1-6 Lost on the Spirit Road


GM Discussion

Scarab Sages 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber

I noticed something today when I started prepping this. The challenge point adjustments don't line up at all with what's listed in the guide to organized play, at least not in subtler 3-4. Also, there's no mention of 16 - 19 challenge points.

Which scaling am I supposed to use? If it's the one in the scenario, then what about challenge points 16 - 19? If it's the one from the guide, what adjustments truly need to be made?

5/5 Venture-Agent, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East aka Pirate Rob

16-18 is normally High Tier with no adjustment, so presumably by the math in Spirit Road it's' the same place. (Although 16-19 instead)

I think the expectation is to use the adjustments here rather than adding bumps and such, and it splits the 4 adjustments at high tier into 5 which doesn't seem problematic.

I'm currently working on prepping this for a group I expect to be 6 level 2 players which is 18 points and high tier with no adjustment.

Having chosen Omamori Amulet I am somewhat worried about murdering them with the level 6 Dorobu with his agile +18 to hit for 2d6+4

Scarab Sages 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber

Thanks Robert, that's more or less how I was reading it too, but wanted to make sure that was the intent. I just think that they should be consistent. Based on how we both seem to be reading it, the gm has to combine the organized play scaling with the in scenario scaling. I'm fine with that, just wish it was a little clearer. For example, I assume that we would still give a level 1 player a bump if the table consisted of 5 level 2s and a level 1 for a total of 17 points.

Spoiler:

Robert Hetherington wrote:
Having chosen Omamori Amulet I am somewhat worried about murdering them with the level 6 Dorobu with his agile +18 to hit for 2d6+4

I agree that this is going to be brutal. The 'easiest' encounter C (at least in terms of Acs and DCs) is probably the Paper Lantern encounter, but then there are a level 3 and a level 5 monster.

Looking at the tables on CRB pg. 489, if players are level 2 (which most of mine are), that's 180 xp (one creature at party level +1 is 60 and one creature at party level +3 is 120). That makes this an extreme encounter. Even if you run one of the other lines, the encounters all start with a creature that is party level +4, which is 160 xp (again an extreme encounter).

I understand that the fact that there will be 6 players at the table will help to mitigate the extremeness of the encounter, but it's still going to be brutal.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Well, there is a typo in the "Scaling Encounter C" sidebar on p.20, where "11-13" should read "10-11".

Otherwise, I agreed with Robert Hetherington, we're probably expected to use the modifications listed here. <10 CP is clearly meant to be the unmodified low-tier and CP 16-19 is clearly the unmodified high-tier in this case, so the modification sidebars don't need to mention those cases.

I actually think that it's better to have modifications specific to each scenario and that the rules in the Guide should serve mostly as a guideline for authors and a stand-in if nothing more specific is provided for by the scenario.

Spoiler:
I do think that having a party of only low-level chars play the high subtier is always the version with the highest chance of a TPK. All the level 6 monsters can be quite deadly to a level 2 party (and the level 5+3 undead combo certainly can be tough, too), but I agree the level 6 Dorobu looks particularly deadly. Not just his attacks, which will basically crit-hit almost half the time on average against level 2, but also his AC of 24 (when a PC fighter 2 at best has a +11 to hit assuming a +1 weapon) along with 100hp and several heal spells is ... tough.

For this constellaton (6x 2nd level PCs vs. high-tier) I might consider not rolling randomly but picking the one they're best suited to handle.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
xyxrt wrote:
Based on how we both seem to be reading it, the gm has to combine the organized play scaling with the in scenario scaling.

Err, I think the scenario scaling is meant to replace the OP scaling. You don't apply both.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber
albadeon wrote:
Err, I think the scenario scaling is meant to replace the OP scaling. You don't apply both.

If you don't apply both, then what tells you that 16-19 challenge points is unmodified high tier?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Alright, yes, that bit you do apply, I guess. I was more concerned someone might have misunderstood it and apply both the level-bump to the adventure plus the listed increases in the number of monsters, which would have been quite excessive :).

Though imho the subtier-division should have been stated somewhere in the adventure as well, since the adventure's division of when to scale up based on CP differs slightly from the OP handbook.

