|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm currently prepping this.
I can't resist but pointing out that the writer missed an obvious gem.
While the PCs are having their social encounter with Praetor to convince him of their worthiness, Amersanus should have totally reminded him Pathfinders are called "murder hobos" for a reason...
|
So I did it and the players had a good chuckle. We are not....okay maybe we are...
Three issue I had running low tier:
1). No stats for apsis consortium or guide on what he does when flummoxed my pcs went looking for him. I made him pull up camp and disappear.
2). No overview map. How do all these encounters relate? My pcs ended up with 3 delays since they kept camping overnight. Seems like an overview might have helped me dissuade the rests.
3). The cheetah made no sense ( playing down). I had the party stalked by a wyvern and to escape they had to run and quick cross clearings. 3 sprints later they all saved vs fort or had further non lethal environmental dmg. A cheetah chasing down 6 armed pathfinders?
In all great senario. I want to run it again with core because the arcanist color sprays and bard crystal notes blasted the final encounter.
Developer
|
I'm running this Monday and I was very pleased that all the stat blocks and bestiary pages were included until I noticed that one was left out. Was that just an oversight or was it to make sure every GM has bought all the books still?
If anything, it was likely an oversight as I was developing the scenario and tracking which pages were necessary. Which one is missing?
|
I ran this scenario yesterday on tier 1-2 and I thought this was a really good start for the upcoming trilogy.
The highlight for me was the roleplaying part in Fort Bandu with the Praetor and the Aspis agent. I really liked roleplaying Valacosti as a smug Aspis agent, who used every turn to dismiss the PC:s and Pathfinders. My PC:s roleplayed this encounter and succeeded in every Sylien's challenge. I really liked their energy and thus was dissapointed when the final diplomacy check turned out as a natural 1, getting the PC:s evicted from Fort Bandu.
And then the delays came. They had to find Sharrowsmith's trail themselves and after two days they found it...and decided to travel at night, causing another delay. In future I have to emphasize the rush they should be facing because of the captured miners. In every encounter they found dead miners and managed to discover that they would have been alive if they had succeeded better.
The encounters themselves were pretty easy for them, all but final encounter lasted at most 2 rounds. The final encounter was a long one, for the wrong reasons. PCs managed to beat the regular kobolds easily, but the kobold fighter managed to frustrate them. It had AC 24 using Combat Expertise and most PC:s were able to hit him only with a natural 20. The encounter dragged for rounds and my players were visibly exhausted at the end when they finaled succeeded grappling him and getting him in to 0 hp.
I found success conditions a bit harsh. With just a couple of delays it is possible that PC:s will get 0pp, because they have to get Sharrowsmith's journal AND rescue at least 3 miners.
But all and all I though this was a nice scenario. Good roleplaying, nice varying encounters and not just plain kobolds. Not too hard, not too challenging but a nice experience.
|
I'm running this Monday and I was very pleased that all the stat blocks and bestiary pages were included until I noticed that one was left out. Was that just an oversight or was it to make sure every GM has bought all the books still?If anything, it was likely an oversight as I was developing the scenario and tracking which pages were necessary. Which one is missing?
It looks like the Krenshar Bestiary entry is missing
|
I just played this and we had an absolute blast.
Party of 6 in low tier
Then the halfling who didn't have enough money to buy a warmweather outfit got caught trying to steal some pocketmoney. The half-orc tried to help out but really bungled his roll, after which the undine shot to the rescue and with some fasttalking managed to get them out. Does anyone by any chance know of an easy reference for guards/bribes/fines? It was waived this time because of the fast talking of the bard, but it could've gone either way there.
The conversation with the Praetor and the aspis scum. Very nice. We tried all the things, even trying to discredit the aspis to make the pathfinders look better. This scene has a lot of roleplay potential and I believe we really made use of it. Awesome.
Afterwards we forge a letter to use if we get into trouble to discredit the aspis some more. Sadly we never got to use it.
