|
I am running this scenario on monday, and would like to ask a couple of clarifications.
1) Is it permissible to change the tactics of the living topiaries, especially on four-player low tier? With the young template they have 32 hp, and start using their assimilate ability after taking 2 hp damage, which pretty much guarantees they appear, self-heal for 1-2 rounds, then escape or die. Or should they use assimilate for one round only?
2) Do the high-tier assassin topiaries have the move through hedges and sculpt shape abilities? They are not included in their SQ line, but their tactics imply they have them.
3) Is it permissible to just give Nayeli a Will save bonus? Or is there a Tier-dependent bonus that should be used? She has no statistics, and enchantment magic is stated to be a valid solution against her.
Minor statblock notes:
Advanced Necrophidiuses on low tier are missing their increased Dex bonus to AC and CMD, and their melee damage bonus is slightly too low.
Blackjacket guards on low tier have a weird stat array and too few hp despite having too high hp bonus.
Logistics:
I am somewhat worried that the PCs will try to just fly to the rear entrance, bypassing guard/topiary encounters. It may be possible to dissuade them by stating that the compound guards are likely to see them, but I'm not sure I should do so. Creative solutions and all that, plus they are likely to trip an alarm that way.
Reminder to whoever happens to be reading this:
Product thread has a correction regarding the appearance of Amynta Irel and her entourage.
Organized Play Developer
|
I am running this scenario on monday, and would like to ask a couple of clarifications.
1) Is it permissible to change the tactics of the living topiaries, especially on four-player low tier? With the young template they have 32 hp, and start using their assimilate ability after taking 2 hp damage, which pretty much guarantees they appear, self-heal for 1-2 rounds, then escape or die. Or should they use assimilate for one round only?
If you're using the scaling for a party of 4 on the lower tier, the topiaries should wait to use assimilate until they're at 20 hit points instead of 30. You can also stagger their uses of assimilate out so that they don't use it twice in a row, and so they aren't just sitting there vacuuming up the hedges until they're standing in a clearing.
2) Do the high-tier assassin topiaries have the move through hedges and sculpt shape abilities? They are not included in their SQ line, but their tactics imply they have them.
While these abilities do appear to have been trimmed from the assassin version of the topiaries, I believe this was done erroneously and they should still be treated as having those abilities for the purposes of the encounter.
3) Is it permissible to just give Nayeli a Will save bonus? Or is there a Tier-dependent bonus that should be used? She has no statistics, and enchantment magic is stated to be a valid solution against her.
Assume that Nayeli has a +7 bonus to her Will saving throws in the lower subtier, and a +9 bonus in the higher subtier.
Minor statblock notes:
Advanced Necrophidiuses on low tier are missing their increased Dex bonus to AC and CMD, and their melee damage bonus is slightly too low.
Blackjacket guards on low tier have a weird stat array and too few hp despite having too high hp bonus.
Noted. Most of the team is traveling from convention to convention right now, but I'll explore possible options for review and/or updates the next time the team is together.
Logistics:
I am somewhat worried that the PCs will try to just fly to the rear entrance, bypassing guard/topiary encounters. It may be possible to dissuade them by stating that the compound guards are likely to see them, but I'm not sure I should do so. Creative solutions and all that, plus they are likely to trip an alarm that way.
Assuming the PCs have the resources to pull this off, I don't see any reason to disallow it, particularly since zooming in to the back door means they may still have to deal with the hedge maze later and could run into some issues in the estate proper. It's worth noting that the estate is specifically called out as being heavily patrolled within the Gather Information / Knowledge (nobility) entry, so it would be entirely appropriate to roll a Perception check (if the party is attempting to be sneaky) using the appropriate Blackjacket guard stats for the subtier, or simply see the PCs if they aren't attempting to sneak and have Nayeli accompanied by one of the five groups of three patrolling guards confront the PCs when they actually enter the building.
|
Organized Play Developer
|
Question regarding an item on the chronicle sheet:
** spoiler omitted **
Thanks in advance.
Although we missed including that 'limit 1' this time, this is on a partially charged wand that's unlikely to impact play in any significant way, especially given 1st-level wands are so accessible through Prestige Point expenditure. So don't worry about adding the limitation to your player's sheets.
|
|
I've got a question about one of the boons on the chronicle. Is the Sommelier's Private Selection positive energy? Or is it just generic "healing?" Is it magic healing for things like Fey Foundling? Would it heal a character with Negative Energy Affinity? Or m? (Worst. Wine. Ever.)
