Contributor
|
Success condition question:
Primary Objective
If the PCs complete the Balgirdtrek without being caught
cheating or interfering with the other teams progress they
complete the primary objective of this scenario. Doing so
earns each PC 2 Fame and 1 Reputation for any faction
associated with their currently slotted faction boon.Secondary Objectives
Winning the Balgirdtrek grants the PCs the Tarnbreaker
Champions boon on their Chronicle sheet and earns each
PC 2 Fame and 1 Reputation for any faction associated
with their currently slotted faction boon.
Is this scenario supposed to be worth a maximum of 4 Fame and 2 Reputation, or are these numbers in error?
Thanks in advance!
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am not entirely certain that unlocking the scroll actually makes the spell available for those casters, but I would have to do some research.
Actually I wanted to request something, could we please get properly cut versions of the maps in the scenarios, they usually are a bit bigger (I heard that these might be the versions sent to the printer to deal with color bleeding etc.) but that also means that if I want to just extract the map and use it online (roll20 in this case), the maps made from map pack parts and flip -tiles are almost impossible to use properly.
|
Contributor
|
I am not entirely certain that unlocking the scroll actually makes the spell available for those casters, but I would have to do some research.
What I meant was that because snowball is not listed as an uncommon spell in the Lost Omens World, when that book becomes sanctioned for play, if it is legal from that source without any restrictions, this reward might not seem like much of one.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
What I meant was that because snowball is not listed as an uncommon spell in the Lost Omens World, when that book becomes sanctioned for play, if it is legal from that source without any restrictions, this reward might not seem like much of one.I am not entirely certain that unlocking the scroll actually makes the spell available for those casters, but I would have to do some research.
Actually I wanted to request something, could we please get properly cut versions of the maps in the scenarios, they usually area bit bigger (I heard that these might be the versions sent to the printer to deal with color bleeding etc.) but that also means that if I want to just extract the map and use it online (roll20 in this case), the maps made from map pack parts and flip -tiles are almost impossible to use properly.
Right now the options for low-level items are pretty limited, though I suspect that the boon is the real reward.
I would not be surprised if that spell required the player to designate that general area as one of their home regions, so this one could have some value
Flipping through the scenarios, there are just not a lot of options to fill that box and putting in the scroll at least prevents it from staying empty.
|
I ran this online yesterday with a longish discussion afterwards with a fellow GM who will run it soon as well (and who skimmed some of the text).
Total run time - 3.5 hours. I tend to end on the dot for 4.5 hours - so didn't notice I was an hour faster. Everyone enjoyed themselves. Everyone had time to shine.
Counting Progress Points:
We had a group of 6. Just counting checkpoints allowed them to easily win. Adding success from overland travel would make the score even higher? Is this supposed to be that way?
The group was mainly fighter types - so this might look different with a party that is more 'balanced' for normal play.
Sabotage: I loved that one. The group became suspicious early on. They got one clue who was behind if when their equipment was tampered with. The bribing doesn't make sense at the start as you can't lose HP.
Use of magic: It would be good to know what is regarded as appropriate use of magic - what is regarded as 'cheating'. The group played well by not openly showing the use of magic. Nice roleplay.
The tree and the egg. The first character attempt was mage hand. I told the player to roll a d2 - and he rolled a 1 that was 'failure'. Actually I had him roll which of the two sabotages was done - and resin caused an autofail for him (in his first attempt).
Second player managed without problems. He climbed up and discovered the resin. The first player then made a legal lore check and asked officials to try again - a roll of 29 and I allowed that.
The whole group managed it - albeit one or two hero points got burned.
There is no mention if 'repeatability' for this test as far as I can see. See number of possible checks above.
Team failed the check to identify clues who was behind the sabotage.
Caribou field: The group did 4 attempts and managed 2 critical. More hero points burned - but again 6 success from the checkpoint alone.
Playing online I had set up the trees as 'cover' using line of sight and dynamic lighting on roll20. Was a play with the system as the idea was to have them discover the dead caribou by moving around. Would have worked better if I had moved them to the second map in time ...
I admit - I forgot sabotage for this trial.
Whitegold River Crossing - the group was too far ahead to have the saboteurs interacting. Also one of the group inspected the poles for foul play anyhow.
We had a variety of ways to cross. A waterwalk followed by a rope to 'help' other characters. Officials intervened to let the players know it was individual tests.
One jump across - quick jump, far jump feats.