The the long chase after Sharrowsmith. First the mining camp, interesting setup, it was just over really quick thanks to a critical hit and a very slow zombie. Having the survivor hide out in the outhouse, a classic move :D. We find the ledger which turns out to be Exchange material and continu with the directions from the survivor.
Then we saw a cheetah. The gunslinger went, oh lunch and shoots. It survives and the halfling says, oh yes and uses his slingstaf and kills it. The tiefling looks worried and goes: uhoh, I hope we didn't kill a druids animal companion, those animals usually don't approach big groups. So we all start looking around paranoid for a druid. Meanwhile the halfling cut out some choice pieces of the cheetah, but since we want to continu the eidolon has to carry it (the only one who could without dropping to heavy load).
Then came the plants. Oh boy, the druids garden, carnivorous plants and some corpses, but wait, that one looks still alive, let's distract the plants with the cheetah corpse and see if we can rescue her. One plant distracted, another got shot by the gunslinger, the halfling kills a plant and falls asleep, the eidolon kills the distracted one, but manages to stay awake. Surprise! The summoner fails a perception check and gets hit in the back by a flying stingray. Both the inquisitors and the bard attack, but miss the last plant and after the gunslinger and summoner take out the flying stingray, the eidolon kills the last plant and promptly falls asleep, while the others manage to stay awake. We heal the miner and get some more info about the kobolds.
The rickety bridge had my summoner very worried (she herself and gear are 230 lbs and the eidolon and gear are 350 lbs), but luckily it's sturdy enough. The halfling spots one trap, but gets caught in the other to great amusement of the rest. Helped by the half-orc he gets out safely.
Finally we get to the place we need to be. A bunch of miners bound next to an altar and kobolds praying and looking like they are sacrifing them. The fight that happened next was really wacky.
Summoner and eidolon go 5 rounds against 1 kobold before they kill it.
The rest of the group dispatched the other kobolds fairly quickly, except for one. They kept him nearly all the time in a challenge diamond, but couldn't hit him until the tiefling got a lucky trip attack, followed by a critical hit from the half-orc.
The halfling sneaks down to scout while the rest frees the miners. When he comes back with Sharrowsmith's backpack we figure out we have to keep going after him, as he's no longer here.
So, we guide the miners back to the fort, the two exchange players make a deal with them, the praetor gives us some more information about the notes, and mentions that the aspis guy went in that direction as well. So, we pack up and set out for the next installment of this trilogy.
We had a wonderful evening, which ran about 4,5 hours including a break and a couple of topic derailments which if prevented would've made it shorter, but probably also less merry and fun.
A review has already been posted as well, but I felt the session report might be more appreciated here.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
I was in Damanta's group as well. It was a nice evening :)
In the beginning I didn't really appreciate that we were in a hurry. I thought the whole "travel by night" thing was all about overheating.
When we rescued the miner at the camp, and figured out he'd been hiding for about three days or so, I really didn't think the scenario expected us to actually rescue the other miners. Sure, they're not moving as fast, but tracking also slows you down. So when we saw another miner in the plant field, I was really surprised he was still alive.
The thing to take away from this: as a GM you might want to be on guard against overly pessimistic players.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8
|
Also the guile casters concentration check is wrong. With the circlet of persuasion on it should be +12 as concentration is a charisma check for him.
It is perhaps a fine distinction, but IMO it isn't a Charisma-based check, it is a concentration check, which is a d20 roll plus caster level plus casting stat modifier.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8
|
Well, there are a pair of dev posts about this.Also the guile casters concentration check is wrong. With the circlet of persuasion on it should be +12 as concentration is a charisma check for him.It is perhaps a fine distinction, but IMO it isn't a Charisma-based check, it is a concentration check, which is a d20 roll plus caster level plus casting stat modifier.
Thanks Jeff! My opinion wasn't very solid and it seems based on these posts that it should work.
|
|
1). No stats for apsis consortium or guide on what he does when flummoxed my pcs went looking for him. I made him pull up camp and disappear.
