PFS#1-13 Devil at the Crossroads


GM Discussion

5/5 *****

I am prepping this at the moment and have a few questions/comments:

1. The sickened effect in the kitchen lacks a value. This seems to be trying to use the old 1E sickened rules. What is the DC to get rid of this (does it use the illusion DC?) and what should the value be? I assume 1.

2. No method is given to disable the kitchen hazard or even to ID it. It isnt likely to be that relevant but still if you are going to list it as a hazard it shuld probably use the hazard rules.

3. The combat with the plotergeist(s) has potential TPK written all over it. Means of overcoming invisibility are harder to come by in 2E and you get one round of visibility before it is pelting you to death from invisibility as only the frigten ability makes them visible.

4. It is good to see the issue of large groups of low level players being addressed in the scaling but this really deserves highlighting. If I calculate my group is high tier I may not even look at the low tier encounter.

5. Quite a lot of the treasure in this scenario requires you to actually rob the trading post. This includes quite literally stealing a dead mans boots. I can imagine a number of characters having a bit of an issue with this.

Dark Archive 3/5 **** Venture-Captain, Colorado—Denver

#1 -- I think it might mean they're sicked 1 for 1 hour, or they can just sit there are try to wretch for a few rolls til it goes away... *shrug*

#2:

Quote:
Linneus’s malevolent will haunts the kitchen and continues to cause any plate or piece of cutlery that a creature interacts with to attempt to injure that creature until the PCs either destroy or contain the artifact

#3 -- This makes use of the new rules for visibility conditions:

Quote:
While invisible, you can’t be seen. You’re undetected to everyone. Creatures can Seek to attempt to detect you; if a creature succeeds at its Perception check against your Stealth DC, you become hidden to that creature until you Sneak to become undetected again. If you become invisible while someone can already see you, you start out hidden to the observer (instead of undetected) until you successfully Sneak. You can’t become observed while invisible except via special abilities or magic.

#4 I think that is in error, 16-18 should be high tier, no exceptions as far as I know.

#5 They're not robbing, they're "recovering" items :)

I'll have my GM Cheat Sheet up on http://www.pfsprep.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewforum.php?541 soon


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Zach Armstrong wrote:
#4 I think that is in error, 16-18 should be high tier, no exceptions as far as I know.

Nope, it wasn't communicated very well (nor was the guide adjusted in time), but they're looking into splitting up 16-18 into two seperate groups: small parties (of higher-level PCs) play high subtier, while large parties (of lower-level PCs) play low subtier with the same number of CP.

This appears to be the first try and, yes, it's hidden too well and might lead to GMs unaware of the issue to run high subtier for a group that should have played low subtier.

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42xg7?What-is-the-level-range-of-play-for-PFS2 #21

The Concordance 4/5 5/5 ***

3 people marked this as a favorite.
andreww wrote:


5. Quite a lot of the treasure in this scenario requires you to actually rob the trading post. This includes quite literally stealing a dead mans boots. I can imagine a number of characters having a bit of an issue with this.

Yeah, this thing bugged me too. Not to mention that looting small items while exploring the haunted murder house really breaks atmosphere of horror and paranoia this scenario is trying to create.

Luckily, as per Organised Play Guide, GM can adjust Treasure Bundles layout depending on player actions. So, if your party does not want to take those boots or rob a kitchen, award them elsewhere.

I rolled secret checks for each character exploring rooms with treasure to make sure they would`ve found it. Then, in the end, the survivors found hidden chest filled with old chelish gold coins in the ruins of trading post - containing all those missed Treasure Bundles.

5/5 *****

OK, I ran this today. We started with six players (2 level 3, 4 level 4, 16CP). This does create an oddity between encounters. As per the Guide this would be high tier however, as per the CP notes, low tier for some encounters.

The issue is that there is only scaling for 16-18CP on some of the encounters. Are we supposed to run the low tier encounter where there is specific low tier scaling for 16CP and switch to high tier where there is no specific scaling?

This did not seem right so I ran low tier for the whole thing. We actually had a player drop out after the first encounter so it became 13CP which resolved the issue but if we are going to using specific 16-18CP scaling it should probably be present for all encounters or at least clear it is suposed to be for all of them.

Overall the scenario for fine until the final encounter which went the full duration. The barbarian crit failing against Paranoia did create a degree of hilarity. His dice also only woke up once he was beating on the other players.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The guide just isn't up-to-date on the issue, I'm quite sure 16CP with 5+ players is supposed to be low subtier in general (for these newer adventures, i.e. 1-12 and 1-13), not just for those encounters that specifically list it in the scaling sidebars. Hopefully, future adventures make this more clear from the start, and the guide will eventually get some more updates.

5/5 *** Venture-Agent, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East

andreww wrote:

OK, I ran this today. We started with six players (2 level 3, 4 level 4, 16CP). This does create an oddity between encounters. As per the Guide this would be high tier however, as per the CP notes, low tier for some encounters.

