Camping right outside a dungeon, what would be best course of action?

[Chyrone]

Okay,

The party has suffered decent strength damage due to poison.
They found healer's kit and are proposing, as far as i make of it, to camp outside the dungeon to fix some of it.

With the BBEG and cronies' room not yet entered, those would not yet be aware of them. However, in PFS missions, they are entitled to it right?

If so, would it be unreasonable to roll for random encounters for a chance of interruption?

Thanks in advance for the advice.

[The Fox]

If they aren't on a time crunch imposed by the scenario, there is no reason they can't take as much time as they want.

If this were a home game, I might roll to see if there is a random encounter, but that's not how PFS works. We can't add encounters that aren't already written into the scenario.

[thejeff]

Would it be acceptable to move one of the encounters? To have the BBEG discover that his lair has been invaded and investigate to find the culprits camped outside, for example?

I don't know the scenario obviously, so there might be in world reasons he wouldn't be aware, but he doesn't have to remain hidden in his room all night, right? He could come out for a snack and find his minions dead.

[BigNorseWolf]

The party has gone outside of the script and you have to try to figure out what the bad guys antagonists know , what their goals are, and what they wand. (whats my motivation mr de ville) They could conceivably pack up and leave, attack the party as they slept, etc. Its a very situational thing.

[andreww]

The Fox wrote:

If they aren't on a time crunch imposed by the scenario, there is no reason they can't take as much time as they want.

If this were a home game, I might roll to see if there is a random encounter, but that's not how PFS works. We can't add encounters that aren't already written into the scenario.

That isn't true. If the players go well off script then the game world can react to that. I seem to recall Mike Brock describing one game he ran where the players just kept fighting wave after wave of town guards.

I would have no issue with the bad guys noticing that their base had been invaded and investigating. PFS players too often seem to think the world is a video game where people simply wait in their room to be murdered for their loot. The world can and should react around them.

[The Fox]

Yeah, I can see that. Maybe if the party camps outside the dungeon then it is fine to create an encounter for them.

[TetsujinOni]

The Fox wrote:

Yeah, I can see that. Maybe if the party camps outside the dungeon then it is fine to create an encounter for them.

Create an encounter, no - do something with the encounter(s) left in the dungeon, yes.

Which lead to a train wreck when a party tried "we'll just wait for them to come out because we can't beat $Spoiler to get in" as part of the middle piece of the lissala arc.

Ow. That left marks.

[chris manning]

just scare them with stuff outside (thing that go bump in the night, nearby overwhelming force patrols that they have to hide from, random perception checks to unsettle them) so much they decide its safer inside

[Bag of rocks]

Just ambush them outside with the BBEG and some of his minions from various rooms. If he woke up for a snack and saw that his dungeon was invaded, he could get some friends and come out looking for the intruders. Imagine the surprise of the PCs when they are ambushed like that without their armor on or any of their buffs up.

Make sure that the BBEG gets his buffs up also.

[Chyrone]

BBEW (woman), would probably have terrain disadvantage, if not fighting in her own throne room.
As normally she and her cronies have a crowd of drugged NPCs to hide between.

Scenario:

Beggar's Pearl.

Just bbew and 4 rogues left in the drug rave.

[kinevon]

Potentially Risky:

She has darkvision, so one thing to do might be to have her spy on the PCs camp, deep in the night, then use her Night Terrors ability, as detailed in the sidebar on page 5, on one of the PCs. She can only use it on a single PC at a time, but she can always try again, or try a different PC. Do be careful, however, as this is one of the special ability damage things that can kill (even easily kill) some PCs. 1d4 Charisma damage may not sound like much, but there is a potential for PCs with as low as a 5 Charisma, between dumping it and a racial penalty, like Dwarves get.

[Muser]

Using that ability is a great idea, very fitting. The victim will get a save every hour, so dying is pretty hard, tbh.

As for the tendency to wait out fights/buffs/dungeons, to heck with that. Sure, if the plot completely ties the opposition's hands, then there's nothing to do, but any reasonable foe should react to what happens around them.

One time a group I was gm'ing for decided to reatreat from a boss fight to wait. I asked them how long. "An hour."

a %&!¤ing hour

Yeah, of course there was no one waiting for them afterwards.

[Ascalaphus]

PFS does a fairly good job of writing scenarios with time pressure of some kind to ensure you can't easily take liberties with your expected daily workload. But there are some scenarios that are slower.

It depends on whether the PCs raised an alarm already of course. If they didn't raise an alarm yet (no witnesses, and the BBEG isn't keeping good track of his minions) and they take some steps to hide their camp, they could get away with this.