Agree would be good to know what NPC to use from the NPC Codex at least, the group I will run this for has a sorcerer who will 100% attempt to charm person the Aspis agent and probably the Praetor as well. Will think it great fun to have an Aspis agent suddenly urging the Praetor to give the Pathfinders a chance. So a stat block would be very appreciated.
|
So I did it and the players had a good chuckle. We are not....okay maybe we are...
Three issue I had running low tier:
1). No stats for apsis consortium or guide on what he does when flummoxed my pcs went looking for him. I made him pull up camp and disappear.
2). No overview map. How do all these encounters relate? My pcs ended up with 3 delays since they kept camping overnight. Seems like an overview might have helped me dissuade the rests.
3). The cheetah made no sense ( playing down). I had the party stalked by a wyvern and to escape they had to run and quick cross clearings. 3 sprints later they all saved vs fort or had further non lethal environmental dmg. A cheetah chasing down 6 armed pathfinders?In all great senario. I want to run it again with core because the arcanist color sprays and bard crystal notes blasted the final encounter.
This may have already been said, but I couldn't pass up commenting on this.
GMs are not allowed to make changes like this. We must run as written as far as changing encounters or the challenge levels.
|
|
I feel the author was trying to keep the adventure from being TOO detail oriented on the aspects of overland travel, and therefor bog things down (the commentary about summing up the usual Fortitude rolls for heat into a smaller roll set seems to support this). Also, the notes at certain stops that say "If you left in the morning, it's evening and if you waited til evening, now it's day" also implies that. Your mileage will vary based on how stickler a GM wants to be about using actual overland rules vs using the loose guidelines in the adventure. (That said, I don't necessarily disagree with whether the author read them or not - I just go with the flow in the adventure, intentional or not.)
What I think is missing though are reporting codes for how the Exchange players do with their faction bit - but maybe that is intentional. Seemed like a good place for a reporting code to me...
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
One of the problems with the "must hurry" part of the scenario is that when you set out into the jungle, you're following a months-old trail to Sharrowsmith's last known location, so you don't know IC that there's any reason to hurry.
I mean, sure, there have been attacks on miners. But you don't know that the place you're heading towards is a mining camp.
|
|
I'm pretty sure that you know you are going to a mining camp.You do but you have no idea that particular camp has been attacked or that there is any great sense of urgency. Sharrowsmith disappeared months ago, the trail is very cold. Even after you finish up in the camp the module does nothing to tell you that these particular miners might be in any way important to the scenario or the society and yet the secondary mission and quite possibly the first are strongly dependant on them.
On the travel time issue the trip to the camp is a 20 mile journey using existing trails through hills. Anyone with a base speed of 20 can travel 12 miles per day, 30 base is 18 miles so you are automatically looking at 1 delay, probably 2. The trip from the camp to the valley is 15 miles through untracked hills reducing your daily travel rate to 8 or 12 miles meaning another 1-2 delay. If you end up with 4 delay that means only 1 miner is alive at the end and you have automatically failed the secondary.
That means pretty much any group with someone wearing medium armour is going to have to forced march assuming they even realise it is necessary.
So the RP you do with the Praetor at the beginning, where he specifically asks you what you are going to do to resolve his situation with the Kobolds, and that he wants it done quickly and all that really doesn't give the PCs the sense that Fort Bandu wants this taken care of quickly?
EDIT: The scenario deals with time very abstractly. It tells you what time of day it is when you arrive at the camp depending on when you left. It also tells you what constitutes a delay. The GM should not be adding on more qualifiers like movement speed in a jungle. The trail to the mining camp is an actual road, and as such no slow down in time should be used anyways. The only delay points should be assigned based on what the scenario says assigns them, or if the PCs manufacture their own delay by deciding to randomly roam about the jungle for a couple days. Lets not make this more complicated than it has to be.
|
|
So I did it and the players had a good chuckle. We are not....okay maybe we are...
Three issue I had running low tier:
1). No stats for apsis consortium or guide on what he does when flummoxed my pcs went looking for him. I made him pull up camp and disappear.