One more use of a spell - something fly like - can't remember - and just a pretense to use the pole.
That left three players to jump using the poles. One direct success, one success after initial failure (players are really concerned if they fail - albeit they only have to be concerned of a critical fail). One critical fail.
That player did really well on Fortitude (just 5 HP damage) and then managed just to get on shore before the waterfalls (after he went down in his first swim check). Was tense and the group loved it.
Ice walk - charcater one rolled across the ice and used his thieving tools. Three more characters made the test - with 2 criticals for max points again.
The Beast attacks: This was an epic fight. I really scared the group when they seemed unable to hit. A group of 6 - mainly level 4 - and the bear had +50 HP and +2 AC for 146 HP / AC25.
My rolling wasn't hot. Player rolling was mixed - some great rolls - some weak ones, some near misses. 6 players chipping away - afraid that the next hit could bring them down.
Not a single character went down. The group was challenged and despite protest - that monster is way to hard - they did well and it seemed just right. I will have to play this encounter more often to see how it works out when the bear rolls high.
The group enjoyed it - I enjoyed it.
One last tip: prepare the scores after each day in a spreadsheet before the game. I rolled 'winners and losers' during the game and then struggled to assign A, B, C and D.
The group managed to win comfortably just using success from the checkpoints. Most players wanted to do the checks. I had 6/4/6/4 players attempt 1, 2, 3 and 4. Difference in characters meant that hardly an approach was the same.
I'm unsure about the replayability value. It was fantastic to see hero-points being burned during roleplay in diplomacy situations. The group didn't know that a 'failed check' only meant a -1 on the check that counts for checkpoint success.
It helped to have 2 glyped GMs at the table for lots of hero-points.
But I fear meta-gaming and speed gaming this scenario might creep in.
I'm running it again tonight - so will see how a different group will do. Especially a group that might have one or two less suited members in the team.
Venture-Agent, Finland—Tampere
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This scenario seems surprisingly complex for repeatable scenario ._.; It might be just my concentration issues, but I seemed to have hard time finding correct information fast and there is lot of one thing referring to another thing in scenario.
I think it might be because Age of Ashes did great job at writing exploration and downtime activities in easy to read boxes where you knew what skills pcs would roll for which dcs and what happens if you succeed, while format in the scenario is more of "okay, here is large paragraph where you find information" so its not as easy and fast to find out what happens and remember it.
|
|
Review part 2:
The handout instrcuts the players to buy: Skis and/or snowshoes for all, winter clothes, tents, one small sled, splitting
axe, rations, healing supplies, 100 feet of hemp rope, repair kit
For roleplay you can even achieve a discount / penalty for haggling. Great for roleplay - but there are serious issues:
Out of these only the ones from rations onwards are available in the CRB. This is fine for a module or home game = the GM just invents some prices. But this should not be done in a PFS scenario where I get questions like - what does it cost? Do I need to spend my own money for it? Can I sell it afterwards?
A few silver pieces might sound not much and as this is role=play I'm all for it. But this needs at least some prices. Also players feel they need skis/snoeshoes for mechanical reasons.
So let me analyze:
Skis/snoeshoes - make a lot of roleplay sense. Not in the CRB / no price. Available 1e Ultimate Equipment
Winter Clothes - 4 sp in CRB - crucial to avoid cold damage - should be checked that players get these
Tents - 5 gp in CRB. This is not a small amount that can be hand-waved. The good - this is for 4 people. That makes cost less. The bad - it is for 4 people. Spillting money is an issue in PFS. Also what to do with 5/6 character parties. The VC says something about a bag of money for supplies. Can you sell it back at the end for half price?
One small sled - not avilable in CRB. There is a sleigh available in Ultimate Equipment, 1e
Splitting axe - guess a normal hand axe will do - or a battle axe can be used for chopping wood ...
Rations, healing supplies, hemp rope, repair kit - all in CRB
Team Name:
I admit - I ambushed my group when the driver turned around and wanted a name to announce. They didn't have any good ideas and just opted for 'The Pathfinders'. I duly chose the name 'Pathfinder Pups'. Some ribbing at a stall and a stall owner offered (as joke) as small wolf hound pub if they wanted to carry him. The group duly accepted there name proudly and took the dog with them for the whole journey. Reminder - you have to be careful as GM with roleplay ... No harm done - but next step could be what benefit does a pub has (apart of bulk)
Weather:
I had one character roll. This mechanic worked well in my view. Just need to ensure you don't forget it each day.