The way it's worded it just says "healing yourself." But I'd hate to pull out a bottle on my Dhampir and drink myself to death. :/
|
Organized Play Developer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've got a question about one of the boons on the chronicle. Is the Sommelier's Private Selection positive energy? Or is it just generic "healing?" Is it magic healing for things like Fey Foundling? Would it heal a character with Negative Energy Affinity? Or m? (Worst. Wine. Ever.)
The way it's worded it just says "healing yourself." But I'd hate to pull out a bottle on my Dhampir and drink myself to death. :/
The healing from Sommelier's Private Selection is neither magical nor positive energy. It's just amazingly rejuvenating wine, so a dhampir would still be healed by it, and it would not be affected by abilities that influence magical healing such as Fey Foundling.
|
|
That's what I read, too. I can see the GM's logic, while it's lenient for the purposes of time limits, it's still fair. But I might have failed their mission instead if I was the said GM.
I haven't read the scenario yet. Just played it. But shouldn't the mistress returning just make things harder? Since her bodyguard would be there? My impression wasn't that it was an autofail if she's there. Just that there might be an extra, difficult fight. I mean it's possible to not even get the information that she's away from the house with her bodyguard before you talk to someone at the house, if you don't make the gather information DC.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Ok, that is honestly in the realm of ambiguous, GM has to make a reasonable call territory.
When I played it the GM gave us the impression that given how close by the mistress' appointment was, she might be coming back the same day. And who knows what she'll do to him when she's back? So we needed to capitalize on the window of opportunity within hours. No time for extended reconnaissance and planning a heist, this had to be a smash and grab.
|
I thought our GM did a great job for accommodating our party actions for being outside the scope of the adventure.
Just surprised other parties haven't broken the scenario with off non-scripted tactics.
My party thought they needed to go to Kerse to discuss Emilio's release with Amynta, because breaking him out would be illegal and cause an international incident.
|
|
When I GM'd this, I made very clear the last paragraph under PLANNING THE HEIST on Page 5:
mission.
Note: They only get this information if they get 20+ on the Gather Info / Knowledge (Nobility) check.
My group did consider a nighttime raid, but I reiterated that paragraph and let them know that you don't know how the defenses of the manor are going to change once she's back with her entourage, and they got the point.
About it being harder with the Mistress being home. No bedrooms on the ground floor and basement.
Not sure how your GM drew the map, but there are 7 bedrooms on the first floor, and both Nayeli's and Amynta Irel's are specifically labeled in the scenario. And while the other 5 bedrooms are small and labeled as "Staff Quarters", there are two guards in those bedrooms during a daytime scenario, so it stands to reason that's where more guards rest. And the bodyguard has a pretty crazy Perception, even factoring in the +10 characters would get for sneaking around. You might have gotten lucky and had a full-on sneak party going in.
The Majordomo got away from my group, and they somehow flubbed their perception checks to find the journal, so they had to flee once they freed Emilio without the journal. The death initiate almost knocked one of them out before they could escape the manor (they burrowed a tunnel under the wall just outside the hedge maze, which I thought was pretty clever).
I ran this yesterday and came across interesting complications regarding the loot. My players were all good aligned and ultimately decided not to take anything from the house, even after tempting then with it from Emilio, because they considered it stealing.
Their chronicle sheets took a huge hit for it, but I tend to agree with them. At the end of the day, at best Irel seemed as a neutral third party in tge story, and I question whether or not the Society would even condone taking items outside of dungeon raids. Does it make sense to withhold loot from players playing into their alingment?
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
I ran this yesterday and came across interesting complications regarding the loot. My players were all good aligned and ultimately decided not to take anything from the house, even after tempting then with it from Emilio, because they considered it stealing.
Their chronicle sheets took a huge hit for it, but I tend to agree with them. At the end of the day, at best Irel seemed as a neutral third party in tge story, and I question whether or not the Society would even condone taking items outside of dungeon raids. Does it make sense to withhold loot from players playing into their alingment?
We kind of glossed over that while playing, but it doesn't sit well with me either. Though for a slightly different reason: this is supposed to be a fast rescue mission. Get the guy and get out. Taking your goodly time to steal all the silverware is really unprofessional.
|
|
You do not have to steal anything to earn the chronicle gold. Exploring the manor is what earns you the gold.
