2 - Songbird, Scion, Saboteur (GM Reference)


War for the Crown

151 to 179 of 179 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

rkotitan wrote:
I asked the same question and it took me a while to find it. Literally the only other way to shift attitude happens when the group finds Portimer of Stachys 'not guilty' during the trial. So I made it happen (as above) at a set investment of funds.

Amazing! thanks for finding this!!!


Question: has any GM out there calculated the loot for the entire book 2? (including sale of equipment for defeated enemies) I'm about to do it, but if one of you has done it... ;)


Okay, sorry for enterring in the thread so late, but my party of four is about to start War of the Crown soon, and I have a question. My party's alchemist chose Lotheed as her Noble Scion house, and when she found out Martella was a Lotheed, she asked if she could be Martella's younger sister. Not having book 2 at the time, I thought 'sure, why not?' I've now read through book 2 and realized the total possible can of worms I allowed. I know Bartleby despises Martella, but it states he's quite devoted to the rest of his family.

Suggestions on possible ways to handle the sibling factor?


Make her a Qadiran half-sister like Martella (same mother... daddy's repeated dalliance...) Bartleby will equally racist-hate her.


Sorry, but I just don’t feel that arrangement sounds at all plausible. Martella specifically cites her parentage as the primary reason why she isn’t going herself. I can’t imagine Martella and Eutropia sending a less experienced younger sister who would face all the same difficulties and have fewer skills with which to succeed. And besides, our alchemist is full human rather than half-elf


i was more concerned about roll modifiers and whether Bartleby would insist on his sister living at home rather than Bretoy manor, which would split the party


Martella is full human. She's half Taldan half Qadiran.

Her younger sister would not be as much a threat to Bartleby, especially if she somehow managed to squeeze out the Betony Estate title from some addled brain Senator in Oppara... matter of fact, that might gain his respect, as she figured out of a way to gain a new barony within the Merratt County that will now stay within the family... he might even try to befriend her or exert influence on her out of a new feeling of 'owning two baronies instead of one'... he's sadly unaware that the young sister's purpose is to take his barony from him (he never had it, he was stewarding it) This makes the whole thing even more Game-o-thronesque.

All that, or maybe instead you have to undo what you've allowed, Sir! :)

PS: Funny thing --> if the ending of Book 2 is non-violent, the young sister could even allow Bartleby to save face and steward Betony Estate in her absence... although he officially remains a landless noble, his stewarding of the new, revitalized Betony Estate would allow him to look good, to flaunt the newly renovated estate and village to visiting dignitaries, etc. The sweetest bonus would be that Gul Gusairne officially now works for the young sister - only now the Bartleby's 2nd in command in appearance only - and now reports on the activities of Bartleby to her on a regular basis... swwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwweeeeeeeeeeet!


Full Blooded sibling to Martella could effectively cause some issues, half sibling would probably mean they are Bartleby full sibling, which could be quite advantageous, but also quite dangerous.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Ok, so my players took Sir Gul alive when he came to question them the final time, he is currently unconscious in the cell in the new Wolf's Whisker, and I'm betting that they'll do the same to Bartleby. (Titus hasn't got a hope though, they looking forward to meeting him again.)

Bartleby's write-up says that if he survives he'll become Eutropua & Martella's prisoner, and that Martella will eventually try to reconcile. Fair enough; but what will most likely happen to Sir Gul? The Book doesn't really expect him to survive. (It all very well saying "he fights to the death", but that doesn't help when the players make sure to do a load of non-lethal damage early in the fight.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

lOOK at my post above... :P

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

In my game the group knocked out Sir Gul and he was put up on trial by Baron Okerra. Since Okerra was on the outs with the party he found him guilty but since he was more on Bartleby's side during the book 2 affair he just banished him from the county.

Later on in book 4 when the party assassinated the Chief Enumerator of the Vault and Chain Pytharreus called in Sir Gul to be the interim Chief Enumerator since he had previous experience with Eutropia's Razors (What the regular populace call the party).