If as the GM it's obvious the party is in no state to go on, and the BBEG isn't likely to flee, I'll ask suggestive questions; "are you going to camp right outside the dungeon?", and of course then the players will describe some sort of halfway plausible countermeasure to hide their camp. That would be good enough for me.

On the other hand, if the party's taken only a few licks but is already looking to camp, but there's time pressure, I'll ask the classic GM question; "are you sure you want to do that?" Because that always unnerves players.

In many cases, the mission briefing gives some clue that speed is of the essence, but players miss such things sometimes. I'll remind them about it, because I care more about a good romp than about training people to be perfect listeners (in often noisy gaming areas).

In summary, I'm lenient as long as the players make at least a nod towards believability.

[kinevon]

Muser wrote:

Using that ability is a great idea, very fitting. The victim will get a save every hour, so dying is pretty hard, tbh.

As I mentioned, it depends, strongly, on the PC build. That 5 Cha Dwarf only needs to miss a couple of saves, and he dies on just average rolls. At least, unlike the Shadow's Strength damage, it can't be critted.

Heck, I have a bunch of non-Charisma-based PCs who mainly have a 7 Cha, so 3 hours is likely to kill them, with a potential of only needing two hours, about 12.5% of the time if they fail the save. And, since they tend to be martial, rather than arcane, they don't have a high Will save to begin with, so...

DC:

Looks like the DC for the Will save is 14 in sub-tiers 1-2 and 3-4, and 16 in sub-tier 6-7. Dream is mind-affecting, so this should be, too. Su, so not a spell or spell-like ability. I think it should be considered a fear affect, so I think Bravery should work for it. Still, a typical Fighter is likely to only have a +4 to +6 (Wis 12, Cloak of Resistance +1) at 7th level, so maybe a 50% chance of making the save...

[Malag]

Such situations usually go out of the scenario's expected outcome. Here is a few steps which I would do with as little scenario changing as possible.

Step 1: Evaluate the situation. How much does the BBEG, NPCs or monsters know about the party? Are they keeping contact with their slain minions somehow? Did the party cause ruckuss and enough noise to attract the attention? Is the party careful enough to remain undiscovered and is keeping a guard while resting?

Step 2: Determine BBEG, NPC or monster motives. Are they cowardly sort? Maybe they should run. Are they curious? Maybe they should send a scout to check on PCs. Are they under time pressure or have an ultimate objective in the story? Maybe they should ignore PCs and continue with their task as fast as possible. Are they mindless? Perhaps they could backtrack PCs, but it's more likely that they might feast on dead bodies PCs left. Are they clever and vile? Maybe they would spring up an ambush on PCs then.

Step 3: Pick the best option, but downplay it a bit if it seems too rough.Intelligent NPCs and monsters aren't dumb, they are often arrogant, fearful and have their own agendas. Ambush while resting is a potential call for TPK, but if you split the remaining enemies into two groups and only strike with one weaker group, it might just hit the spot. Scouting the party might just be enough to alert the party, but also provide some insight for bad guys. It's your call what you pick, but I suggest giving PCs some in-game heads-up before attempting something rougher.

Adam

[Granta]

andreww wrote:

That isn't true. If the players go well off script then the game world can react to that. I seem to recall Mike Brock describing one game he ran where the players just kept fighting wave after wave of town guards.

I remember that post as well, and applied it last week. The PCs got themselves arrested on two charges (one false) by returning to the bar where they had left the employees unconscious on the floor. The PC who assaulted a fleeing NPC in the streets of Absalom had to pay 5 PP for body recovery, and the rest of the party paid for zone of truth to prove that the other charge was false.

[nosig]

Scott Zimmerman wrote:

andreww wrote:

That isn't true. If the players go well off script then the game world can react to that. I seem to recall Mike Brock describing one game he ran where the players just kept fighting wave after wave of town guards.

I remember that post as well, and applied it last week. The PCs got themselves arrested on two charges (one false) by returning to the bar where they had left the employees unconscious on the floor. The PC who assaulted a fleeing NPC in the streets of Absalom had to pay 5 PP for body recovery, and the rest of the party paid for zone of truth to prove that the other charge was false.

I would think the changes for the zone of truth would have been assessed against the persons who were not telling the truth... unless it was just a mis-understanding

[TwilightKnight]

Remember that Golarion does not necessary operate under the impression that you are innocent until proven guilty. If the burden of proving innocence fell on the players, paying for a zone of truth might not be an unreasonable expense.

[nosig]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

Remember that Golarion does not necessary operate under the impression that you are innocent until proven guilty. If the burden of proving innocence fell on the players, paying for a zone of truth might not be an unreasonable expense.