2). No overview map. How do all these encounters relate? My pcs ended up with 3 delays since they kept camping overnight. Seems like an overview might have helped me dissuade the rests.
3). The cheetah made no sense ( playing down). I had the party stalked by a wyvern and to escape they had to run and quick cross clearings. 3 sprints later they all saved vs fort or had further non lethal environmental dmg. A cheetah chasing down 6 armed pathfinders?In all great senario. I want to run it again with core because the arcanist color sprays and bard crystal notes blasted the final encounter.
This may have already been said, but I couldn't pass up commenting on this.
GMs are not allowed to make changes like this. We must run as written as far as changing encounters or the challenge levels.
Please read again.
I took the optional encounter out and during a transition between encounters made the characters think and feel they were being stalked by a wyvern (which very clearly must live in this area). No fight ensued. No PCs were harmed. But boy did they get nervous. Especially those who had already heard about wyvern encounters. Always nice to add a little suspense to the mix.Not sure what change occurred.
As for when I played, my cleric of Set animated the dead wyvern and we flew past most other trouble...but that's another story.
Enjoy.
|
I loved the bridge. The player's were so worried about its stability nobody bothered checking for traps or anything else. One guy flew over with a rope then the hunter's animal companion went running over right into the trap. The halfling then ran over and stood on another trap and the fight started. And of course the idiot barbarian found it necessary to jump the chasm. He did not.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
So the RP you do with the Praetor at the beginning, where he specifically asks you what you are going to do to resolve his situation with the Kobolds, and that he wants it done quickly and all that really doesn't give the PCs the sense that Fort Bandu wants this taken care of quickly?
Not the way it happened to us, no. The RP part was a bit weird; we weren't rolling all that well, but somehow we seemed to pass anyway. I can only guess the DCs weren't all that high?
Anyway, as I understand the information we were given, Sharrowsmith messed things up, but that was a long time ago. Sure, they want things cleared up sooner rather than later, but there was no hint that there was a current emergency that you're racing towards. Nobody in town knows that this camp was attacked. That the camp Sharrowsmith was using months ago has been attacked right around the time the PCs arrive is an amazing (typical, convenient) coincidence.
So I'd say it'd be fairer design to "start the clock" when the PCs arrive at the camp, not when they depart Fort Bandu.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Lots of things get told to you. I was sure that the big new aggressive mining company was gonna turn out to be an Aspis front.
You're also told not to create a power vacuum among the kobolds, but you go in and slaughter a lot of them including some higher-level ones, and everyone is quite happy about that afterwards. As a player, it's not always easy to fish out the detail in the mission briefing that you're supposed to follow, as opposed to the one you're supposed to do the exact opposite of.
|
|
You're also told not to create a power vacuum among the kobolds, but you go in and slaughter a lot of them including some higher-level ones, and everyone is quite happy about that afterwards.
A dozen is not a lot of kobolds... tribes are several hundred individuals each, and there sound like there are lots of different tribes... that's the only way those guys survive, they breed even faster than goblins!
|
|
I'm running this on Saturday, and I've got a question about the kobold Guilecaster--it looks as though the Guilecaster build is supposed to take a move action to feint a PC, and then lightning bolt them with +2 to the DC, but on my first (and second) read through the associated rules, it doesn't look like that's actually an interaction that works. Feint only benefits melee attacks, while the Guilecaster has no melee touch spells, leaving it--as Andreww pointed out--having spent two feats to "improve" an absolutely useless staff attack it should never resort to.
How should I GM this? Ignore the two feats and intended tactics?
I didn't see any Monster Codex specific threads about how to resolve this, but my search-fu may have simply failed me.
|
|
Is there any rule that says you explicitly keep your Dex bonus to Reflex saves even when it's denied to AC?
Because if not, you can certainly choose to interpret the combination as follows:
A successful feint denies the target dex bonus to AC (and by extension, REF save)
Casting an aoe spell with that target inside the aoe can be considered "an attack", as feint doesn't give the penalty versus only a melee attack.
Target is denied dex bonus on the lightning bolt REF save.