Sabotage:
Again - a nice mechanic with variety to use. Bribing doesn't make sense at the start - unless they bribe someone for later along the process. This could be the only way to bribe while the Pathfinders are far ahead.
Success vs Progress Points
Overland travel rewards between -1 to +2 success per character. The players need on average 1 success per character to max out. They need 0.5 success per character to gain 2 Progress Points and to win with 8 PP at the end.
Sabotage: Sabotage at the start of the race can reduce Progress Points by 1. Otherwise sabotage makes the tests at the checkpoints more difficult - but only deceptive drifts can lead to the potential loss of 1 Progress Point.
Tree Climb: This delivers (according to the text !!) Progress Points and not success. A group can gain 0 - +2 Progress Points per Character. My group of 6 gaines 6 Progress Points just in this single event as the whole group tried (and succeeded). With 8 needed to win they had an unasailble win already after checkpoint 1. I treated these (wrongly) as success, wrongly again ignored the overland travel success - and they still were in the (shared) lead after day 1 despite me robbing them of 6 !! PP at that stage if I would have done proper run as written.
Caribou Field: The text mentions 4 Caribou. The group managed 2 success / 2 critical success. This were 6 PP again and I did the same mistake as day 1 and cheated them of 6 PP once again.
River Crossine: I did not allow critical success via magic / alternative means. That made 5 success and 1 failure for 5 PP - once again I treated them as success and handed out 2 PP instead of 5 and didn't hand out PP for overland. Another 6 PP I didn't give to the group.
Ice Floe: Same once again. 4 trials, 2 success, 2 critical - should have handed out 6 PP plus another 3 from overland travel.
So all in all I awarded 3+3+2+3 for a total of 11 PP which was an easy win - when I should have (as written) given them 35 PP. There is something really off here with the ability to gain PP in this scenario.
In my view a group can only fail if they have several unsuitable members who will drag the team down. Keep in mind - there are hero-points that allow re-rolls. So while my group managed near perfection - this isn't needed.
|
|
One more issue I detected, According to RAW I should fail every single party that plays on my table.
The challenge is 200 miles. As described we can assume over difficult terrain - at least most of the time. We need to arrive in 4 days or you are disqualified.
CRB (P 479) gives a travel speed of 2.5 miles / hour assuming normal terrain and 25 feet base movement speed. Or 20 miles per day.
You are not allowed mounts. You are not allowed to travel by night.
Assuming some hustle during the day you might get away with it if you have a speed of approx. 60 feet that gives 48 miles per day or 196 miles.
Looking forward to the Rules Lawyer who will point out to me that I should fail him/her. Oh wait - in this case hand=waving it is likely ok ...
|
|
Tree Climb: This delivers (according to the text !!) Progress Points and not success. A group can gain 0 - +2 Progress Points per Character. My group of 6 gaines 6 Progress Points just in this single event as the whole group tried (and succeeded). With 8 needed to win they had an unasailble win already after checkpoint 1. I treated these (wrongly) as success, wrongly again ignored the overland travel success - and they still were in the (shared) lead after day 1 despite me robbing them of 6 !! PP at that stage if I would have done proper run as written.
The tree climb cannot award more than 1 progress point to the group. You can retry a failure, but can't attempt again after a success.
|
Venture-Captain, Washington—Seattle
|
The challenge is 200 miles. As described we can assume over difficult terrain - at least most of the time. We need to arrive in 4 days or you are disqualified.
CRB (P 479) gives a travel speed of 2.5 miles / hour assuming normal terrain and 25 feet base movement speed. Or 20 miles per day.
Well if you need a reason not to fail every party at your table, perhaps the CRB travel speeds don't account for the use of skis. Consider that the real-world record for cross-country skiing is 293 miles in a single 24-hour period; this makes 200 miles in a 4-day endurance event (32 hours of travel) seem quite reasonable. This does assume the PCs are skilled at cross-country skiing and thus able to use the skis to move faster than their base speed, rather than random Pathfinders who happened to be available, but hey.
As to the question of how much the skis (and other things with no prices) cost: I'm fine with letting the Venture-Captain's coins pay for them. (Note - In UE the cost of skis or snowshoes was even less than the cost of a cold-weather outfit.)
