Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East
|
Ok, I know goblins are small, but the map of the camp on page 11 can't be the right scale. 1 square = 15' I could believe. But a major opperation to build a bridge over a 12' wide river?
I kinda want to use the classic flip-mat: Town Square for any encounters there. (not the more popular Village Square) Or maybe the tents in 7-21.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East
|
Also, the summary suggests the possibility of brokering a deal with the antagonist, but I don't see guidelines for that anywhere. Based on their personalities I can see at least Keff and maybe Viso Mas being willing to negotiate, but nothing to indicate how much.
|
Also, the summary suggests the possibility of brokering a deal with the antagonist, but I don't see guidelines for that anywhere. Based on their personalities I can see at least Keff and maybe Viso Mas being willing to negotiate, but nothing to indicate how much.
We made a deal with the pussycats (killed their person, of course :-)). Does that count?
|
Venture-Captain, Vermont—Peacham
|
Instead of the custom map for the camp, I am thinking of using the palisade castle map from Flip Map: Castles Multi-Pack . The size is about right and there are plenty of tents to use.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Came up while playing. Once they reach the camp, can they immediately make the survival check to track down the cats, or is it too late in the day to do any of the activities - ensuring they have to fight one night?
|
|
Came up while playing. Once they reach the camp, can they immediately make the survival check to track down the cats, or is it too late in the day to do any of the activities - ensuring they have to fight one night?
We tried but the GM didn't allow us. Probably the right decision as the scenario would have been VERY much less fun without the night fight
|
Venture-Agent, Online—VTT
|
So, 3 treasure bundles are tied to the party deciding to search around the ambush site randomly, instead of searching the bodies of the attackers and getting the caravan to safety. Do you throw anything extra into your description to try to hint that there would be any reason to do that? I'm planning on running this one in a bit, and thinking how to frame a nudge.
|
I will say, after running this yesterday. It can go -very- fast. Both tables we had skipped the entire middle of the scenario at the camp as they wanted to check for tracks and made their survival rolls. So they went directly to the big bad's lair.
I feel like being able to make that roll before the first night may be something they want to consider not doing the equivalent of in future scenarios, as it removed basically all of the custom mechanics for morale, building defenses, etc.
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
The building defenses seems complete waste of time, though, unless the PC*s somehow fail the tracking rolls several days in a row and consistently build defenses with smart tactics.
... Buuuuut it's way more likely just a "yeah we put the fences on the only open gate." followed by "okay, roll survival, find the tracks to the last encounter." on the following day.
The scaling on the camp map is probably wrong. Considering that the players probably barricade the only open gate, the adventure should probably have included advice on how the leopards/lions climb over the fence surrounding the camp (do they need to roll, does it take one action to scale the fence?)
|
|
how the leopards/lions climb over the fence surrounding the camp (do they need to roll, does it take one action to scale the fence?)
The fence is listed as 6 ft. tall, which I missed on my first run. The leopards have a climb speed, so they have no problem, and the lions are large with a pretty good Athletics score, so they should also have basically no problem.
I do think the camp defense serves as a good opportunity to see that there is something odd about the animals that are attacking.
All of the repeatable scenarios so far outside of 1-01 run very quickly, which is nice for stores where 3 hrs is the normal allotted time.
|
|
The building defenses seems complete waste of time, though, unless the PC*s somehow fail the tracking rolls several days in a row and consistently build defenses with smart tactics.
... Buuuuut it's way more likely just a "yeah we put the fences on the only open gate." followed by "okay, roll survival, find the tracks to the last encounter." on the following day.
The scaling on the camp map is probably wrong. Considering that the players probably barricade the only open gate, the adventure should probably have included advice on how the leopards/lions climb over the fence surrounding the camp (do they need to roll, does it take one action to scale the fence?)
If they save all 4 wagons they can build 16 pieces of fence — enough to completely surround a structure like the Command Post and have all the goblins in there. PCs can stand watch overnight at whatever openings are left.
A lion still might be able to get adjacent to a goblin while stealthing, but it's at least going to make their lives a lot harder.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guidance on Running: Be aware of the new ruling that parties with a challenge point total of 16-18 run low if they have 5 or more players.
