say tomb robbers from across the inner sea are gathering to plan expeditions into the desert, each vying to be the fist to plunder the tombs treasures....
So yeah it is implied that resting could be an issue.
|
|
It also says that walking there takes a week, and riding by camels takes four days. That implies that either:
1. You do have at least a few days to explore the tomb if you rode a camel there; OR
2. The tomb is completely cleaned out for those groups who walked there.
If time is of the essence, then the groups who rode camels should be under less time pressure than those who walked.
|
|
Ran a table through the mod tonight. 6 players; 4 experienced, 1 fairly experienced, 1 pretty new. 4 PFS characters lvls 2-3, 2 pregens (Oloch & Crowe). Not a lot in terms of healing resources (pretty new characters + Oloch's 25-charge wand).
We had a blast!
That said, I'm *very* glad I'd read this thread in advance and was prepared for some of the more difficult bits (especially the pyramid's tactics—opening trample and then slams was plenty for that encounter—and knowing to hint that it was okay for them to rest). I can definitely see how this would have been a not-great experience with, say, more new players or running with just the pregens. (My players were fortunate that [a] the players playing pregens happened to pick the smashiest ones [hey, hardness!], and the one with healing and [b] that one of the other characters happened to be an Arcane Duelist who could get great use out of her Rallying Cry ability!)
I can also see that a lot of the potential for frustrating difficulty would come from the strict "run-as-written" standard of PFS, which removes some of the GM flexibility I feel like this mod probably needs for some groups. Definitely think that viewing future Free RPG Day offerings through the lens of "this is probably mostly going to be run by PFS folks" would help.
Favorite moments:
* The 'oh we're screwed' looks mounting through the falling rocks trap, followed by a devastating trample by the pyramid, followed by breaking through the door to fall into the pit, followed by the mimic springing to life and chomping on Oloch. Welcome to tomb-raiding! — At one point between this initial salvo of challenges, one of the players wondered if this mod amounted to "bonekeep in the sands."
* How freaked out the players got by the false-but-really-secret door that their Knowledge rolls revealed stood for the "threshold between life and death" (they really got into the trepidation of tomb-raiding with this one), and how the fake-out mummified architect completely faked them out.
* Oloch getting brutally coup-de-graced by the mummy. Turns out that was based on a misreading of the rule on my part, but other than that screw-up, it was a perfect dramatic death. (I triggered the mummy's despair aura on its turn like frightful presence, so Oloch charged in and *then* got paralyzed when the mummy took its turn, conveniently placed for an "I'm FREE!, FREE AT LAST!" death-stroke [Oloch even rolled a 1 on his save, after rolling a 1 and rerolling for another 1 against the architect's fear ability!]) The player was great about it and it really got the rest of the party into the fight. (To allay any concerns: since the character death was a mistake and my screw-up, I will be giving the player his chronicle for credit when I next see him.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This, among other scenarios, is making me shift my purchasing priorities. More of my PCs are getting adamantine weapons before anything else.
I just bought an Adamantine Dwarven Longhammer for my 4th level Dwarf Barbarian partly because of this mod. I named it "Diplomacy."
|
|
Second: with CL 10th, a Spellcraft check of 25 will identify the Periapt as a Periapt of Wound Closure (the only one of the 3 listed related items that has a CL of 10th). It takes a Spellcraft check of 35 to identify the item as cursed and learn its properties. That's impossible for 2nd-4th level characters. (With the rarest exceptions: 4th level Wizard with Int 20 and Skill Focus [Spellcraft], rolling 20.)
An alchemist with a cognatogen or a Pageant of the Peacock bard is capable of getting it on a bit lower rolls, personally my Bard gets it with Pageant on an 11 at level 4. But it is a very hard check regardless. And punishing when you do not make it.