5/5 Venture-Agent, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East aka Pirate Rob

6 players Severe Budget is 170,

so a level +4 encounter (6 for level 2 characters) at 160 = Severe. Not an unreasonable challenge to expect at the end of a scenario.

A level 6 creature vs a party of 4 level 3s is also Severe so those line-up at.

4/5 Venture-Agent, Washington—Tri-Cities aka ninthwatcher

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I too am at the same point where my normal table is now qualifying for the high tier with CP 16-18 based on their levels. I can also confirm it will almost assuredly be a TPK if run as written. I ran 1-01 high tier last week and almost TPK'd the whole party in every encounter, the damage is WAY to high. Furthermore, my players were very upset about the whole situation and the difficulty of the encounters.

CP 16-18 needs to add an additional choice: run high tier (no player adjust) OR run low tier with 6 player adjust AND a level bump to the scenario.

If no player is even level 3, then level 2 PCs should not be forced to play in the high tier. It creates a poor game experience for players and GM learning the new system.

Speaking of learning the new system for GMs. The player adjustment is just a MESS in scenarios right now. The player adjustment and OP guide should never be in conflict with one another. I disagree that scenarios should use their own specific adjustments that override the guide, it creates too many confusing points as XYXRT pointed out for the CP 16-19 adjustment. You definitely should not be combining the adjustment in the scenario with the OP level bump, because then most creatures in this scenario are gaining 20HP!

4/5 Venture-Agent, Washington—Tri-Cities aka ninthwatcher

One other thing...

Did anyone notice that this is the ONLY scenario that awards 4 fame as normal, but only TWO reputation????

I'm running this scenario tomorrow and i would really like confirmation from organized play staff whether this is correct, because it seems strange that this is the only scenario that awards only 50% reputation.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber

I had indeed noticed that as well, Ryan. Just forgot to mention it. As of right now, my expectation is that I will have a table of 5 level 2s and a level 1. If that is the way it turns out, my intention is to run sub tier 3-4 without any adjustments except to give the level 1 a bump as described in the OP guideline. But, I will also get a feel for the party and choose the options based upon n what I feel they can handle, not roll randomly

Paizo Employee 5/5 Organized Play Lead Developer

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Bolstad wrote:

One other thing...

Did anyone notice that this is the ONLY scenario that awards 4 fame as normal, but only TWO reputation????

I'm running this scenario tomorrow and i would really like confirmation from organized play staff whether this is correct, because it seems strange that this is the only scenario that awards only 50% reputation.

...huh. Not sure how *that* crept in. The scenario should give the standard amount of Reputation.

5/5 Venture-Agent, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East aka Pirate Rob

We used to blame the goblins...

We need a new scapegoat though.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Robert Hetherington wrote:

6 players Severe Budget is 170,

so a level +4 encounter (6 for level 2 characters) at 160 = Severe. Not an unreasonable challenge to expect at the end of a scenario.

A level 6 creature vs a party of 4 level 3s is also Severe so those line-up at.

I still think these numbers underestimate the tpk probability, especially at low party levels. A 2nd level tanky dwarven fighter or champion with CON +3 would have 36 hp. That level 6 final boss only needs to roll slightly above average to kill him in 1 round. (i.e. 1 crit hit & 1 regular hit or 3 regular hits, not exactly impossible when attacking at +18/+14/+10 against an AC of at best 22). And for everyone else, it looks even worse, most non-fighter ACs will be more in the range of 18-20 with hp often in the mid-20s.

revealing more boss abilities:

Alternatively, he can use produce flame at caster level 3 against the lowest-AC PC within 30 feet at +17; if that crits (~50% chance) the PC gets hit with 6d4+8 fire damage and 3d4 peristent fire damage. And he then still has an action left to clobber that fighter again, who just got back up.

Regarding counterattacks, our party is attacking at usually +8 against an AC of 24, i.e. only a 25% hit probability. And a 2nd level PC is not likely to do more than 10 damage per hit on average, so it'll take at least 10 hits to take the boss out, while he likely kills one of the PCs each round. Yes, we get to heal our fighter after he's down, sure, but he's likely getting up at wounded 1, less than full hp, and possibly his shield destroyed, so the next round isn't going to be better. And while the party only has level 1 heal spells, the boss has them at level 2 and 3. Not to mention a heightened fear spell in case he needs a breather.