Individual pup tents can easily be bought for 8 sp per person and each one occupied by its owner (in real-life such a tent could fit 2 people). There is no need to buy a 4-person tent and worry about sharing it.
|
|
Success condition question:
Primary Objective
If the PCs complete the Balgirdtrek without being caught
cheating or interfering with the other teams progress they
complete the primary objective of this scenario. Doing so
earns each PC 2 Fame and 1 Reputation for any faction
associated with their currently slotted faction boon.Secondary Objectives
Winning the Balgirdtrek grants the PCs the Tarnbreaker
Champions boon on their Chronicle sheet and earns each
PC 2 Fame and 1 Reputation for any faction associated
with their currently slotted faction boon.Is this scenario supposed to be worth a maximum of 4 Fame and 2 Reputation, or are these numbers in error?
Thanks in advance!
I am also intrested in the Reputation/Fame for this scenario, i'll be running it soon. Just double checking the numbers. Is this intended?
|
Contributor
|
I am also intrested in the Reputation/Fame for this scenario, i'll be running it soon. Just double checking the numbers. Is this intended?
Unfortunately, since we don't know when the folks at Paizo will be back in the office, we have no way to know when/if a clarification will be made. Given that it is, in most respects, a standard scenario, I'm planning on telling my players that they'll get the standard 2/2. I will also warn them that those numbers might get revised once/if we hear from the devs on this issue.
I'm more concerned that we haven't heard what the fix is for the math issues Thod discovered, though, since that affects running the scenario in the first place.
(I'm also supposed to be running this one in the relatively near future, myself)
Michael just replied in a different thread that it is supposed to have the standard reward, i.e. 2 Fame / 2 Reputation for each of the success conditions for a total of 4/4
|
Contributor
|
Michael just replied in a different thread that it is supposed to have the standard reward, i.e. 2 Fame / 2 Reputation for each of the success conditions for a total of 4/4
Huzzah! Thanks for mentioning that!
Edit: I wonder if we should request the two threads to be merged for ease of finding stuff in the future for this scenario...
Michael just replied in a different thread that it is supposed to have the standard reward, i.e. 2 Fame / 2 Reputation for each of the success conditions for a total of 4/4
Yeah, after Linda and I figured out what was going on and how to fix it, we also hit the other items that folks had brought up like the incorrect Fame/Rep entry. It should be giving the standard rewards like any other scenario (this appears to be a template error that I think we've corrected so it won't show up again.)
|
|
Michael just replied in a different thread that it is supposed to have the standard reward, i.e. 2 Fame / 2 Reputation for each of the success conditions for a total of 4/4Yeah, after Linda and I figured out what was going on and how to fix it, we also hit the other items that folks had brought up like the incorrect Fame/Rep entry. It should be giving the standard rewards like any other scenario (this appears to be a template error that I think we've corrected so it won't show up again.)
Thank you very much, for everyone who replied. will be pending on the math correction as well.
Cheers
|
Venture-Captain, Washington—Seattle
|
I might be blind, but I could not find the god listed for the cleric, which is once could say pretty defining, particularly since the cleric is described as one in the text GMs are supposed to read to players.
It isn't stated. It also doesn't have any impact in play (apart from maybe coloring the fluff that goes on in the NPC's head to justify why cheating is okay), so GM's choice.
I ran this last night and was forced to use the bad numbers. I wonder if, when they fix this, they will reset the reporting for this scenario. I expect everyone running it through the fix (and quite a few after who won't know the file was updated) will have reported that the Pathfinders won the Balgirdtrek.
|
Contributor
|
Hey folks,
I have already downloaded, printed, and bound the original adventure.Any chance someone could share what pages / tables have changed?
Cheers.
Rainzax, the most reliable workaround to download the updated scenario once you've already downloaded it is to open your downloads page (and re-login) with an "incognito" browser window. Sometimes clearing your cache will also work, but so far the former has always done it for me. It looks like several things were changed in numerous places, and my .pdf reader can't do a word-search to find each and every one of them, so I'm hesitant to try in case I miss a small-but-important detail.
I hope that helps.
That said, I did still have two questions about the updated scenario pertaining to Table 4 and Table 5. I posted those questions to the other thread but will also post them below in case Linda or Michael check here first.
Question 2: For Table 5 with a 6 player table, is the +6 added once, or added once each day?
Team A if added once:
11 points after day 1
16 points after day 2
21 points after day 3
26 points after day 4
Team A if added each day:
11 @ day 1
22 @ day 2
33 @ day 3
44 @ day 4
If the PCs get maximum overland every day (3x4) that's 12.