Additionally, in low-tier there are no secondary antagonists. The layout made it appear that they should be there, and the second time I ran it I included them thinking their statblock hadn't been included in the appendix again from the fight in part A. First time I ran I did it based on the appendix, but thought it odd there was a big box on the map for secondary antagonists that weren't there, so I dropped them on the party in my second run. This led to a TPK, which we retconned when I was combing the scenario sure I had screwed up. The players were all good sports and thought it was just the crits, but it seemed fishy to me.
With three crits in a single round I downed 3 of 5, and one had been downed the prior round. I estimated 1 of them should've still been up if I hadn't screwed up, the secondary antagonists had done a fair bit of softening up of the party, wasting a player's turn on healing, and taking down one character prior to the crits knocking out three players.
Suspicious things to note: Goblin skeletons have 20 HP and are -1 creatures. Normal skeletons have 4 HP. The goblin skeletons appear to be normal skeletons in all regards except HP. Their weapons are somewhat diminished, doing a d6 and lacking a bow, but this design doesn't appear to fit with a -1 creature that has so much damage resist.
|
|
Guidance on Running: Be aware of the new ruling that parties with a challenge point total of 16-18 run low if they have 5 or more players.
Do you have a link to this please? I thought I remembered this but have been unable to find it (the best I could find was a message that they were thinking of changing things)
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Maryland—Hagerstown
|
Do you have a link to this please? I thought I remembered this but have been unable to find it (the best I could find was a message that they were thinking of changing things)Guidance on Running: Be aware of the new ruling that parties with a challenge point total of 16-18 run low if they have 5 or more players.
Ask and thou shall receive.
in low-tier there are no secondary antagonists
...in the final encounter. They are obviously there in the initial encounter, where they are the only enemy encountered.
I know you meant to say that, just clarifying to avoid further confusion.
Yes. Even a more recent scenario like 1-15 doesn't mention anything about 16-18 in low tier, so this doesn't apply to it, either, it seems.
I would expect this or something similar to be the future standard, but right now we're likely in a transitional period and not every scenario has been written/published with these new plans in mind.
|
|
Do you have a link to this please? I thought I remembered this but have been unable to find it (the best I could find was a message that they were thinking of changing things)Guidance on Running: Be aware of the new ruling that parties with a challenge point total of 16-18 run low if they have 5 or more players.
Ask and thou shall receive.
Thank you
|
|
Note, this appears to be specific to adventures where there is a 16-18 scaling in the low tier. It doesnt seem to apply to earlier adventures where scaling was purely based on the Guide.Do you have a link to this please? I thought I remembered this but have been unable to find it (the best I could find was a message that they were thinking of changing things)Guidance on Running: Be aware of the new ruling that parties with a challenge point total of 16-18 run low if they have 5 or more players.
Ask and thou shall receive.
This makes it very hard for a player to decide if they want to play up, assuming they haven't read the scenario.
I recently played Absalom initiation as a level 1 playing up and found it quite unfun. Because of that (and other reasons) I chose to NOT play Lions as a level 1 playing up. That one DOES have the scaling.
I now know to ask the GM. But many players won't (ironically, ESPECIALLY new players who are quite likely to be playing that level 1 at high tier table,).
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Maryland—Hagerstown
|
Yes. Even a more recent scenario like 1-15 doesn't mention anything about 16-18 in low tier, so this doesn't apply to it, either, it seems.
I would expect this or something similar to be the future standard, but right now we're likely in a transitional period and not every scenario has been written/published with these new plans in mind.
I have noticed that too. If it does not scale like that in the appendix in the scenario, I would just run all 16-18 in high tier then.
|
|
I have noticed that too. If it does not scale like that in the appendix in the scenario, I would just run all 16-18 in high tier then.Yes. Even a more recent scenario like 1-15 doesn't mention anything about 16-18 in low tier, so this doesn't apply to it, either, it seems.
I would expect this or something similar to be the future standard, but right now we're likely in a transitional period and not every scenario has been written/published with these new plans in mind.
You're mis-reading the guidance Zach.