You do not have to steal anything to earn the chronicle gold. Exploring the manor is what earns you the gold.
Along with Lau's thoughts, the party didn't want/need to explore the Manor because: a) they thought it would be questionable to rummage someone's place & b) it was a fast rescue mission. They wuickly found Emilio, then straight to the library, and got out before reinforcements arrived.
Thus, they didn't feel the need to explore the rest of the Manor, even after tempting them with it via Emilio.
|
|
They didn't think they needed to be thorough in learning everything they can about a potential enemy of the Society. That's reasonable, but it's also reasonable to say 'that is not going above and beyond on a mission'. Full gold is never the expectation, despite the perception that it should be.
Given that we had a flimsy disguise as Torch agents, we tried to create as little evidence that could be tracked back to the Society as possible.
For anyone GMing this, maybe drop a line about framing Torch? Might give the group all the incentive they need to toss the place. Other ways to lead the group include Emilio wanting his gear back (in the majordomo room), him admiring the wine in the cellar if the group really not even stopping to look, or dropping some comments that maybe the Lady has more archaeological finds in her personal room.
They didn't think they needed to be thorough in learning everything they can about a potential enemy of the Society. That's reasonable, but it's also reasonable to say 'that is not going above and beyond on a mission'. Full gold is never the expectation, despite the perception that it should be.
You say thorough, I say efficient. Their mission was to not make the Society's presence know, so they decided to get in and out as quickly as possible.
Regardless of your critque of my players decisions, ultimately they still decided not to explore the areas with the most loot. I simply want to bring this to the attention of other GMs as a headsup for possibility outcomes when running the scenario.
Given that we had a flimsy disguise as Torch agents, we tried to create as little evidence that could be tracked back to the Society as possible.
For anyone GMing this, maybe drop a line about framing Torch? Might give the group all the incentive they need to toss the place. Other ways to lead the group include Emilio wanting his gear back (in the majordomo room), him admiring the wine in the cellar if the group really not even stopping to look, or dropping some comments that maybe the Lady has more archaeological finds in her personal room.
This is a great way to approach the exploration issue. Our party had a similar issue where a few bothced disguse a stealth checks quickly revealed their identities. Bad rolls up front can cause a sense of urgency in PCs that may result in loss of loot in hopes to protect the Society.
|
|
You say thorough, I say efficient. Their mission was to not make the Society's presence know, so they decided to get in and out as quickly as possible.
A Take 10 Perception of the room is one round. Just as efficient. I think Ward’s suggestion is an excellent tool for GMs to use.
Regardless of your critque of my players decisions, ultimately they still decided not to explore the areas with the most loot. I simply want to bring this to the attention of other GMs as a headsup for possibility outcomes when running the scenario.
And I have no critique of your players, hence my comment that they were making entirely reasonable decisions. Reasonable decisions can still lead to not getting everything. So I am posting to give GMs a heads up that looting is not the only way for players to succeed.
A Take 10 Perception of the room is one round. Just as efficient.
Not if they don't enter the room.
|
A Take 10 Perception of the room is one round. Just as efficient.Not if they don't enter the room.
When we played this we were told that perception checks to “search” took a full minute - so to search an area (undefined in size, but implied that it was a single book shelf) would require a minute per roll.
|
Then they are failing to explore.
I would say that exploration that appears to jeopardise the rest of the mission (when I ran this, the party completed the mission adequately without entering those rooms) shouldn't be penalised.
I seem to remember a similar situation in "Library of the Lion", where a party that is good at stealth has a harder time completing the secondary success condition (pertaining to stealth) than a party that gets caught and talks its way out.
|
|
When we played this we were told that perception checks to “search” took a full minute - so to search an area (undefined in size, but implied that it was a single book shelf) would require a minute per roll.A Take 10 Perception of the room is one round. Just as efficient.Not if they don't enter the room.
That sounds more like a problem with the GM not knowing or not interpreting the rules correctly for searching, and not a problem with the scenario. It sounds like they were confusing taking 20 with searching in general.
From what's been posted here, it's clear that searching is all that is required, not looting. So that eases part of the concern. There's the additional possibility that a group might not visit all of the areas, and that's where it gets more complicated. The GM should probably drop hints, or have Torch's agent just outright say his equipment is missing. If a party then decides that getting out quick is more important than finding his stuff, they're at least getting a choice in it.