Max points at the Tree is 6
Max points with the Caribou is 4
Max points at the River is 12 (average is 6)
Max points at the Ice is 12 (average is 6)
Because a party of 6 PCs can max out at 46 points, it's within the realm of possibility that Team A is meant to be nearly unbeatable...but I wanted to ask to be sure.
Thanks again, and in advance!
|
|
Ideally, I'd like to know which pages have altered text, so I can print those out and replace them in the binding.
Failing that, perhaps the most important changes as regards the "competitiveness" of the adventure. For example, if run as (originally) written, can adjusting the numbers for the other teams' progressions be a "hot fix"?
Cheers.
|
|
Hey folks,
I have already downloaded, printed, and bound the original adventure.Any chance someone could share what pages / tables have changed?
Cheers.
Rainzax, the most reliable workaround to download the updated scenario once you've already downloaded it is to open your downloads page (and re-login) with an "incognito" browser window. Sometimes clearing your cache will also work, but so far the former has always done it for me. It looks like several things were changed in numerous places, and my .pdf reader can't do a word-search to find each and every one of them, so I'm hesitant to try in case I miss a small-but-important detail.
I hope that helps.
That said, I did still have two questions about the updated scenario pertaining to Table 4 and Table 5. I posted those questions to the other thread but will also post them below in case Linda or Michael check here first.
** spoiler omitted **...
It only makes sense (in my view) if you add the extra points once. Especially as someone else pointed out to me that the tree challenge should be done only once.
This off course leads to a situation when to add the +3 / +6. First day / last day? Evenly? My opinion - easiest way - add them first day. But as this is a repeatable, you might want to mix it up. Do them evenly on one game to keep a field together - add all day 1 for the leading team to add tension (they are far ahead - you need to catch them up).So (assuming you can juggle it) this could be one more option to add tension / surprise to the scenario.
I certainly need to update my spreadsheet which keeps track of the numbers.
Certainly good to see that interaction now is at +/- 5 points.
I ran it a third time yesterday - and the group had a lot of fun. A shame I didn't notice the update earlier - one player told me half an hour into the game that an update had been done. Well - no large harm done.
And the group certainly came up with interesting uses of a feather token ladder and for waterwalk.
|
Contributor
|
It only makes sense (in my view) if you add the extra points once. Especially as someone else pointed out to me that the tree challenge should be done only once.That said, I did still have two questions about the updated scenario pertaining to Table 4 and Table 5. I posted those questions to the other thread but will also post them below in case Linda or Michael check here first.
** spoiler omitted **...
The new wording in the scenario actually changes the tree challenge:
While only one PC is required to attempt the trial, other PCs can make their own attempts to or Aid an attempting PC (though not both, as the race officials remind the PCs before they begin their attempts).
There were several little changes I noticed in the scenario, which is why I've been recommending other GMs to reprint the whole thing rather than to hunt for changes to mark by-hand.
That said, my roommate (and pending-VL) and I looked over the new numbers yesterday. The max the PCs can get is 46. If they get exactly 50% on everything it's 23. Adding the +6 once gives Team A 26, which means the PCs would need to do only slightly above-average in order to win (with a 6 player party). I agree that it makes more sense to add it once, but the other is still within the realm of possibility, so I figured it couldn't hurt to ask.
I still think the question about Table 4 for a 6-player party definitely needs clarification, though.
This off course leads to a situation when to add the +3 / +6. First day / last day? Evenly? My opinion - easiest way - add them first day. But as this is a repeatable, you might want to mix it up. Do them evenly on one game to keep a field together - add all day 1 for the leading team to add tension (they are far ahead - you need to catch them up).
So (assuming you can juggle it) this could be one more option to add tension / surprise to the scenario.
I concur, adding it at an "appropriate moment" judged table-by-table seems best to me, too.
In case I didn't say it during one of my myriad of other posts, Thod, thank you for catching the math issues on this scenario - it's helping all of us out!
|
|
I am just now seeing this. Does the current Supply List mean that Snow Shoes/Skis and sled are not needed anymore or are they provided by the VC?
If they are not needed how is it justified that the group travels 200 miles in a 4-day span, on foot, in the snow and other rough terrain?
Thank you all for your advice.
NiftyB
Organized Play Developer
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Waaaaaaaaitaminnit!