If you have 5 or 6 players and have 16-18 challenge points, you just apply the scaling from low tier. This means in 1-15 you're adding a lot of mooks, 5 if you're at 18 challenge points. This also applies to 1-14's Part A fight. For Kef it adds like 50 HP, which is hilarious.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Maryland—Hagerstown
|
I have noticed that too. If it does not scale like that in the appendix in the scenario, I would just run all 16-18 in high tier then.Yes. Even a more recent scenario like 1-15 doesn't mention anything about 16-18 in low tier, so this doesn't apply to it, either, it seems.
I would expect this or something similar to be the future standard, but right now we're likely in a transitional period and not every scenario has been written/published with these new plans in mind.
You're mis-reading the guidance Zach.
If you have 5 or 6 players and have 16-18 challenge points, you just apply the scaling from low tier. This means in 1-15 you're adding a lot of mooks, 5 if you're at 18 challenge points. This also applies to 1-14's Part A fight. For Kef it adds like 50 HP, which is hilarious.
I now have an answer, from Linda Zayas-Palmer:"In Scenarios where there is a 16-18 scaling in the low tier, a group of 5+ PCs plays in the low tier. A group of 4 PCs is in the high tier."
I do not think I am. The way I am interpreting it is if there is no scaling rules for 16-18 in the low tier appendix, then the rule clarification does not apply.
So we go back to the calculation method stating that 16-18 plays high tier.
Edit: I just read over the Lions of Ketapesh again. And since it does have scaling instructions for 16-18 lo tier. So 5-6 player will play low tier and 4 players will play high tier.
Edit Edit: Now I am confused on what we are debating.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Maryland—Hagerstown
|
Instead of editing again.
If we are talking about #1-15.
1) We are in the wrong thread to be talking about this scenario.
2) If the challenge points are 16-18, you would play high tier regardless. Since there is no scaling instructions for "16-18: 5+ players" in the low tier appendix.
|
|
Instead of editing again.
If we are talking about #1-15.
1) We are in the wrong thread to be talking about this scenario.
2) If the challenge points are 16-18, you would play high tier regardless. Since there is no scaling instructions for "16-18: 5+ players" in the low tier appendix.
You should check #1-15 again. It has scaling for 16-18 low tier.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Maryland—Hagerstown
|
You should check #1-15 again. It has scaling for 16-18 low tier.Instead of editing again.
If we are talking about #1-15.
1) We are in the wrong thread to be talking about this scenario.
2) If the challenge points are 16-18, you would play high tier regardless. Since there is no scaling instructions for "16-18: 5+ players" in the low tier appendix.
I just went through the low tier appendix of #1-15: The Blooming Catastrophe. None of the scaling encounter sections mention "16-18: 5+ players". All it says us 8+ and then 10+ in the final encounter.
Again, if we are discussing #1-15: The Blooming Catastrophe, we should move this over to the right thread. AS this thread is for Lions of Ketapesh.
Edit: If I am mistaken, can you please provide me the page number where it calls out "16-18 Challenge Points 5+ players" in the scaling encounters section in the low tier appendix.
|
|
Edit: If I am mistaken, can you please provide me the page number where it calls out "16-18 Challenge Points 5+ players" in the scaling encounters section in the low tier appendix.
The general rule going forward from 1-14 on is if you have 5+ players and challenge points are between 16-18 you run in low tier, and apply the scaling from the statblocks. So for 1-14 if you were using bandits in part A, you would have 8 (3+5 from adjust) bandit scouts in the first combat for a challenge point 18 for a party of 5+.
Part A's adjustment "For Every 2 challenge points beyond X" is inclusive of challenge points 16 thru 18 for parties of 5+ players.
In 1-14 part B there is an explicit adjustment for 16-18 (5+ players) challenge points. In part C it is again inclusive as in Part A. "For every x points above Y, do Z"
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Maryland—Hagerstown
|
Edit: If I am mistaken, can you please provide me the page number where it calls out "16-18 Challenge Points 5+ players" in the scaling encounters section in the low tier appendix.The general rule going forward from 1-14 on is if you have 5+ players and challenge points are between 16-18 you run in low tier, and apply the scaling from the statblocks. So for 1-14 if you were using bandits in part A, you would have 8 (3+5 from adjust) bandit scouts in the first combat for a challenge point 18 for a party of 5+.
