I have a question about the Blood of Belcorra haunt in A11 (p.13), and I'm wondering how others handled its Routine action.
For the Routine action, the haunt does "bleed damage", from none to 2d10+6 depending on how the save goes. It doesn't say its persistent bleed damage, however. Which makes sense, it's dangerous enough as it is, with a save DC of 20 and 1d10 damage even on a success. But then the critical failure text says "The creature takes 2d10+6 bleed damage and is enfeebled 2 as long as it’s bleeding.", implying that the bleed damage actually is persistent.
Or maybe it means that if the character has persistent bleed from another source they also get enfeebled 2, but that seems really far fetched to me.
How did you rule this?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just treated it as a single burst of damage. Actually making it persistent is horrifically deadly.
|
I have a question about the Blood of Belcorra haunt in A11 (p.13), and I'm wondering how others handled its Routine action.
For the Routine action, the haunt does "bleed damage", from none to 2d10+6 depending on how the save goes. It doesn't say its persistent bleed damage, however. Which makes sense, it's dangerous enough as it is, with a save DC of 20 and 1d10 damage even on a success. But then the critical failure text says "The creature takes 2d10+6 bleed damage and is enfeebled 2 as long as it’s bleeding.", implying that the bleed damage actually is persistent.
Or maybe it means that if the character has persistent bleed from another source they also get enfeebled 2, but that seems really far fetched to me.
How did you rule this?
I would assume it means "as long creature takes more bleed damage from haunt, enfeebled continues"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, thanks folks, some different takes here though.
What confused me was looking up persistent damage specifically, on p. 621, and reading "Persistent damage comes from effects like acid, being on fire, or many other situations. It appears as “X persistent [type] damage,” (emphasis mine). As PF2 is so "strongly typed" I assumed that it should always say persistent when it is persistent.
Also, in a quick look through the Bestiaries for creatures that cause bleed (https://2e.aonprd.com/Search.aspx?Query=bleed&Filter=111111111111111&a mp;AllTerms=True), it seems most specify "persistent bleed damage", "1d6 persistent bleed" and so on, and that was also the case for all bleed-causing monsters (looking at you, mass-murdering Bloodlash bushes!) in the prior PF2e adventure I GM:d (Fall of Plaguestone).
However, as pointed out above, if I had checked bleed specifically (p. 452) it says "This is persistent damage that represents loss of blood". Ergo, bleed is always persistent in PF2.
The damage this haunt causes with this attack which it can dole out three times per round (DC20 fort, success(!) 1d10 bleed, failure 1d10+6, critical failure 2d10+6) seems wrong though for a "Moderate 1" encounter. Sure, it only comes out at night, but that should not affect the danger rating of the encounter itself.
I'll probably keep it as it is with the bleed but I'll move the success result of the saves one step.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It cannot do it three times per round. Hazards dont get 3 actions, they get their routine.
Ah ok, thanks, that changes it quite a bit then.
Reading the rules again it actually does say they can have several actions (p. 522), but the number of actions the routine says it has (1 action in the case of this haunt) isn't how many actions the routine costs, but how many actions it gets in total for repeating it.
I should have read up on complex hazards better, but also kinda bad development IMO by Paizo to set a standard (things costs x actions out of a base of three) and then abandoning it for the hazards while still keeping the terminology.
|
|
Shouldn't the circle still teleport you to location of first one but it be one way?
Like thing with teleportation circles is that they technically aren't "linked", instead you have chosen location of where they teleport you. So in case of two circles that teleport you to each other's locations, destroying second one doesn't prevent first one sending you to it's location.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do note that AP does contain guideline to "You might want to make monsters wander in from other rooms if players take breaks to make dungeon feel alive".
Like that is definitely one reason why people do random monster tables: to give feeling of "this place isn't static". Like I definitely think that if people sleep for day, the level shouldn't stay identical to yesterday unless there is good reason for it(in case of mites in first floor, weird if they never notice that most of the maggots and other mites have been defeated :D)
|
Too late to edit, but yes, the vampiric touch spell as a third level spell against level 1 characters is an insta-death for most PCs.Someone suggested an addition to Hero Point use, which I've added to my campaign:
"Spend all your Hero Points (minimum 1) to convert death into a critical hit. You can do this when faced with instant death such as from massive damage. This is resolved as if you lost all your hit points to a critical hit: normally you become unconscious, drop held items, lose all your hit points and gain Dying 2."
(This being a third way to use HPs on top of the regular two)
The 6d6 Vampiric Touch in AoE caused me to make a house rule that you can use all your remaining hero points to turn an instant death effect into Drained 1.