The Without Trace or Fail Team has a guy named Ostog. Is that *THE* Ostog? Or is he just named after a certain unslain Ostog of legend?
Ostog Oakfeller has no relation to Ostog the Unslain (though he gets in a lot of bar fights with people who confuse him for the Linnorm King).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mike - you are welcome. And it seems I didn't read that part (tree) in enough detail.
A few bits I ran into since I now ran it the 4th time (to test out the new scoring)
Creative use / use of magic
I'm a great fan of finding creative uses. Feather token ladder was used for three challenges - to crawl across the ladder (works without ladder as written - but who am I to tell the players that), the tree - makes climbing up easy - just needs judging how to set the DC for holding the ladder stable with someone aiding - and as an impromptu bridge for the river.
Yes - the ladder is 20 feet - so reaches across.
Unseen Servant to get the bell from a Caribou (I wasn't aware that they have stealth+8 - only found out when a player wanted to do it that way). I can see an issue if you fail the perception check and send your servant to the 'wrong' caribou though.
Mage Hand to get the egg down from the tree top. Actually that was an autofail when they did it - someone had used sap to glue the egg on - ooops ...
Waterwalk - to get across the ice safely or across the river.
My issue with creative uses is - meta-gaming if someone repeats the scenario. I had one player whos spell selection / shopping spree ahead of the game was clearly influenced by the previous game. He backed down a little when I told him I would expect his spell selection wouldn't suddenly change between day 3 and 4 - without good reason.
Any experiences by others who had players doing it again and repeating what others did the game before. In the above case it was a little bit blatant (the players played with me Thursday and Saturday and asked me ahead of time if he could use x and y for challenge a and b ...)
|
|
I did some more Maths - especially after I had a great game yesterday. We called it Snow-white and the three dwarves. We had 2 Dwarven Rangers and a human (female, young) cleric. So we added Harsk into the mix and they succeeded and had points to spare. It was great to see such an otherwise unbalanced group to do well. 3 Hunters Prey in the last encounter - great.
But that got me thinking again about the Maths - as the group won easily with a total of 25.
A group of 4 needs on average 5 pp for each day to draw for 1st place. You can get 4 points by either gaining 3 points via overland and 2 points in the trials - or via 3 points overland and 2 points during the trials.
Let us start with overland. You need a skill of 2 to reach 2 PP. This seems low - but keep in mind the weather - that makes it a skill of 3.5 (tier 1-2). So you want to be trained in at least one of the skills needed.
For 3 points you need a skill of 7 - or 8 1/2 trained.
Tier 3-4 is more or less the same Maths if I assume a +2 skill for 2 extra levels cancels out with a DC that is 2 higher.
That leaves the checkpoints. We need 3 total successes (0.75 per player) to reach 3 PP. This means you need a 6 for a group of 4. Interestingly it gets more difficult with larger groups as you need a skill of 6.4 for a group of 5 and 6.7 for a group of 6.
These numbers assume a DC15 and ignore that you can't get extra points through critical success in the tree trial or the caribou trial which costs 0.2 PP for each point above a skill of 3 for the tree trial and half that for the caribou trial. They also ignore that you can only do the Caribou trial 4 times - which costs 0.75 points for a group of 5 and 1.5 points for a group of 6.
Now we also have to deduct points for sabotage.
And lastly - the true killer - and early critical fail that prevents later characters to try.
So looking at the numbers - why have all teams in my games won so far with points to spare - when at best it should be close?
The simple answer is hero points. In the last game alone I saw twice a critical failure turned into a critical success. This can turn a -1 to a +2 - for a net of twice 3 points. Or the difference to fall just short at 19 or comfortably win at 25.
I have to say I like the Maths as it is now.
And for tactics? Don't let the best skilled character start the trial if he has no hero-point left. A shattered egg on the first player or stampeding herd or ripped ribbon is the most likely cause for a group to fall short.
|
|
I'm prepping this adventure to run it tomorrow evening, and there is still one thing I don't understand. What benefit do the PCs get for improving the attitude of other teams? Sure, if they can manage to do this to Without Trace or Fail, the sabotages will stop. But there are four other teams to influence as well, and the players are told to slot a boon that has the effect of changing one team's disposition to Friendly.