Ta da!
|
Is there any rule that says you explicitly keep your Dex bonus to Reflex saves even when it's denied to AC?
More importantly, there is nothing that says you lose your DEX bonus to Reflex saves.
To put this another way... do you lose your Dexterity bonus to Reflex saves when you are flatfooted?
No
If not, then you wouldn't lose your dexterity bonus to saves when you are feinted against.
|
|
I'm running this on Saturday, and I've got a question about the kobold Guilecaster--it looks as though the Guilecaster build is supposed to take a move action to feint a PC, and then lightning bolt them with +2 to the DC, but on my first (and second) read through the associated rules, it doesn't look like that's actually an interaction that works. Feint only benefits melee attacks, while the Guilecaster has no melee touch spells, leaving it--as Andreww pointed out--having spent two feats to "improve" an absolutely useless staff attack it should never resort to.
How should I GM this? Ignore the two feats and intended tactics?
I didn't see any Monster Codex specific threads about how to resolve this, but my search-fu may have simply failed me.
Feint: You can use Bluff to feint in combat, causing your opponent to be denied his Dexterity bonus to his AC against your next attack. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + your opponent's base attack bonus + your opponent's Wisdom modifier. If your opponent is trained in Sense Motive, the DC is instead equal to 10 + your opponent's Sense Motive bonus, if higher. For more information on feinting in combat, see Combat.
I'm not seeing a limiter of it being only vs. melee attacks that you deny the DEX bonus. The +2 DC works anytime the opponent is denied DEX against you...I can't see any reason why it would not work the way it is written...
|
|
Is there any rule that says you explicitly keep your Dex bonus to Reflex saves even when it's denied to AC?
More importantly, there is nothing that says you lose your DEX bonus to Reflex saves.
Whether you're right or wrong about Dex to Reflex saves, at least on that quoted concept you're wrong.
The rules of pathfinder are proscriptive only when in context of fantasy elements that have no real-world "common sense" to fall back upon.
For example, the fireball spell doesn't benefit from a "chunky salsa" rule from overpressure when cast into a small room, because the spell doesn't explicitly call out for anything of the sort.
On the other hand, where the pathfinder rules address concepts relevant in the real world, they are descriptive rather than proscriptive. They don't try to explicitly cover the infinite things that can prop up that can be simply adjudicated by applying real world common sense. The CRB is already 500 pages, how big would it have to be if Paizo even attempted to try to codify how EVERYTHING works within the rules?
Example: The rules never explicitly cover how often one needs to use the bathroom, despite covering how often one needs to eat. But, these are real world applicible concepts, and thus the language is not proscriptive. In other words, unless the rules explicitly say something in this area, the GM has free reign to interpret and adjudicate the framework that does exist. The GM is indeed free to insist that PCs have to periodically relieve themselves, despite it not being explicitly called out in the rules. The relevance is "it doesn't say I can't rule this way.." is trumped by "it doesn't say you can, either!" only when the topic is some fantasy element that has no real world analogue.
How this lesson in semantics applies to the topic:
getting an advantage in avoiding being hurt because of one's agility and reflexes is a fairly real-world relevant topic. Thus, the rules need to explicitly state something (like whether or not there are situations where Dex bonuses can be denied to reflex saves) rather than asserting that the standard is that omission of rules allowing something constitutes a prohibitation.
TL;DR: I'm not saying it's wrong to say Dex to Reflex saves are always there. I'm also not saying it's wrong to say that by common sense, if you're denied your dex bonus to AC (and by extension CMD), then it should too Reflex Saves. Either way you want to rule it is fine, that's what I'm saying.
This post in particular is refuting "More importantly, there is nothing that says you lose your DEX bonus to Reflex saves." as being a relevant concept to the discussion. Well, it's relevant, but in that it's a faulty assumption.