Part A's adjustment "For Every 2 challenge points beyond X" is inclusive of challenge points 16 thru 18 for parties of 5+ players.
In 1-14 part B there is an explicit adjustment for 16-18 (5+ players) challenge points. In part C it is again inclusive as in Part A. "For every x points above Y, do Z"
I get the Lions of Ketapesh. It specifically calls out a low tier for 16-18 Challenge Points with 5+ players. I am not arguing this point for this scenario. It is clear as day.
Some one else brought in #1-15: The Blooming Catastrophe. Which in the scaling encounter section does not have that specific call out for 16-18: 5+ players play low tier.
And the general assumption that you stated has a prerequisite of it being called out in the scaling encounter sections. "In Scenarios where there is a 16-18 scaling in the low tier". Which there is none in blooming catastrophe.
|
|
Some one else brought in #1-15: The Blooming Catastrophe. Which in the scaling encounter section does not have that specific call out for 16-18: 5+ players play low tier.
And the general assumption that you stated has a prerequisite of it being called out in the scaling encounter sections. "In Scenarios where there is a 16-18 scaling in the low tier". Which there is none in blooming catastrophe.
Where does it say the 16-18 scaling has to be explicit? Our guidance is only that it is present. A scaling for 10+ includes scaling for 16-18. It is present.
Only scenarios with explicit CP tiers (10-11),(12-13),(14-15) should be run high tier with larger groups.
|
Contributor
|
Ok, I know goblins are small, but the map of the camp on page 11 can't be the right scale. 1 square = 15' I could believe. But a major opperation to build a bridge over a 12' wide river?
I kinda want to use the classic flip-mat: Town Square for any encounters there. (not the more popular Village Square) Or maybe the tents in 7-21.
I took a look through my flip-mat collection and settled on Carnival. It might be a little densely packed for the tents, but I could probably use the lists side to represent the hospital okay enough that the mat becomes usable on both sides.
Thanks for pointing this out or else I might have glossed over what map to prep/bring until later in my prep work for this scenario!
|
Contributor
|
By the by, are folks using the central blackened area of Dragon's Lair as a pit or a wall? Graphically it appears to be drawn as a pit, but the scenario makes no mention of depth so I'm wondering if it's supposed to be vertical (which does make for bottlenecks in combat going both ways...).
Thanks in advance!
|
Venture-Captain, Washington—Seattle
|
Yep, it looks like a chasm so I treated it as one - and I believe that it is intended for the other foes to see/hear and either try to join the combat or otherwise interfere. If it was intended otherwise, the encounter description would not have bothered to specify the following.
If scaling the encounter in B1 introduced additional animals, do not include these additional animals in this encounter. Stagger the threat provided by the opponents so that the PCs do not face the primary antagonist during the first round of combat.
(Note that the boss group starts at the opposite end of the map from where the PCs enter, so it's quite likely that the boss group won't be in a position to do anything in the first round of combat, anyway.)
|
|
Alright here goes the question. Page 10 gives the option to track the felines at a DC 20 survival check excluding bonus. Then on page 12 it again gives the option to track but at a DC of 15. From what I've read over an over again nothing changed but for some reason the DC dropped by 5 for no reason at all.
My second question with these skill checks is the DC does not seem to increase for tier 3-4.
I am attempted to interpret that it is 2 tracking skill checks one at 20 and a second at 15, each taking 2 hours long to do.
Also I would like to make the assumption that for tier 3-4 that the checks go up to 23 and 18. Thoughts?
|
|
Fenriyx, I think that's just a mistake in the printing. I'm going with DC 20 for Tier 1-2 and bumping it up for 3-4.
Beyond that, there's also mention at the start about brokering a deal as a potential outcome, and then no mention of it after that. In my view, Keff kinda does have some rights to the area that the Goblins are infringing on - if they want to build a bridge and set up a trade caravan through the lion/leopard territory, simply killing or displacing the animals already living there just so you can make money is pretty crap. In another scenario, you could have the flipped side where the "Lion King" is the one hiring the pathfinders to deal with a group of goblins encroaching and building an encampment on their territory with the intention of bringing a lot more of their kind through the area (which would endanger the local wildlife). That wouldn't actually be all that different than the time you had to murder one Kobold tribe for building on another Kobold tribe's land.