Failing any sort of other guidance, I'll probably say that if the PCs encounter a Helpful team that has already done a trial, they will give the PCs a +1 circumstance bonus on checks at that trial. (If Two Houses is Friendly from the boon, I'll have them give the same bonus, based on the descriptive text)
Additionally, when a PC successfully Gathers Information with the trial officials, does that bonus apply only to the PC, or to the whole party? The Critical Success wording makes it seem like only one PC gets it, while the Success wording applies to the whole party.
Venture-Agent, California—Silicon Valley
|
So, help me if someone already asked this and I just missed it but, rewards for this adventure. In the initial Briefing, the Venture-Captain tells you that there will be a bonus if you win the race. But I couldn't find what that bonus was. Is it stated somewhere and I missed it or is there another post somewhere that references this? I know they get the boon if they win, but to me, it sounded like there would be a monetary reward for winning as well.
Thanks
The bonus is the secondary success condition, the boon and the full amount of gold. You only get 1 treasure bundle per 2 points, and need 20+ to win (assuming you have 4 players)
|
|
I'll admit that part annoyed me a bit too -- the 'bonus' being getting your normal full reward is a bit misleading. its the type of thing my players asked about mid-week after the session. Since they forget about the talk of a bonus during the excitement of winning the race and the ensuing non-in-game debrief/chat as we pack up. But then I start getting emails/discord pings/slack pings/carrier pigeons 'hey what was the bonus for winning the VC mentioned?"
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
We ran this at our local games day this weekend and I think it was enjoyed by those on both side of the GM's screen. There are a couple of things that I am still not 100% clear on and as it is a repeatable scenario it is likely to get a decent amount of play.
So forgive me if I have missed the blindingly obvious here but....
1) If the players decide to travel on through a checkpoint how does that work?
The travel is abstracted & how long there is sunlight is unclear. If they do try to get a few more miles in before dark what's the impact on progress and if they decide to travel through the night other than fatigue what is the mechanical impact (e.g.swapping sleep for time available to gather info or glad hand the other teams, environmental concerns & of course how it impacts their standing in the race).
2) Some trials are more specific than others about how many PCs can/must partake in that trial. Post the fixes is it that all the trials now set up that everyone gets a go if they want and garners points on successes (barring a crit. fail ending certain ones early)?
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Spain—Mirande de Ebro
|
We ran this at our local games day this weekend and I think it was enjoyed by those on both side of the GM's screen. There are a couple of things that I am still not 100% clear on and as it is a repeatable scenario it is likely to get a decent amount of play.
So forgive me if I have missed the blindingly obvious here but....
1) If the players decide to travel on through a checkpoint how does that work?
The travel is abstracted & how long there is sunlight is unclear. If they do try to get a few more miles in before dark what's the impact on progress and if they decide to travel through the night other than fatigue what is the mechanical impact (e.g.swapping sleep for time available to gather info or glad hand the other teams, environmental concerns & of course how it impacts their standing in the race).
2) Some trials are more specific than others about how many PCs can/must partake in that trial. Post the fixes is it that all the trials now set up that everyone gets a go if they want and garners points on successes (barring a crit. fail ending certain ones early)?
I ask myself the same question. How did you solve the travel between checkpoint?
|
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
I just ran this for 6 players, and they missed their secondary objective by a lot. I know the Progress Points got changed, and it seems like they changed too harshly. Let me see if I've got this correct:
Travel Progress Points: can earn a maximum of 3 each day. Times four days is 12 total PP.
The trials on days 1, 2, and 4 can earn 2 PP each if you crit them.
Trial on day 3 can earn up to 12 PP if everyone crits their checks.
So, best-case scenario, 32 PP can be earned. And they need 26+ to earn first place. That's a dang hard check. Without crit successes, but all normal successes, is 24 PP. And they need 27 (they need to beat 20, but +6 for six-player adjustment).
Is this intentional? This seems really harsh. Even if everyone succeeds, there need to be at least 3 crits on top of that to make first place. Basically half of all those earnable points come from challenges.
Four days of travel times six is 24 rolls. You need 6+ successes, so either everyone rolls above-average (at least a 13), or some fails and some crits. My players would've had two times 3 PP if the weather hadn't been stormy. But yeah, basically balances out.
3 one-try challenges is 3 rolls. Of course you're going to send in your best character, but it's still only a slim chance they'll succeed.
1 challenge for 6 players is 6 rolls. Again, since everyone rolls, you're expected to roll about average, but not great.