I have yet to buy Adamantine anything on any of my characters. Just hitting hard enough has been good in general, but my new bard has quite a bit of trouble with DR and hardness, so we'll see what I do with this.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Played this last night with the following group:
Paladin 4
Druid 4
Bard 4
Paladin 3 (me)
Monk 2
Witch 2
We had a close call against the pyramid, and the GM cut us a break with the tactics that saved the Monk's life. I was out front alone when the pyramid started moving. It won initiative and proceeded to trample over me. I got one attack of opportunity off (reach weapon, Combat Reflexes) then elected to take the Reflex save, which I missed by one. I hit it a second time on my turn. At 1d10+4 I managed to roll well and get through the hardness both times (one was a crit, if I remember right). On the pyramid's next turn, it rolled over the rest of the group. At this point, we discussed running (and the GM even reminded us that we could). The monk, however, ran up to try to grapple the pyramid, because, bragging rights, I guess. He failed his first attempt. Luckily, the bard put a grease under the pyramid, which failed its save. I had to run just to get to it, because of speed 20. In the meantime, the other paladin and druid did some damage. The witch was mostly healing people. The monk did grapple the pyramid, effectively stopping future tramples. After a round of hitting it and it slamming the monk, the pyramid changed tactics to break the grapple on what turned out to be a crit, which it what would have killed the monk outright if it had been a slam. We were able to destroy the pyramid before it got a chance to start moving again, thankfully. I forget who struck the final blow. It wasn't me.
I felt bad today when I read the trample ability, because I actually had a potion of enlarge person, so I could have gotten in its way. I got stuck on the wrong side of it and the party, though, so it would have taken some maneuvering. The bard's quick thinking helped us a lot, as did having two paladins and a druid with sheleighleigh that could get through its hardness. (EDIT: Do enough damage to exceed its hardness. We had nothing that could negate the hardness.)
The rest of the scenario was difficult, but fun. The mimc didn't cause too many problems, other than the monk and my weapons getting stuck to it. We took the lower secret door and came around to the end boss before the fake tomb. The swarm, the burning skeletons, and the concubine zombies didn't pose too much of a problem. I felt bad for the witch, because he had slumber hex. He did have burning hands, so was very helpful against the swarm.
The fight with the mummy and sphinx was helped greatly by the presence of two paladins in the group. The druid or monk, I can't remember which, would have failed his save vs the aura if not for standing next to the paladins. The 4th level paladin proceeded to smite the mummy and charge, hitting it for something like 40 points of damage. I moved in and used smite on the sphinx, dealing 20 to it myself. With us as targets, the rest of the group was free to move in and attack. The witch failed his save vs the aura (too far from the paladins at that point) but was only affected for 1 round. The end result was a dead mummy, a dead undead sphinx, and no one in the party with mummy rot.
At that point we decided to rest. The next morning, we moved on out of the main door, resulting in some very surprised Anubis statues. That fight wasn't too bad either. The monk grappled, then pinned, then hogtied one of the statues. But the best part of the night was when the bard, a Kitsune, shifted into the pharaoh and commanded the statues to surrender... in Common. A huge bluff check later, and the one statue that could see him became very confused as to why its master was speaking to it in such strange words. Some hand motions later and it eventually knelt down before him. We decided since he couldn't really give it proper commands, and we didn't want any future pathfinder agents to have to deal with it, that we'd just destroy it.
The scenario was running long at that point, so we moved quickly through a couple more encounters (The elemental room and the fake tomb). Neither were too bad. The fire elemental that appeared was actually a little disappointing. After all of the other difficult encounters, I was prepared for a Large elemental.
All in all, it was a fun scenario. For a dungeon crawl, the story was interesting as were the fights. I'll run this at some point for the local lodge, so it's good to see the trample discussion (I've hit FAQ on the rules thread), though I suspect the answer is it can take a full move and trample. That makes for a potentially deadly encounter. Even as a third level paladin, it hit me for 17 on the first trample, taking me to below half hit points. After a poor lay on hands, it could have potentially dropped me to negatives had it turned around and rolled over me again. Instead it chose to roll over the rest of the party. I can certainly see a level 2 character getting caught in a bad spot and killed. I hadn't read any spoilers before playing, but I'd heard it was lethal, so I brought my character most likely to survive. I'm glad I did.
|
Played this last night with the following group:
Paladin 4
Druid 4
Bard 4
Paladin 3 (me)
Monk 2
Witch 2We had a close call against the pyramid, and the GM cut us a break with the tactics...