Of course it doesn't have to go this badly, but chances are likely much better than 50% that it will. The main issue is that with low-level PCs vs. high-level NPCs the chance of a single round PC kill increases drastically. This essentially removes both the downed PC and the needed healer from the fight for at least this round, making the fight that much easier for the NPC.

Grand Lodge 4/5

The final map doesn't seem right. It calls for specific tiles from the Forest Perils set, but doesn't use them. Instead, it appears as if the map uses tiles from the Forest Starter set.


Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Xathos of Varisia wrote:
The final map doesn't seem right. It calls for specific tiles from the Forest Perils set, but doesn't use them. Instead, it appears as if the map uses tiles from the Forest Starter set.

I saw that, too. My guess is that the list of tiles is correct and the map image in the scenario is not.

Note that one in the bottom row has a funny little road connecting to nothing at either end; it makes a bit more sense if you have the Perils tile in that position.

What I found a little annoying is that a bunch of tiles were used for both maps, so I can't just sort them in the right order with the right orientation for both maps beforehand but will have to re-shuffle (and re-orient) a bunch of them from one map to the other.

4/5

Robert Hetherington wrote:

We used to blame the goblins...

We need a new scapegoat though.

I still blame the goblins. They got inside the Society so they could screw with all the math.

1/5

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I am running this on Thursday, and hoping the party stays under 16 Chalenge Points. Looking at the Warhorn signups, it'll be close.

Liberty's Edge 3/5 Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha

Robert Hetherington wrote:
I'm currently working on prepping this for a group I expect to be 6 level 2 players which is 18 points and high tier with no adjustment.

It seems wrong that a party of 6 2nd level characters has a challenge points of 18 and thus playing at High Tier with no player adjustment. High Tier is intended for intended for characters of 3rd and 4th level.

The reason for the 18 challenge points is because each character is assigned 3 challenge points. To me, it makes more sense to assign 2 challenge points to each character, thus giving you a total of 12. This would result in a low-tier with 6 player adjustment, exactly where the party should be.

Is the guide wrong in how challenge points are determined?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Of course, the assumption is that 6 chars at level 2 are similar in overall capabilities to 4 chars at level 3. That may well be the case for skill checks (more chances at lower modifiers...), but in combat, I have my doubts if this is really true. In particular with the decent chance for single round deaths by much higher level monsters at these low levels, who will very often crit on their attacks and often have a quite reasonable chance of hitting even on their 3rd attack.

Grand Lodge 4/5

I ran it (option 4) for a group of six players, 3 L1 and 3 L2 on Saturday. It was a great challenge, but one which they did overcome with some difficulty, but not a serious chance for a TPK barring just horribly bad rolls.

Six L2s running high tier with no 5 or 6 player adjustment will be difficult, but I don't think there will be an outright TPK. I would be more generous with the Hero Points than I was in the session I ran. I didn't give out any and none were used until the very end and even then only one or two were used.

1/5

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Xathos of Varisia wrote:
I ran it (option 4) for a group of six players, 3 L1 and 3 L2 on Saturday. It was a great challenge, but one which they did overcome with some difficulty, but not a serious chance for a TPK barring just horribly bad rolls.

That's right at 15 challenge points, so it's basically the strongest 6 player party you can have and still be subtier 1-2.

Looking at my Warhorn signups, I'll likely be running Subtier 3-4 with 3-4 level 2s and 2-3 level 3s. I'm prepping the Undead encounters, since I think that will be challenging but doable for my party; I share some of the same concerns others do about a Level 6 monster going up against a mix of 2nd and 3rd level PCs.

Given all that, I'm trying to understand the Hazard rules for the Haunt. I've got a couple of questions:
1) Is each check a single action, meaning each PC gets three checks when their initiative comes up? (Minus those that are affected by the haunt and likely crit themselves in the face on their first action).
2) What should happen if a PC notices the haunt with their Secret perception check (assuming they are taking the appropriate Exploration activity to get a check)? I'm trying to determine how that is different from blindly stumbling into the Haunt...

Sovereign Court 1/5

I've only played this, so pardon any inaccuracies

My group of 4 did the high tier (3 3's and a 4) of the Hag fight at the end. I think if challenge points brought a group of 1-2s up to even basic high tier it would be an almost guaranteed TPK.