Presumption of innocence has nothing to do with my opinion here. "Truth" is what I would think the issue is. Abadar (and his church) is more likely (IMHO) to access the cost to those persons who were being un-truthful... and they would be the one most likely to have this spell (or one like it) available to mediate the dispute. And clearly, almost all parties in a dispute would not want to rely on a caster supplied by the other party, and would want to go with a "neutral" caster (Abadar - L/N)

Unless we are going with the assumption that the PCs would be required to pay for the spell casting in all cases of disputes between NPCs and PCs...

[FLite]

nosig wrote:

Bob Jonquet wrote:

Remember that Golarion does not necessary operate under the impression that you are innocent until proven guilty. If the burden of proving innocence fell on the players, paying for a zone of truth might not be an unreasonable expense.

Presumption of innocence has nothing to do with my opinion here. "Truth" is what I would think the issue is. Abadar (and his church) is more likely (IMHO) to access the cost to those persons who were being un-truthful... and they would be the one most likely to have this spell (or one like it) available to mediate the dispute. And clearly, almost all parties in a dispute would not want to rely on a caster supplied by the other party, and would want to go with a "neutral" caster (Abadar - L/N)

Unless we are going with the assumption that the PCs would be required to pay for the spell casting in all cases of disputes between NPCs and PCs...

I think it would come down to the status of the various parties.

Pathfinders in Absolom against Absolom Businessmen, would probably split the cost, or possibly negotiate a "loser pays" arrangement.

In some little town, strangers who are came into town vs local innkeeper in good standing, the constabulary isn't going to bother with a trial, especially if other confirmed crimes have taken place. If you want them to go to the trouble of fetching a priest of abadar, you had better be willing to pay.

Aspis agents vs pathfinders in some town neither lives in are likely to just both get thrown into jail overnight to sleep it off and then kicked out of town and told never to come back.

By the way, wouldn't Abadar's church use Abadar's truth telling? More effective and cheaper unless you have more than 6 people to question.

[nosig]

Jared Thaler wrote:

nosig wrote:

Bob Jonquet wrote:

Remember that Golarion does not necessary operate under the impression that you are innocent until proven guilty. If the burden of proving innocence fell on the players, paying for a zone of truth might not be an unreasonable expense.

Presumption of innocence has nothing to do with my opinion here. "Truth" is what I would think the issue is. Abadar (and his church) is more likely (IMHO) to access the cost to those persons who were being un-truthful... and they would be the one most likely to have this spell (or one like it) available to mediate the dispute. And clearly, almost all parties in a dispute would not want to rely on a caster supplied by the other party, and would want to go with a "neutral" caster (Abadar - L/N)

Unless we are going with the assumption that the PCs would be required to pay for the spell casting in all cases of disputes between NPCs and PCs...

I think it would come down to the status of the various parties.

Pathfinders in Absolom against Absolom Businessmen, would probably split the cost, or possibly negotiate a "loser pays" arrangement.

In some little town, strangers who are came into town vs local innkeeper in good standing, the constabulary isn't going to bother with a trial, especially if other confirmed crimes have taken place. If you want them to go to the trouble of fetching a priest of abadar, you had better be willing to pay.

Aspis agents vs pathfinders in some town neither lives in are likely to just both get thrown into jail overnight to sleep it off and then kicked out of town and told never to come back.

By the way, wouldn't Abadar's church use Abadar's truth telling? More effective and cheaper unless you have more than 6 people to question.

I actually sort of picture this as being kind of a "standard" thing, worked out and established in "custom".

Judge: "so, it looks like we got us a 'he said-she said' issue here. One of you can't be telling the truth. SO, both of you pony up the cost of the spell, whichever one is lying pays that cost. If both of you are actually telling the truth, and I can't see how that can be but I've been surprised before, then you get half your deposit back. If one of you is telling the truth and the other is lying, then the truthful one gets all his deposit back. If both of you are less then truthful, then both of you are out the cost of the spell, and the church thanks you for your contribution. Now, either of you want to retract or amend your earlier statements before we call the 'caster?"

[Ascalaphus]

Abadar's Truthtelling is significantly better than Zone of Truth. Because it's a single-target spell, the caster knows if the target made the save or not. Better even: it's made plainly visible to everyone. Unlike ZoT, which doesn't tell you if the witness made or failed his save until it makes him stutter something you're 100% sure he wouldn't want to say.

[FLite]

nosig wrote:

Jared Thaler wrote:

nosig wrote:

Bob Jonquet wrote:

Remember that Golarion does not necessary operate under the impression that you are innocent until proven guilty. If the burden of proving innocence fell on the players, paying for a zone of truth might not be an unreasonable expense.