In your particular situation, either the GM was doing their best to follow what's in the scenario and just doesn't understand the perception rules, or they were being strict about the characters not doing something unless the players specifically say so. The latter is a tougher stance than I would personally take.
I can see it being possible that the majority of the gold comes from searching Amenta Irel's quarters, as that's where Torch's agent's equipment is (or her office. Somewhere over on that side of the building), and aside from the items in the library and the wine itself, his stuff seemed like the most valuable.
Evading the guards or Majordomo should have counted as overcoming those challenges.
The chef's recipe is the one piece that I think is easy to miss. It's hidden in a secret cabinet in the kitchen, so if you hurry through the kitchen (as we nearly did when I played it), you may not spot it. Ultimately, we slowed down, and did search the kitchen.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
I think a minute to check a room isn't such a strange call. According to the FAQ searching an area goes per 10x10 or even just 5x5ft square, depending on how cluttered the area is. And that takes a move area. So a tidy 30x30ft room would take 9 move actions to check, and you also have to move around in it, so almost a minute.
|
|
A minute to search the room, sure. Sir Loin indicated they were given the impression it was a minute to search a "single book shelf."
Sorry, I appear to have miss lead people. We were told that it took a minute to search each book case marked on the map. And so to take 20 on the search would take 20 minutes per book case.
we stated we were going to check for "the mcguffen" in the library. We were then asked where in the library we were "searching" - this was done after our Trap-Finder checked the entire area for traps. (Trap checking was fast, a move action, so she did the Trap Checking with a Take 20 that took a minute). Then "Searching" each book case for the "mcguffen" took a minute per check - and we were told it could be assisted by two other persons (half the team, so three to search and three to watch for servants coming in, or other dangers). Once we located "the mcguffen" (and it's guards) the Rogue attempted to (invisibly) slight of hand a switch (we used another book from a different, unguarded, book case that was "close to the same size/shape). For a round or two it looked like we had succeeded with the "Indiana Jones switch" - but then the "Library Guards" activated and we had a fight on our hands.
The noise of the fight alerted the servants in the dining area, who fled alerting the guards outside - so we exited the library (closing the door on the "library guards" and pulled a "quick extract" while the outside guards checked out the Library. We avoided the Patrol outside with a combination of speed/stealth and luck. All the time we were exiting our Rogue kept muttering that we should have "silenced the servants when we first encountered them" so they wouldn't have called the guards... Thankfully she didn't point this out again when we found out we had "missed" most of the loot (GP award was only about 1/3).
All in all it was a fun scenario, but it seems to be trying to re-inforce the Murder-Hobo playstyle. "Here's your mission, be sure to steal stuff, and kill anyone who objects."
But like I said - I haven't read it yet, so all of this could easily be in error.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Michigan—Detroit
|
Maybe I'm just reading the entry for A1 wrong, but the way it reads to me is that the PCs can just Stealth past the guards at the front gate.
First and foremost, looking at the map, there is no cover in front of the estate. There is also no information leading me to believe that concealment exists (the existence of fog, for example). So, barring unusual circumstances (which many parties excel at creating), there is no way to stealth.
I guess a PC could Bluff as a distraction, but that would still mean someone needs to pick the lock, as the gate is always locked. Can you simultaneously Stealth and Disable Device? I don't think so, since both take actions and Disable Device/Open Lock is a full round action or longer. I think with no Stealth, even if there's a distraction, the person opening the gate will be seen.
Am I missing something?
EDIT: Also, in the guards' tactics it says: "If necessary, the Blackjackets drop their halberds and attack with their rapiers."
Halberds aren't reach weapons, so why would it be necessary to drop them?
EDIT 2: It seems very unlikely, given the setup of the A1 encounter that the guards will actually be able to perform their Before Combat action of drinking a potion of bull's strength. The PCs would have to be far away and screaming their intent to make a full frontal assault. Otherwise, as soon as the guards reach for their potions, the PCs would be reacting.
|
|
ah... Stealth doesn't take an action... (from CRB pg 107 under Stealth, Action; Usually none....) so the answer to your question, "Can you simultaneously Stealth and Disable Device?" would be "yes".
if we add in Invisibility or something else to grant the ability to use Stealth...
I would assume that a person could NOT Take 10 on the Disable Device check, as normally doing more than one skill at a time prevents someone from "Take 10". - but that is more of a Judges call...