I considered posting a recount of this earlier, but I'm glad I didn't, since this is a pretty good one. The fake Periapt of Wound Closure is a bit troublesome. As noted before the spellcraft check to get the actual ID right is DC35, which means that even though the Periapt of Health is easily found in the module there isn't really a way to know that it can be used to remove the cursed item.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I considered posting a recount of this earlier, but I'm glad I didn't, since this is a pretty good one. The fake Periapt of Wound Closure is a bit troublesome. As noted before the spellcraft check to get the actual ID right is DC35, which means that even though the Periapt of Health is easily found in the module there isn't really a way to know that it can be used to remove the cursed item.Played this last night with the following group:
Paladin 4
Druid 4
Bard 4
Paladin 3 (me)
Monk 2
Witch 2We had a close call against the pyramid, and the GM cut us a break with the tactics...
As mentioned upthread, I solved this by having the guy who grabbed the periapt pay for an NPC to cast Identify when the party made it back to town (35 = +20 take-20, +10 Identify, +1 Rank, +3 Class Skill, +1 INT). 20 gp and one crushed periapt of health later, and he was fine.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As mentioned upthread, I solved this by having the guy who grabbed the periapt pay for an NPC to cast Identify when the party made it back to town (35 = +20 take-20, +10 Identify, +1 Rank, +3 Class Skill, +1 INT). 20 gp and one crushed periapt of health later, and he was fine.
That would be wonderful if Taking 20 on spellcraft to id items didn't take 20 days. (You need to wait a day in between checks to id items.)
|
|
I considered posting a recount of this earlier, but I'm glad I didn't, since this is a pretty good one. The fake Periapt of Wound Closure is a bit troublesome. As noted before the spellcraft check to get the actual ID right is DC35, which means that even though the Periapt of Health is easily found in the module there isn't really a way to know that it can be used to remove the cursed item.Played this last night with the following group:
Paladin 4
Druid 4
Bard 4
Paladin 3 (me)
Monk 2
Witch 2We had a close call against the pyramid, and the GM cut us a break with the tactics...
Yeah. I don't know how the group will handle that when I run it. Here's hoping they have someone with a maxed/optimized Spellcraft and roll really high.
|
|
As mentioned upthread, I solved this by having the guy who grabbed the periapt pay for an NPC to cast Identify when the party made it back to town (35 = +20 take-20, +10 Identify, +1 Rank, +3 Class Skill, +1 INT). 20 gp and one crushed periapt of health later, and he was fine.That would be wonderful if Taking 20 on spellcraft to id items didn't take 20 days. (You need to wait a day in between checks to id items.)
Hm, didn't catch that. Thanks for the correction.
Two possibilities come to mind, then.
(1) Pay for 20 castings of Identify. That's still only 400 gp.
(2) Pay a 12th level Wizard to cast Identify. 35 = +10 take-ten, +10 Identify +3 class skill, +12 ranks. 120 gp.
Relying on the squishy nature of the downtime between scenarios and the ability to purchase higher-CL spellcasting services (which I believe is legal in PFS, though I may be mistaken).
|
|
Going back to Rob McCreary's post.
First off, it's important to point out that the Free RPG Day module has to serve a number of masters, including marketing as well as PFS
This means that it was intended to attempt to sell the ACG, not to attract new players. For Free RPG day.
Regarding the pregens, I definitely agree that they are not well-suited for this adventure.
And yet, the standard level 4 pregens are prohibited from being used. Why is that? Why hasn't that changed?
One of the key marketing goals of this product was to preview four of the new classes from the Advanced Class Guide.
And not to attract new players.
In fact, those four pregens were picked because at the time we needed to send this to the printer, those were the only four that we had art for.
So, the module was an advertising gimmick and they only picked these pregens because *the art for them was done*.
Thus we ended up with the swashbuckler and the investigator, which are underpowered for this adventure.
A frank admission that the pregens in the module are too weak for the module.
In this case, it looks like doing previews of the ACG classes was not the best choice for this adventure
Waiting on the PFS change where it's not a choice between "existing characters" or "these previews of classes that are not a good choice for the adventure."