Again, my party did decently. They ended up with 19 PP (and maybe I missed a stray crit). For that second prestige condition (and the boon), basically you either need a hyper-specialised group, or incredible luck with the dice, neither of which is likely. And my team did decently, but not great. Should a larger party impact the score? Basically, you get two extra players in the party means on average you have more successes, but you already need more successes for the actual race part, and the only other meaningful place they can contribute is in jumping the stream. The +6 PP adjustment for 6 players means that the PP needed goes up, but I don't really see a way where they can contribute. Without adjustment, they rolled really well but would've just finished second. With adjustment, they suddenly come in fourth place. Seems more reasonable to me to up the DC, as you have more people trying to succeed once, rather than upping the number of successes without ensuring they get to contribute more.
By the way, I'm not whining about 2 missed Fame for my players. It just left a sour taste in our mouths that despite rolling well, the race seemed to be stacked against them.
Also, since I noted everything down, I have a breakdown:
Day one: 2 PP from the race, 1 PP for the challenge.
Day two: 2 PP from the race, 1 PP for the challenge.
Day three: 2 PP from the race, 6 PP for the challenge.
Day four: 3 PP from the race, 1 PP for the challenge.
Some crits were compensated by the fails, which is to be expected, but this adjustment really assumes you somehow go against the odds, especially with sabotages working against you as well.
Party consisted of a level 1 Oracle, level 1 Druid, level 1 Wizard, level 2 Investigator, level 2 Oracle, level 3 Rogue. So it's not like the party was incredibly lopsided. By my accounts, they succeeded more than they failed, but they couldn't even reach all the treasure bundles, let alone win the race.
Any input?
|
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
Sorry for the double post, but I managed to formulate mt thoughts a bit better.
The way I see it, a five- or six-player party is pressured to do extra well compared to a four-player party:
- In the race itself, you need more successes for the same amount of PP Okay, seems fair.
- In the challenges on days one, two, and four, you theoretically have a better party, so the chance of a crit goes up.
- On day 3, you get one extra PP, and one extra shot at a crit success.
But the inverse is also true: one more person also means needing one more person to roll well. But on top of that, they also arbitrarily need 3 extra points to win. That means that not only are they forced to succeed just to keep up, they're basically also forced to crit to pull their weight. Disregarding the three tasks that only one person can do, they have five chances of contributing: four racing days, and the one challenge. And they need to crit three of those rolls to get ahead. And if they fail a single task, they have to crit the other four. That's ridiculous. I'd expect one extra crit to happen during those rolls, maybe two, but those are just insane numbers.
See, I understand that you need more successes to progress with more people. I also understand the rationale to just add 3 more successes required. But both is just cruel. Especially with the heavy skew towards the race successes, individual successes don't matter if the other people roll crap, and with so few options for extra challenge points, players # 5 and 6 just feel like dead weight. Had the race not arbitrarily been skewed up, they could've taken first place. Like I said, they just made 19 points (actually, 20, I did a recount), enough for a regular party. And if they could've contributed in the challenges, rather than just one person, the 3 extra points needed would've been a piece of cake. But now neither happened.
|
|
You've missed out on multiple points available on all days.
Day 2 (Caribou) "Four of the caribou have had small bells tied into their antlers" and critically succeeding explicitly gives a bonus on further attempts.
While only one PC is required to attempt the trial, other PCs can make their own attempts to or Aid an attempting PC (though not both, as the race officials remind the PCs before they begin their attempts).
Day 3 (River Crossing): Everybody has to get across eventually so you're basically guaranteed 1 point per person, with crits available for 2 points per person
Day 4: (Ice) "If a PC frees the ribbon from the ice successfully, the team is awarded 1 Progress Point and can move on, though additional PCs may attempt the challenge as well to try and gain additional Progress Points."
---
So lets say we even took a conservative reading and assumed you could only get 1 point from day 1 and 4 points from day 2 that still gives a maximum of:
12 (Travel)
1 (Day 1)
4 (Day 2, 4 bells)
12 (Day 3, 6x crit jumps)
12 (Day 4, 6x Crit retrievals)
= 41 max points. If we drop all 12 crits that's still 29 points out of a needed 26.
If we instead let everybody earn points from the day 1 and 2 checks (which I think is how its supposed to run) there's 7 more points available.
Every time I have GMed this (4) players have won first place. When playing I've only come in first place 1/4 times.
People have to be willing to use their hero points on the challenges and an early crit fail on a challenge is still disadterous but it doesn't feel patently unfair.