Unfortunately for Gul the group infiltrated the Pillar as guards and templars and managed to get him into an empty room, drop a silence dust and killed him pretty quickly. They were pretty happy to close that 'mistake' of letting him be tried instead of killing him.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

After an unfortunate enforced break, we're back to the game, and my players are about to try to talk Bartleby down. Technically they missed out by a couple of loyalty points, but they've opened up with, "we've met your father's ghost and know that your uncle isn't who he claims to be", so I'm going to allow it.

But...

I'm looking into the verbal dueling rules for the first time, and I can't work out how the hell Bartleby starts with 19 determination points. (Especially as at 6th level the Pcs are realistically only going to have a maximum of 10.) Surely this means that he's going to wipe the floor with them?

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

There is some line in the verbal dueling rules about giving single target dueling partners increased Determination to make up for the fact that they are facing a whole party. I think. Another guy in book 4 is the same way. Roughly double the amount of Determination he should have.


Darrell Impey UK wrote:

After an unfortunate enforced break, we're back to the game, and my players are about to try to talk Bartleby down. Technically they missed out by a couple of loyalty points, but they've opened up with, "we've met your father's ghost and know that your uncle isn't who he claims to be", so I'm going to allow it.

But...

I'm looking into the verbal dueling rules for the first time, and I can't work out how the hell Bartleby starts with 19 determination points. (Especially as at 6th level the Pcs are realistically only going to have a maximum of 10.) Surely this means that he's going to wipe the floor with them?

Haven't looked at those rules yet but I will have to do so for my December game... dotting for interest... :)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I guess then that it's a boost to counter the multiple opponents.

Worth noting though; his tactics say that he opens with Baiting, Red Herring or Rhetoric. You cannot open with Baiting or Red Herring according to Ultimate Intrigue.

[EDIT]
Actually, looking at his stats; he's got a single Edge from the Circlet, and with his Charisma of 10, his appropriate skills (including class skill bonus) become Diplomacy 6, Intimidate 3, History 2, Nobility 2, Oratory, 6, Sense Motive 7.

Baring freak rolls on my part, he's going to get hosed.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

He got hosed...


Darrell Impey UK wrote:
He got hosed...

Any recommendations? Running this on Friday... I was thinking of enforcing the -2 penalty each time they use a tactic that's been already used, but not give that penalty to Bartleby...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

To be honest, I'd run as is. The extra determination points allow him to last long enough to cause the PCs to worry.


Did you have each PC take a go at him and then had him take a turn? or was it like PC1, Count, PC2, Count, PC3, Count... Ultimate Intrigue says you have to impose -2 if you use the same tactic a second time I think. I downloaded someone's spreadsheet to keep track of stuff as I anticipate this to be somewhat of a headache...

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I let the group decide who was taking each turn for the PCs. (So, count, PCs, count, PCs, count... etc.) It generally resulted in one or other of them taking the first couple of rounds, and then the 18 CHA bard coming in to finish him off.

As I read it you only apply the -2 to a skill if it successfully used to finish an exchange, not every time you use it. This is separate to the -2 penalty for countering a tactic with the same tactic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mighty thanks DIU!

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

So, when my players were visited by Duchess Veleto Lotheed, they were happy to host her. Even showing her around Stachys and making it widely known she was staying with them.

During her visit, they arrested Partulles Mayne for murdering Ershal Sutor. In the course of investigating things, they discovered Sutor’s mule killed Sutor. After realizing how much the city dislikes Mayne, the cavalier in the party (being fairly certain Mayne will win) declared that Mayne and the mule must fight to the death to determine guilt or innocence.

The party’s baroness, an opera-singing Court Bard, decided that she can improve upon this by writing a three act opera that culminates in the half-orc / mule fistfight. The group decided to make it a festival and are having a sculpture of the upcoming fight made (a bare-chested half-orc punching a rampant donkey as it strikes him with a hoof). Invitations have been sent to the Crabbes and Baronet Vort.