We didn't have anyone specialized in AC (Best AC at 4 is 23 if you build for it) so our best AC was 20. It needed a 4 to hit us on its first attack, did an average of 15-16 damage a hit, and we needed an average of 14 or better on our dice rolls to hit it its 24 AC.

A low level party would be getting hit on a 2, crit often on the first attack, and almost certainly rended. Meaning you're going to basically have a PC go down every round. And they'd only have a 20-25% chance of even hitting back.

So I would definitely avoid ever running at least that variable for a party that jumps up tiers due to challenge points.

Dark Archive 5/5

I ran high tier for 2 level 2s, 2 level 3s, and 1 level 1 with level bump last night. I selected the bonsai, as I suspected we'd be in the ~16 challenge point range. While there were a few wow that hurt moments, the combination of a fighter for the statue encounter and an alchemist with fire for the trees made it only moderate difficulty.

Shadow Lodge 5/5 ⦵⦵ Venture-Lieutenant, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East aka thistledown

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Piecing the map together on this is such a pain in the ass. Please don't do peicemeal maps like these.

5/5 Venture-Agent, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East aka Pirate Rob

Ran this tonight, ended up with 2 level 3s and 3 level 2s (17 points, 3-4 no adjustments)

Korubu was extremely dangerous and a very epic fight. The earlier combats were generally pushovers but with the players not knowing that had spent several of their higher level spells.

Combat went 7 rounds, and I had dropped 1 PC twice and another PC once before Korubu finally went down.

Magic Missile is definitely a strong action against higher level foes.

1/5

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Robert Hetherington wrote:
Ran this tonight, ended up with 2 level 3s and 3 level 2s (17 points, 3-4 no adjustments)

I had the same party composition as you. I ran Paper Lantern. The first fight was pretty easy, but did result in some spells being cast. The haunt went pretty well for them, mostly because the Enigma Bard got to see the haunt through the spirt and rolled very well on Bardic Lore to understand how the haunt worked and what its attack routine was. I did get the party cleric to crit himself, though. (Telling that player: "so, for this, your attack bonus is +19, and your damage is 1d10+3" got some wide eyes, since he'd assume he'd use his character's statistics for it.) As for the final fight, I dropped 1 PC (the fighter) twice: once from a crit from the Giant Skeleton, and once from the 3 action Harm that the villain kept pumping out. Our cleric elected to spend a 1 action Heal and a 2 action Heal to pump our fighter back to nearly full health. At Wounded 2, he got back up and flanked the Skeletal Mage. (By this point, the Skeletal Giant had already been defeated). The Mage began another 3 action Harm, so the fighter got his opportunity attack, and rolled a Natural 1. The player looked around the table, decided this was important enough, and spent his last Hero Point to reroll the attack, instead of saving it to prevent a very possible death*. Natural 20. The Harm was disrupted, and the PCs were able to take him down before his turn came up again. It was pretty epic.

I'll be running this one again on Saturday (unless we decide to condense to one table). I'll probably give Green Scarf a try, unless any of my players will have played that version already.

*The cleric's player has a Campaign Service Coin, so he could have given our fighter a Hero Point to avoid death if need be. Still, it was a gutsy decision, and one that paid off.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 ⦵⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Maryland— Baltimore aka TheAmazingRando

mizinamo wrote:
Xathos of Varisia wrote:
The final map doesn't seem right. It calls for specific tiles from the Forest Perils set, but doesn't use them. Instead, it appears as if the map uses tiles from the Forest Starter set.

I saw that, too. My guess is that the list of tiles is correct and the map image in the scenario is not.

Note that one in the bottom row has a funny little road connecting to nothing at either end; it makes a bit more sense if you have the Perils tile in that position.

What I found a little annoying is that a bunch of tiles were used for both maps, so I can't just sort them in the right order with the right orientation for both maps beforehand but will have to re-shuffle (and re-orient) a bunch of them from one map to the other.

Also, tile 25B is used in two different spots in that map, making it difficult to actually build.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Randy Cronin wrote:
Also, tile 25B is used in two different spots in that map, making it difficult to actually build.

Typo. I suggest using 15B in place of the (second) 25B.

mizinamo wrote:
What I found a little annoying is that a bunch of tiles were used for both maps, so I can't just sort them in the right order with the right orientation for both maps beforehand but will have to re-shuffle (and re-orient) a bunch of them from one map to the other.