The issue is that there is only scaling for 16-18CP on some of the encounters. Are we supposed to run the low tier encounter where there is specific low tier scaling for 16CP and switch to high tier where there is no specific scaling?

Isn't that 32 points?


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

It's a Tier 3-6 adventure, so level 3 is the lowest possible level, "worth" 2 CP and level 4 the second-lowest, "worth" 3 CP each.

5/5 *** Venture-Agent, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East

Thanks, missed the higher tier and things weren't making any sense.

3/5 5/5 *

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Zach Armstrong wrote:


#3 -- This makes use of the new rules for visibility conditions:

Quote:
While invisible, you can’t be seen. You’re undetected to everyone. Creatures can Seek to attempt to detect you; if a creature succeeds at its Perception check against your Stealth DC, you become hidden to that creature until you Sneak to become undetected again. If you become invisible while someone can already see you, you start out hidden to the observer (instead of undetected) until you successfully Sneak. You can’t become observed while invisible except via special abilities or magic.

This of course assumes your GM allows the use of Seek at all. Our GM ruled that since the Poltergeist was incorporeal it didn't make any sound when moving and therefore Seek was useless. The only way we could find it was to hit it by randomly striking squares and hoping to get lucky.

Silver Crusade

Halgur wrote:
Zach Armstrong wrote:


#3 -- This makes use of the new rules for visibility conditions:

Quote:
While invisible, you can’t be seen. You’re undetected to everyone. Creatures can Seek to attempt to detect you; if a creature succeeds at its Perception check against your Stealth DC, you become hidden to that creature until you Sneak to become undetected again. If you become invisible while someone can already see you, you start out hidden to the observer (instead of undetected) until you successfully Sneak. You can’t become observed while invisible except via special abilities or magic.
This of course assumes your GM allows the use of Seek at all. Our GM ruled that since the Poltergeist was incorporeal it didn't make any sound when moving and therefore Seek was useless. The only way we could find it was to hit it by randomly striking squares and hoping to get lucky.

There's nothing in the Incorporeal Trait that says it is silent nor does it disallow Seek/ Perception options.

It being sneakier is already factored into its Stealth score.

1/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Agent, Online—VTT

Not allowing seek at all is just a completely wrong ruling. Running this scenario with a 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5 party, the paired poltergeist already brought things to the point of being a real TPK risk, by bringing the only character with See Invisibility to a dying condition more than once, without focusing on him. Instead, the encounter did draw out long enough to make the scenaro go WELL over the allotted time, even trying to summarize and hustle through a lot of exploration afterwards to make up lost time.

Making targeting a completely random chance, if characters without appropriate magic are not present or not conscious is an inexcusably bad call.

5/55/55/55/5 ***** Venture-Captain, Washington—Seattle

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I believe that Halgur's GM might have been remembering a rule from the Universal Monster Rules of 1st Edition, which states:

1st Edition Bestiary, p. 301, "Incorporeal (Ex)" wrote:
An incorporeal creature moves silently and cannot be heard with Perception checks if it doesn’t wish to be.

However, this rule does not exist in 2nd Edition - as Rysky pointed out, this language is not present for the Incorporeal trait in 2E (2nd Edition Bestiary p.346).

1/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Agent, Online—VTT

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Sure, we all make rules mistakes, especially with an edition move. I am ABSOLUTELY no exception.

I'm just saying that something with effects like "you can't even attempt to find the location of the thing killing you" is a case where the effects of the rule would be so extreme that double checking your recollection of the rule is not optional.

5/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, North Carolina—Raleigh

Does anyone know why the DC for Furious Wings went down in the higher Tier? I am assuming it was suppose to be a DC 27 (+3 the Low Tier) or the low Tier is suppose to be DC 20.

Grand Lodge 5/5 * Venture-Captain, New Zealand—Dunedin

Does anyone notice that the Secondary Success paragraph at the end doesn’t involve rewarding any Fame or Reputation? If I’m RAW, this murder fest is going to reward only 2 Fame and Reputation Points, plus a bonus 1 for Vigilant Seal faction members.

Am I reading that right? That can’t be right. My players are going to murder me if that’s correct.

Sovereign Court 1/5 *

It's a typo.

You know scenarios reward 4 xp, (and 4 rep and 4 fame if primary and secondary conditions are met). Give them what's due if they complete the secondary condition and move on. It's not worth getting hung up on.

Grand Lodge 5/5 * Venture-Captain, New Zealand—Dunedin

GM Suede wrote:

It's a typo.

You know scenarios reward 4 xp, (and 4 rep and 4 fame if primary and secondary conditions are met). Give them what's due if they complete the secondary condition and move on. It's not worth getting hung up on.

PF2 is new enough that I’m not going to assume anything, friend. I simply wanted confirmation that it didn’t seem correct.