While the party was prepping Stachys townfolk for the upcoming festival, Gul arrived to take the Duchess back. She has refused to leave until after the festival. Gul, upon hearing of the planned trial by combat, has expressed his disgust at the plan and will be looking for any reason he can to arrest the party for treason.

So, next session will be a wild festival, which the Night Swan (who hates the party) will also be crashing. After all, only sick aristocrats would make such a mockery of justice at the expense of the common man (and mules).


The Count's 'weakness' is an intellectual gift (such as an antique or spellbook). Using a weakness grants a PC (and any other characters with whom she shares this information) a +4 bonus on future influence checks. The Count's weakness has a further +1 modifier built in, if I read this correctly, for a total of +5 yes?

I'd like to confirm whether it's +5 or nothing... if the PCs don't bring a gift, can they get the regular +4 in any other way?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Ooh, this is a fun thread.

I'm running a party (a very large party) through WftC myself. We're currently wrapping up part 1. I've rewritten the Agents of Change system very significantly to make it more interesting/not crazy broken, and since we have a party with strong to very strong system mastery, challenges and encounters are all getting rewritten. Whee, work! I have a Roll20 room with something like 300 handouts in it so far. This AP is kind of nuts.

With respect to the Count and his vices, if you're following the influence rules from Book 1 (Ultimate Intrigue uses slightly different rules for weaknesses) then I'd agree that a PC could get a total bonus of +5. Of course if you find that it makes the DCs too easy, it's not hard to rethink the bonus.

My read is that the Count's weakness isn't expected to be used during the Jubilee (although if the PCs came prepared, they certainly could), but rather it's meant to make befriending him easier during the "long game" of part 2, should the PCs desire.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Just caught a little errata. In Beldam I's write up, he is listed as having been born in 4429 AR, but also coronated in 4077 AR and perished in 4098 AR. I'm going to take a wild guess and assume he's not a time traveler and was actually born in 4029 AR.

Perhaps doctoring the records was yet another one of his legendary pranks.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Ooh, good catch! I don't think the fix is that simple though. We know that he reigned during the Even-Tongued Conquest (Rebellion? Conflict?) so 4070-4100 is in the right ballpark, but it doesn't look like either of the first two dates match up with other known dates.

According to Taldor, the First Empire, we have:

4082 AR
Grand Prince Cydonus III, who mired his nation in
debt, is poisoned by angry nobles. His successor,
Beldam I, claims the poisoning was carried out by
Qadiran agents.

So I think the first date is wrong just as you thought and "born 4029 AR" is a reasonable fix.

Both the Cheliax and Taldor settings list the Even-Tongued Conquest as starting in 4081 and we know Beldam I acceded to the throne afterward (I mean, he and his buddies needed a reason to off Cydonius III in the first place!) so I think the "Coronated 4077" in WftC 2's backmatter is also wrong. It should probably be "Coronated 4082" instead, from the quote above, since that lines up with the timeline better and the Taldor campaign setting seems like a more reliable source.

We don't have enough information that I've found to say one way or the other on "died 4098 AR." So I agree that one's probably legit.

I'm pretty sure the profiles in the back inside covers of the AP are from the Taldan Senate museum displays, especially given how they present Cydonius III's poisoning. I'm not surprised they're a little off...


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens Subscriber

So in the Joust, it's specified that each contestant gets paired up, but it also mentions that points are being tallied up over 5 rounds. My concern is that, if each pair only competes against each other, things can get mighty boring.

I also note that, assuming only 1 PC competes, there are 6 contestants and 5 rounds, which would allow for each contestant to have a single round against each other contestant, prior to the final. How did the rest of you play this out; 3 pairs, or round robin?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Round robin here.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

My players were uniformly terrible at jousting, so I ran it as a bracketed competition since I could shorten things that way. It worked out okay. I'm not sure the specifics matter all that much for this one as long as you're consistent.

151 to 179 of 179 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Path / War for the Crown / 2 - Songbird, Scion, Saboteur (GM Reference) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in War for the Crown