The same goes for detect magic and Spellcraft. Oloch is the only spellcaster with detect magic, and with just 6 skill points, I didn’t put a rank in Spellcraft. Crowe has Spellcraft, of course, but he can’t cast spells yet. This was another goof.
He built pregens for the adventure without understanding the pregen classes he was using. And this was a very potentially fatal misunderstanding.
The biggest problem I have with this is that the PFS Chronicle sheet for the module says:
Legal Pathfinder Society Characters Players who wish to receive Pathfinder Society credit for playing through Risen from the Sands must use either one of their Pathfinder Society characters (without modification) within the legal character level range for the module or one of the pregenerated characters provided on pages 12–15 of the module. These pregenerated characters use four of the 10 new classes included in the upcoming Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Advanced Class Guide.
The level 4 standard PFS pregens aren't great. But for a new player, who will not have a level 2-4 character, they're better than the included required pregens. Certainly they're better than using level 3 pregens from classes that the module's author admits were only used because the character art was ready, from a book that the module's author admits was only used because marketing wanted to try to sell the book, and that the module's author admits are underpowered for the difficulty of the module. A new gamer being introduced to Pathfinder and PFS play finds that, instead of getting a friendly and enjoyable introduction, they get a crash course in arbitrary rules written to move product. I expect that from Wizards but I expected better from Paizo. If this was intended to endear people towards the Advanced Class Guide, to get us excited about the possibilities in the new book, it is a dramatic failure at that. And since that was the core and overriding goal for this module, it becomes a dramatic failure on all fronts.
Normally I wouldn't care this much, but my wife's best friend was interested in playing a Pathfinder game, and although she had to reschedule, I was going to run this for our group. I was going to inflict this on a person completely new to any kind of tabletop gaming. After reading the module, and the insane restrictions set by PFS (as I was just going to hand her Kyra or Seelah) on pregens, I decided to run Master of the Fallen Fortress instead. GMs and players shouldn't have to worry that the module they're about to run is a minefield of death traps caused because of poor writing and poor playtesting all in service of marketing goals.
tldr; The wrong pregens were used, because of marketing demands intended to sell the Advanced Class Guide. However, the PFS chronicle requires that original characters or these specific pregens be used, probably for marketing reasons. When will Paizo either re-release the module with effective pregens? When will PFS allow the level 4 pregens to be used in this module? Because as it stands right now, this is unacceptable as an introduction to Pathfinder intended to bring in new players and customers. Yeah, it was free, but I wouldn't run it if you paid me.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Going back to Rob McCreary's post.
First off, it's important to point out that the Free RPG Day module has to serve a number of masters, including marketing as well as PFSThis means that it was intended to attempt to sell the ACG, not to attract new players. For Free RPG day.
Or both. This isn't a zero-sum kind of thing.
Developer
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
tldr; The wrong pregens were used, because of marketing demands intended to sell the Advanced Class Guide. However, the PFS chronicle requires that original characters or these specific pregens be used, probably for marketing reasons. When will Paizo either re-release the module with effective pregens? When will PFS allow the level 4 pregens to be used in this module? Because as it stands right now, this is unacceptable as an introduction to Pathfinder intended to bring in new players and customers. Yeah, it was free, but I wouldn't run it if you paid me.
A frank question for you, Kyra Clone: Would you run it if the 4th-level pregens were allowed? You raise many points in your post above, and it's unclear to me whether you require all of your concerns be addressed or just this one before you consider the module suitable.
After reading the module, and the insane restrictions set by PFS
If you wish to effect a change, I kindly request you not refer to Paizo staff as insane, callous, or incompetent. I think it's a good policy for dealing with people in general.
|
|
Kyra Clone, what insane restrictions? That they wanted people to use the new iconics? That doesn't seem insane to me, in fact, it seems very un-insane. The pregens are decent, I ran a table on Monday with two PC's, Oloch, and Jirelle. The only character that died was Oloch, to Mummy Rot. The scenario isn't that rough, except for the Mummy and the Pyramid. The others aren't too rough, except for DR and hardness. Both of the pregens were able to contribute to the scenario. Everyone agreed that the scenario was pretty rough, but I think that's because they hit you hard right out the gate with the Pyramid.
EDIT: Hey, post #400!