It is indeed annoying. I suggest unobtrusively numbering the tiles with marker (wet-erase, so it doesn't rub off), using a different color for each map. If you put the number in the same corner for each tile, you instantly know the right orientation. It also helps to mark the tiles that will be used twice - on the face of the tile that will be used first, so you can keep those separate when you clear away the first map.

2/5

Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Yeah, feels like a bit of a catch-22. If they use the tiles, its nice to use them more than once in a scenario, since the tile investment is more than a usual flip mat. However, making 2-3 distinct maps that don't re-use tiles is fairly limiting and error-prone in editing, especially when using ~16-20 tiles per map (like we already see with double tile in one map, and tile<->image mismatch on the expansion tiles).

For people who slowly grow their collections as needed, the tile starter set is basically 3-4 flips mats at once. Needing the perils expansion tacks on another 2-3 flips mats. So for a new GM this is an expensive adventure. (If you started with 2e only, you only needed the expansion since previous adventures used the other maps/starter set, so the delta is probably within the usual amount)

I will say these maps were significantly easier to piece together than previous ones (well than the Starfinder map-tiles ones), not overlaps/etc. Simply read the tiles left to right, top to bottom, and deal with orientation. I like the flexibility of the map tiles, both of the maps here feel more evocative of the spirit woods than the stock flip maps would have.

2/5

Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

The intentional randomness in this one (for repeatability) felt slightly less effective than PFS2 1-01, or PFS1 9-09, but I can't quite put my finger on why. It sorta felt like it required the same amount of extra work that 9-09 does to make sure the story hangs together, while at the same time not taking advantage of layered randomness within encouters/major arc. -- the spirits/village don't quite interact/shape the major arc enough.

Grand Lodge 4/5

I kind of wish there was a hinged set of acrylic sheets that I could lay down the tiles on, then close and latch to lock them in place for game play and transportation.

Dark Archive

In the Border Village section it says

Quote:
Each PC may attempt each skill check once, including any efforts to Aid.

For a table of 4 players does this mean up to 4 rolls or up to 12 rolls?

Quote:
Whatever the third skill check the PCs attempt is, the DC increases by 2 to account for fewer locals knowing the information

But wait, they already had one success and know about the caravan, so the subsequent rolls are just about impressing them and earning their trust to earn the charm. So how does this mechanic apply?

Quote:
If the PCs succeed at two or three checks, they win over the locals and earn their respect, gaining the benefit of the village’s charm for the remainder of the scenario.

If each PC may attempt 3 rolls, does that mean the charm is earned per PC or does the entire party get the charm with at least 2 successes amongst all of the rolls? If the former, then this must mean the initiative penalty for failing all three is tracked per PC. If this was the intent, then I think it would have been clearer if it had said "a PC" instead of "the PCs".


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Jed Roach wrote:

In the Border Village section it says

Quote:
Each PC may attempt each skill check once, including any efforts to Aid.

For a table of 4 players does this mean up to 4 rolls or up to 12 rolls?

Up to 12 rolls, and the party uses the highest roll for each check to determine if the party as a whole succeeded at that check.

Jed Roach wrote:
Quote:
Whatever the third skill check the PCs attempt is, the DC increases by 2 to account for fewer locals knowing the information
But wait, they already had one success and know about the caravan, so the subsequent rolls are just about impressing them and earning their trust to earn the charm. So how does this mechanic apply?

The difference between 2 and 3 successful checks for the party is the number of alchemical items (and corresponding treasure bundles) they get after the encounter (pg. 8).

Jed Roach wrote:
Quote:
If the PCs succeed at two or three checks, they win over the locals and earn their respect, gaining the benefit of the village’s charm for the remainder of the scenario.
If each PC may attempt 3 rolls, does that mean the charm is earned per PC or does the entire party get the charm with at least 2 successes amongst all of the rolls? If the former, then this must mean the initiative penalty for failing all three is tracked per PC. If this was the intent, then I think it would have been clearer if it had said "a PC" instead of "the PCs".

If the consequences were supposed to be tracked per PC, then aiding another would not be allowed. The consequences apply to the party as a whole. Likewise, the number of alchemical items received is for the entire party, not per PC.