And, I found this: https://paizo.com/products/btq022lb/discuss?Pathfinder-Society-Scenario-113 -Devil-at-the-Crossroads#6

Grand Lodge 4/5 *** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

There is a clarification somewhere (and maybe it should get added to the guide.

All scenarios grant 2 Fame / Rep for primaray, 2 Fame / Rep for primaray, and 2 rep for faction rewards.

Grand Lodge 4/5 *** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

What route do the boars take to the party. Do they cros the tree and come the long way around? Ford the stream and crash directly through the Trees?

It is going to really change the dynamics.

Also, you have an ambush location map, and you just put the ambushed group at the edge? Why not have the wagon at the ford (which has been blocked by a fallen tree) and have the boars charge from the edge?

Grand Lodge 5/5 * Venture-Captain, New Zealand—Dunedin

Jared Thaler wrote:

What route do the boars take to the party. Do they cros the tree and come the long way around? Ford the stream and crash directly through the Trees?

It is going to really change the dynamics.

Also, you have an ambush location map, and you just put the ambushed group at the edge? Why not have the wagon at the ford (which has been blocked by a fallen tree) and have the boars charge from the edge?

I totally agree with you, Jared. It doesn't make sense, and I'm going to have the PCs "start" where the box suggests, but not have the boars appear until they're actually in an ambush area.

I wouldn't expect less of an imp-led intelligent attack.

Dark Archive 4/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

Jared Thaler wrote:


Also, you have an ambush location map, and you just put the ambushed group at the edge? Why not have the wagon at the ford (which has been blocked by a fallen tree) and have the boars charge from the edge?

This. This is a frequent problem with scenarios. It gives the PC's no room to retreat to keep a distance (say, if the backrow wizards/rangers want to take a few steps back, and wastes a lot of map space.

Similarly, if the scenario uses a map with graphics that clearly represent an obstacle of some sort (in this case, the stream), I think the adventure absolutely needs to spell out how to treat it. Is it difficult terrain? Is it a river and requires swim checks?

In any event, I don't think PC's nor NPC's should ever start at the edge of a map, there should always be at least a couple of squares between a starting area and the edge.

2/5 5/55/5 **

I'm preparing the scenario and I've got some questions regarding the encounter stat blocks:

Ascendant's Tactics:
It says that he casts silence on a PC who uses magic, but insofar as I can tell you cannot cast 2nd level silence on an unwilling target. I understand the rule of thumb is "run as written" by this implementation of silence is difficult to adjudicate without making up rules for silence.

Also, for the NPC stat blocks. The dagger attacks don't have the agile, finesse, or versatile S traits. Hand crossbow doesn't have range increment or reload 1. Shortbow doesn't have range increment, reload 0, or deadly d8. Am I to run these stat blocks without these printed traits (again, abiding by "run as written") or assume this information was omitted by accident?

Lastly, for the Murderous Bathhouse, it doesn't have a listed Stealth skill, so it's unclear what to roll on initiative (Stealth DC - 10 as bonus?). Furthermore, the Disable action doesn't list how many actions are required to perform it. Should I assume 2?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Last Slamurai wrote:

Ascendant's Tactics:

It says that he casts silence on a PC who uses magic, but insofar as I can tell you cannot cast 2nd level silence on an unwilling target. I understand the rule of thumb is "run as written" by this implementation of silence is difficult to adjudicate without making up rules for silence.

That is another of a number of instances where an author apparently was unaware that the spell had been significantly changed from 1st Edition and assumed it would still work offensively. If a suggested tactic doesn't work as written make up your own.

Last Slamurai wrote:

Also, for the NPC stat blocks. The dagger attacks don't have the agile, finesse, or versatile S traits. Hand crossbow doesn't have range increment or reload 1. Shortbow doesn't have range increment, reload 0, or deadly d8. Am I to run these stat blocks without these printed traits (again, abiding by "run as written") or assume this information was omitted by accident?

Since there is no indication that these NPCs use non-standard weapons, I'd assume these were just omitted by accident. In particular, a ranged weapon with no reload doesn't really make sense.

Last Slamurai wrote:
Lastly, for the Murderous Bathhouse, it doesn't have a listed Stealth skill, so it's unclear what to roll on initiative (Stealth DC - 10 as bonus?). Furthermore, the Disable action doesn't list how many actions are required to perform it. Should I assume 2?

As a complex hazard, it should have had its stealth modifier instead of its stealth DC listed and is using that for initiative. The math is easy enough, though.

There is no rule that I'm aware of that specifies a "Disable a device" action other than when used specifically as a Thievery trained action. Everything written in the haunts section about disabling a device using other skills seems to imply to me that you are to use an analogous trained action of the different skill listed. As such, it'd require the same 2 actions per attempt as the Thievery trained action.

Community / Forums / Organized Play / GM Discussion / PFS#1-13 Devil at the Crossroads All Messageboards

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