Presumption of innocence has nothing to do with my opinion here. "Truth" is what I would think the issue is. Abadar (and his church) is more likely (IMHO) to access the cost to those persons who were being un-truthful... and they would be the one most likely to have this spell (or one like it) available to mediate the dispute. And clearly, almost all parties in a dispute would not want to rely on a caster supplied by the other party, and would want to go with a "neutral" caster (Abadar - L/N)

Unless we are going with the assumption that the PCs would be required to pay for the spell casting in all cases of disputes between NPCs and PCs...

I think it would come down to the status of the various parties.

Pathfinders in Absolom against Absolom Businessmen, would probably split the cost, or possibly negotiate a "loser pays" arrangement.

In some little town, strangers who are came into town vs local innkeeper in good standing, the constabulary isn't going to bother with a trial, especially if other confirmed crimes have taken place. If you want them to go to the trouble of fetching a priest of abadar, you had better be willing to pay.

Aspis agents vs pathfinders in some town neither lives in are likely to just both get thrown into jail overnight to sleep it off and then kicked out of town and told never to come back.

By the way, wouldn't Abadar's church use Abadar's truth telling? More effective and cheaper unless you have more than 6 people to question.

I actually sort of picture this as being kind of a "standard" thing, worked out and established in "custom".

Judge: "so, it looks like we got us a 'he said-she said' issue here. One of you can't be...

You are assuming that

A. That justice is standardized
B. That justice is fair
C. That justice is more interested in the truth than in resolving the situation and getting back to drinking. (Possibly at the same tavern where he runs a tab...)
D. That there is a court and a judge.

Justice in small towns in the middle ages was usually the sheriff. If you were lucky there was a judge who came through once a week to decide matters between local residents.

Big cities might be fairer to outsiders, but probably not by much.

It could very well be "Look, you seem like nice folks. Tell you what, you shell out for the spell and I'll send for the town cleric to clear your names. If it turns out you are innocent, you can stick around till friday when the circuit judge comes through and sue Tom here for slander and get your money back. Course, Tom does run the only in, so I hope you brought tents."

[FLite]

Honestly, who would pay how much is probably going to come down to opposed diplomacy checks...

[Granta]

nosig wrote:

I would think the changes for the zone of truth would have been assessed against the persons who were not telling the truth... unless it was just a mis-understanding

If the PCs had been willing to wait for the wheels of justice to turn at a normal pace, they would have been cleared of the false charges without cost. The problem arose because they needed to be cleared and released within an hour.

[Granta]

Jared Thaler wrote:

It could very well be "Look, you seem like nice folks. Tell you what, you shell out for the spell and I'll send for the town cleric to clear your names. If it turns out you are innocent, you can stick around till friday when the circuit judge comes through and sue Tom here for slander and get your money back. Course, Tom does run the only in, so I hope you brought tents."

Exactly. The burden of payment is on the person requesting the purchase. And later on, the burden of collecting reimbursement is on the person requesting the payment.

In this case, collecting reimbursement would have entailed:

• Suing a convicted murderer who does not have 60 gp.
• Putting a lien on his bar when he can't afford to pay.
• Selling the bar.

Maybe I'm a stingy GM, but I'm not going to run through all of that to reward the PCs's mistake with extra loot.

[Kahel Stormbender]

I suppose it would also depend on if you're running a module, scenario, or adventure path. If the group's one that regularly plays together and pull this tactic all the time, I'd be tempted to give a 50% chance the divine caster(s) doesn't get a full night's rest due to their god sending visions warning against letting evil flourish through inaction. If it's not a regular thing, maybe gently remind the group after the session about restoration potions and scrolls. Maybe suggest something along the lines of "Poison seems to be a rather large bane. Would a wand of lesser restoration be useful?"

Or if there is another way out, perhaps the BBEG just isn't there anymore when they finally re-enter. Especially if the BBEG was there searching for something instead of having the place as a lair.

If the place is in fact the BBEG's lair, there's other options too. Should the party decide to evacuate further away then just outside the place (or if there's a 2nd way in) then you might reset some of the encounters. I mean, the BBEG would have time to notice there'd been an assault (if he didn't know already) and call in reinforcements. Maybe reset some of the traps that the party disabled too. Possibly with the trap in a different location if it's possible.

If nothing else though, assume the BBEG now KNOWS the party is coming. Rather then the normal setup, there might be an ambush set up now. No matter what the BBEG is going to have his buffs up, his summons out, and allies arrayed in an advantages position. Probably hidden too.