A lot of the enemy stat blocks are missing what languages they can speak, which is relevant in this case given that it kinda matters whether or not Keff can speak Common as to how plausible the "broker a deal" conclusion would be. It also doesn't say that Kip or the Bandits can speak any languages either, which makes no sense (but Kobolds do list languages), so again I can only assume some misprinting or accidents that is up to GM discretion to resolve(like in 1-13 where it's still using Bluff and referencing spells that no longer exist).
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alright here goes the question. Page 10 gives the option to track the felines at a DC 20 survival check excluding bonus. Then on page 12 it again gives the option to track but at a DC of 15. From what I've read over an over again nothing changed but for some reason the DC dropped by 5 for no reason at all.
My second question with these skill checks is the DC does not seem to increase for tier 3-4.
I am attempted to interpret that it is 2 tracking skill checks one at 20 and a second at 15, each taking 2 hours long to do.
Also I would like to make the assumption that for tier 3-4 that the checks go up to 23 and 18. Thoughts?
The first day they get to camp, the lions last attack was almost two days ago, and they don't even know which of the large feline desert predators they are looking for. The next morning (assuming the PCs even wait till morning to track) the tracks are new and fresh, and the PCs have seen the creatures that left them.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Fenriyx, I think that's just a mistake in the printing. I'm going with DC 20 for Tier 1-2 and bumping it up for 3-4.
That is explicitly *not* permitted.
From the Guide:
GMs may not change the mechanics of encounters. Specifically, for combat encounters, the mechanics include the creatures presented, the number of opponents in the encounter, and the information written into the stat blocks for those opponents. If an encounter is a trap, haunt, or skill check that needs to be achieved to bypass a situation then the listed DCs and results are not to be altered, as they are the mechanics of that encounter.
As for negotiating with Keff, there are a large number of ways Players can broker a deal with a lion. From Druid Wild Empathy, to speak with Animals. Assuming the Lion is interested in a deal.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
The problem is that the scenario lists two different DC's for the same activity.
"Track the Felines: A PC can attempt a DC 20 Survival check to Track the felines to their lair. If the felines have attacked and killed at least one goblin, the PCs gain a +2 circumstance bonus to this check and can do so untrained, as the fresh blood dragged across the desert is easy to follow."
"There are three main ways that the PCs might advance to the final battle in encounter C1. First, a PC who succeeds at a DC 15 Survival check to Track can follow the leopards or lions to their lair. The PC gains a +1 circumstance bonus to this check if the felines have killed a goblin and escaped with its body, or a +2 circumstance bonus if a member of the party succeeded at a Nature check to Recall Knowledge regarding where the felines might be hiding."
Your reasoning ("The first DC is for when the PC's arrive, the second is for the next day") is logical, and I assume that could be behind the double DC - except that the first DC Also lists the +2 if the felines have killed a goblin (which is reduced to +1 on the second page). The daytime activities are for All days, not just the first day - the encounter even says that it repeats if PC's spend more time. If the DC is supposed to be lower, then it should say it in the daytime activities - "DC is 20, or 15 after the first night" -> otherwise, the DC is 20, with +2 if they've killed a goblin and another +2 if PC's recognized them. Your reasoning ("Tracks are fresh and PC's saw them") is already accounted for in the check.
I think it's a mistake in the scenario, and am not sure which one is supposed to be the correct DC.
|
I have a question about the reporting notes.
It says, "If the goblins complete the bridge, check box A. If the PCs defeat the primary antagonist, check box B."
In what situation would you check one box but not the other box? My understanding is that the bridge is only completed once the primary antagonist is defeated.
|
|
Tracking the felines.
The check listed on page 10 is an example of a daytime activity the party can do. This implies they have spent at least 1 night in the camp. A +2 is allowed if a goblin was killed and the check can be done untrained. It is important to remember that Tracking is a trained Survival action.
The check listed on page 12 has similar language but only gives a +1 for a killed goblin. This one does not say it can tried untrained.
I think the check on page 12 is in error and plan to use only the check on page 10.
I also plan to tell the party it is too late to go tracking so the first night fight can happen.