To recap again, under the pathfinder rules the absence of an allowance is a prohibitation only within the context of fantasy elements of the game, not the entire game.
|
|
Feint: You can use Bluff to feint in combat, causing your opponent to be denied his Dexterity bonus to his AC against your next attack. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + your opponent's base attack bonus + your opponent's Wisdom modifier. If your opponent is trained in Sense Motive, the DC is instead equal to 10 + your opponent's Sense Motive bonus, if higher. For more information on feinting in combat, see Combat.I'm not seeing a limiter of it being only vs. melee attacks that you deny the DEX bonus. The +2 DC works anytime the opponent is denied DEX against you...I can't see any reason why it would not work the way it is written...
That's because the limiter is in the Feint section of the Combat rules, *not* the Feint section of the Bluff skill rules. I learned this the hard way, having built a Feinting Arcane Trickster expecting Feint to work on Ray attacks, because of the exact wording you already quoted.
Feinting is a standard action. To feint, make a Bluff skill check. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + your opponent's base attack bonus + your opponent's Wisdom modifier. If your opponent is trained in Sense Motive, the DC is instead equal to 10 + your opponent's Sense Motive bonus, if higher. If successful, the next melee attack you make against the target does not allow him to use his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). This attack must be made on or before your next turn.
|
|
Feint: You can use Bluff to feint in combat, causing your opponent to be denied his Dexterity bonus to his AC against your next attack. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + your opponent's base attack bonus + your opponent's Wisdom modifier. If your opponent is trained in Sense Motive, the DC is instead equal to 10 + your opponent's Sense Motive bonus, if higher. For more information on feinting in combat, see Combat.I'm not seeing a limiter of it being only vs. melee attacks that you deny the DEX bonus. The +2 DC works anytime the opponent is denied DEX against you...I can't see any reason why it would not work the way it is written...That's because the limiter is in the Feint section of the Combat rules, *not* the Feint section of the Bluff skill rules. I learned this the hard way, having built a Feinting Arcane Trickster expecting Feint to work on Ray attacks, because of the exact wording you already quoted.
Feinting is a standard action. To feint, make a Bluff skill check. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + your opponent's base attack bonus + your opponent's Wisdom modifier. If your opponent is trained in Sense Motive, the DC is instead equal to 10 + your opponent's Sense Motive bonus, if higher. If successful, the next melee attack you make against the target does not allow him to use his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). This attack must be made on or before your next turn.
Ah ha! Thank you. I even read that section, but must have skimmed over that as I followed the link in the PRD to Bluff.
Yet another case of covering the same subject in multiple places in the rule book, but not putting all of the rules in every place.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Very disappointed that Sharrowsmith's haversack is not on the 1-2 subtier list. It doesn't come into play at all in the scenario, but it would still be nice for my newer players to get access to that without having to game the system by applying GM credit to a 4th level character.
|
|
Is there any rule that says you explicitly keep your Dex bonus to Reflex saves even when it's denied to AC?
Because if not, you can certainly choose to interpret the combination as follows:
A successful feint denies the target dex bonus to AC (and by extension, REF save)
Casting an aoe spell with that target inside the aoe can be considered "an attack", as feint doesn't give the penalty versus only a melee attack.
Target is denied dex bonus on the lightning bolt REF save.Ta da!
This is pretty faulty logic. You need an actual rule saying that the target loses his Dex bonus to Reflex saves, because the flatfooted condition and any instance of 'denied Dex to AC' has no effect on the target's Reflex save. The bolded section is where you have changed the rules.
|
|
This is pretty faulty logic. You need an actual rule saying that the target loses his Dex bonus to Reflex saves, because the flatfooted condition and any instance of 'denied Dex to AC' has no effect on the target's Reflex save. The bolded section is where you have changed the rules.
It's less faulty logic than a disagreement over whether the absence of an allowance necessarily constitutes a prohibition. (There's a few of those threads going around lately) I literally spelled out how and when that is true and not true five posts upthread so I don't see a need to reiterate it. I'll just conclude with:
Interpreting how a skeleton framework of rules interact with each other is not changing the rules. Paizo meant for GMs to interpret and apply common sense. Except, as I noted, in cases like how dragon flight or fireballs work, and so on.