[Interpretation does require some dev mind-reading and generalizing meta-knowledge from previous scenarios, and therefore I could be completely wrong, but that's how I read it, for what it's worth.]

Dark Archive

logsig wrote:
Up to 12 rolls, and the party uses the highest roll for each check to determine if the party as a whole succeeded at that check.

I think this an unlikely interpretation because of the principal that rolls should be consequential. Under this accounting and assuming a party of 4 with an average chance of success per roll of 40% there is only a 0.2% chance of them failing all 3 checks, a 4.4% chance of getting only one success, and a 95.4% chance of getting 2 or more successes. (I got to learn about binomial distributions today!)

logsig wrote:
The difference between 2 and 3 successful checks for the party is the number of alchemical items (and corresponding treasure bundles) they get after the encounter (pg. 8).
The Scenario wrote:
They provide the PCs with two alchemical items (three if the PCs succeeded at two OR three skill checks during their investigation)...

So, there is no difference between 2 or 3 successes.

logsig wrote:
If the consequences were supposed to be tracked per PC, then aiding another would not be allowed. The consequences apply to the party as a whole. Likewise, the number of alchemical items received is for the entire party, not per PC.

Yes, I had forgotten about the successes being tied to the treasure, so it must be tracked for the whole party. For this reason and for my probability analysis above, I believe the best way to run this section is to let each player choose which skill to roll and each player only rolls once. That would give a more consequential distribution of outcomes. (4 players, 45% chance of success: 0:~10%, 1:~30%, 2+:60%)

Liberty's Edge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Each PC may attempt each skill check once, including any efforts to Aid." I don't understand why this is confusing? Each pc may attempt each skill check once.

There is a difference for one, two, or three successes. 1 success= get information. 2 success = win village charm. 3 success = third treasure bundle.

The entire party gets the village charm. "The PCs" refers to the party collectively, not individual PCs.

Quote:
I believe the best way to run this section is to let each player choose which skill to roll and each player only rolls once.

We have to run adventures as written. As written, each pc gets to make each check once or attempt to aid and the whole party gets the charm if they get two successes.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I enjoyed running this from a roleplay perspective. The forest setting was wonderful.

GMs definitely want to think about the village ahead of time, fleshing out a community that embodies its charm and foible. Also helps to consider creating individual NPCs for each skill check.

I also created names and two-sentence backstories for each spirit, based on their charms and foibles. I wrote each story down, along with what they saw while the caravan was being attacked, on the back of index cards. When a PC chose to let a spirit possess them, I handed the card to the PC and let them choose how to roleplay it and share their clues. This created a sense of tension and mystery.

I enjoyed running this more than Tome of Righteous Repose or Halflight path, where any roleplay takes place strictly before the dungeon crawl. Here, GMs can add their own subjective flavor throughout; its roleplyay hooks stay relevant through the middle and end of the adventure.

Dark Archive

Doug Hahn wrote:
"Each PC may attempt each skill check once, including any efforts to Aid." I don't understand why this is confusing? Each pc may attempt each skill check once.

My confusion comes from the author's decision to use the phrase "two or three" instead of phrases like "at least one" or "two or more". This leads me to question whether the author wrote this from the perspective that no more than 3 successes were possible. The RAW interpretation of how to execute the skill checks means that it is possible to get as many as 21 successes. I was further confused by the +2 DC increase for the 3rd check attempted. Which of those 21 checks count at 3rd checks?

And now that I've read that section a dozen times I've realized that the most pedantically RAW interpretation of the rewards is that the condition for exactly 0, exactly 1, exactly 2, and exactly 3 successes is defined. It doesn't say that if you get the charm you also get the information. It also doesn't specify what happens if you get 4 or more successes. Which means that if the party gets 4 or more successes, they don't get the 3rd treasure bundle, the charm, or the info, but at least they don't get the initiative penalty.

I wouldn't, and haven't, run the scenario this way. I ran it probably the same way most people did. I let them attempt checks until they got at least 2 successes.(There is no difference between 2 and 3 successes.) Both times it took less than 6 checks and only that many because the goblins were trying to use acrobatics instead of one of the listed skills.

Has anyone given any reward for this section other than 3 treasure bundles + village charm + caravan info and if so, how did you run it?

5/5 Venture-Agent, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East aka Pirate Rob

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scenario wrote:
The PCs can then follow up on the villagers’ knowledge of the caravan by making three different skill checks to interact with the them.

There are 3 checks.

Scenario wrote:
Each PC may attempt each skill check once, including any efforts to Aid.

This gives each PC 1 roll per check.

Scenario wrote:
If the PCs succeed at one check...

Did any PCs who attempted the check succeed at the check?

(Remember to increase the 3rd skill DC by 2)

0 Success: -4 Init in Encounter A
1 Success: Nothing
2 Successes: Village Charm, 2 items/treasure bundles
3 Successes: Village Charm, 3 items/treasure bundles

It took me a couple reads to fully understand but I feel confident in my reading.

---

Page 504 CRP mentions group checks like this in terms of appropriate DC setting, could be a useful read here for context.

CRB wrote:
On occasion, though, you’ll have a task that only one person in the group needs to succeed at, but that everyone can attempt.

2/5

Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I agree with how Robert is reading it. I still wish that PFS2 would move away from the 'everybody roll/take the best' model of skill check that's popped up in 1-05/1-06 as opposed to the earlier pfs2 scenarios that seemed to emphasis picking when its worth rolling, and that crit fails are bad.

Dark Archive

Okay, these are group checks. Thank you for this clarification. I still find it odd, but acceptable, that the DC was set in the normal to hard range instead of very hard or incredibly hard as the CRB suggests. Running the checks this way still means that even the smallest and weakest parties will get at least 2 successes >90% of the time.

Robert Hetherington wrote:

0 Success: -4 Init in Encounter A

1 Success: Nothing
2 Successes: Village Charm, 2 items/treasure bundles
3 Successes: Village Charm, 3 items/treasure bundles

I can see how if you only read the last sentence of the rewards paragraph on page 8 that you might come to this conclusion. However, please allow me to direct your attention to the second sentence of that paragraph where it says:

page 8, paragraph 1, sentence 2 wrote:
They provide the PCs with two alchemical items (three if the PCs succeeded at two or three skill checks during their investigation)...

So, I believe the full condition table, assuming they succeed in encounter A, is:

0 Success: -4 Init in Encounter A, 2 items/treasure bundles
1 Success: Information about the caravan, 2 items/treasure bundles
2 Successes: Info, Village Charm, 3 items/treasure bundles
3 Successes: Info, Village Charm, 3 items/treasure bundles

5/5 Venture-Agent, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East aka Pirate Rob

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scenario wrote:
If the PCs succeed at two or three checks, they win over the locals and earn their respect, gaining the benefit of the village’s charm for the remainder of the scenario. The villagers also gift the PCs additional rewards after they help fend off the attack in Encounter A.

I read that last sentence as conditional to the succeeding 2/3 checks, but now I think you're right, based on the later sentence there's no difference between 2/3 successes.

0 Success: -4 Init in Encounter A, 2 items/treasure bundles
1 Success: Information about the caravan, 2 items/treasure bundles
2 Successes: Info, Village Charm, 3 items/treasure bundles
3 Successes: Info, Village Charm, 3 items/treasure bundles

I get surprising joy out of being wrong because it means I've learned something new.

Shadow Lodge 5/5 ⦵⦵⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Indiana—Southern aka CanisDirus

Since I am still teaching myself 2nd edition rules...

For the Skeletal Mage on page 35, it appears that their cantrips are heightened to 3rd level. When applying signature spell effects to Harm and Sound Burst, would those also heighten to 3rd?

Which, assuming I'm doing it correctly, means that Sound Burst does 3d10 sonic damage and Harm does 3d8 with an extra 16 negative-healing on the 2-action version?

Thanks in advance for any thoughts on this!

Liberty's Edge 3/5 Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha

Remember that Heightening spells is based on spell level, not character level. I was reminded of this recently.

Shadow Lodge 5/5 ⦵⦵⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Indiana—Southern aka CanisDirus

Gary Bush wrote:
Remember that Heightening spells is based on spell level, not character level. I was reminded of this recently.

Ah...that makes sense. Thank you for that. So the cantrips and focus spell are heightened to 3rd, while Harm and Sound Burst can be heightened from 1 or 2 to 2 or 3 on the fly. I got it now, thanks again!

Community / Forums / Organized Play / GM Discussion / 1-6 Lost on the Spirit Road All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in GM Discussion