And that was against a 3rd level party…. They definitely should errata those spell choices at least.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Popping here to say that I replaced vampiric touch with earlier Worm's Repast and it worked out great :D
It makes sense to me since 1) its still quite dangerous while level 2 spell on level 1 party is much fairer 2) Worm's Repast seems to be spell either designed or at least learned by Volluk and he is creator of the soulbound doll sooo....
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Popping here to say that I replaced vampiric touch with earlier Worm's Repast and it worked out great :D
It makes sense to me since 1) its still quite dangerous while level 2 spell on level 1 party is much fairer 2) Worm's Repast seems to be spell either designed or at least learned by Volluk and he is creator of the soulbound doll sooo....
This is a great solution.
I'm also happy to say that it looks like the soulbound doll's been errataed so that it's not so overpowered. I don't have a window into when or where or how this errata will be made public, since that's outside of my control or direct influence, but I will say that the system is working, where I see a problem from the boards, I input the errata and fix into our errata tracking process, and it eventually gets incorporated when we have the opportunity to focus on errata stuff in between larger projects.
(This one was extra vexing to me, since it's frustrating to see feedback on something I wrote get so derailed by an error outside of my control... always good to get feedback to fix things, of course, but still frustrating as a writer since it makes me look like I messed up a monster. Which, I suppose I did, by not looking over the monster's abilities more clearly as they work in 2nd edition and making assumptions about how they've functioned in the game for the past 12 years or so...)
I am running this module and added some of the encounters in troubles in Otari. This extra exp has allowed the party to level up slightly faster to to lvl 2 and they have not encountered Mr Beak yet.
On a side note I did create random encounters for lvls 1-2, 3-4, and 5-6, along with exp and variable loot.
While P2 does not lend itself to random encounters it does help with some RP as now if they camp within the ruins, things can come 'wandering in'. This messes up the exp gain a bit but its not a big deal.
Is it just me, or are house numbers listed in the location addresses in the Otari Gazetteer weirdly high? 60 Opsrey St., 50 Ilvashti St. and even 80 Menhemes St.? There aren't 80 houses in all of Otari, I think. Roseguard Road even has house number 120. Yes it goes far out of town, but there are no houses there.
Or are the using a numbering system I'm not familiar with?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All the adress give are multiple of 5 and 10. Most likely they only use those multiple and knowing small town, they most likely gave the number multiplied by 10 at first, and gave number ending with 5 if something wass added at a later date in between two existing building.
For exemples Mehemes manor, which is the only building on its road is still numbered 10
Interesting theory. I can work with that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In Japan, houses in a village are numbered according to the order in which they are built. So #2 is likely to be nowhere near #1.
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All the adress give are multiple of 5 and 10. Most likely they only use those multiple and knowing small town, they most likely gave the number multiplied by 10 at first, and gave number ending with 5 if something wass added at a later date in between two existing building.
For exemples Mehemes manor, which is the only building on its road is still numbered 10
This is 100% spot on. By going in jumps like that they allow for future construction between or even above existing structures.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Has anyone put together handouts for the partial maps given by Boss Skrawng or Graulgust?
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've recently started running this, and reading through the part with Otari's ghost, there seems to be a bit of a contradiction. The book says that Otari doesn't know of Nhimbaloth, but he also calls the Will-o'-Wisp "The Eyes of the Empty Death", which implies he knows of the connection to Nhimbaloth. Since the books also say that Beelcorra never hid her worship of Nhimbaloth, I don't know how to reconsile this, or how much knowledge Otari should have
How much knowledge of Nhimbaloth has everyone else given Otari?
Otari knows that name for the Will-o'-Wisp, but not that it means Nhimbaloth or who/what Nhimbaloth is. He just thinks that's the wisp's name, and doesn't realize that there's a greater cult presence.
Has anyone put together handouts for the partial maps given by Boss Skrawng or Graulgust?
I'm starting this this week, I'll likely work something up in the next couple weeks.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
its very much clearly meant to be like Malfeshnekor in Rise of the Runelord: Optional boss you return later when you are tougher.
Either way I want to reiterate: It is clearly meant to be boss you can't beat right now and need to backtrack later on
The problem with this theory is **the player's (and their characters) don't know this, and have no way of knowing this**
Don't rationalize dungeon design by meta information you just take for granted everyone has.
I mean
1) its behind locked door in important location
2) its obviously very powerful
3) it starts combat by laughing and telling you to run
That is enough information for me xD
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This would not stop PCs from trying to beat it. Once they realize how powerful it is, hopefully they can retreat with their lives.
Depends on how GM prefers it ;D Do you want players to have chance of trying out overly difficult encounter too early? If you don't you can move the key to higher level or nerf or remove the encounter.
There is also fourth point here that I didn't list because "it isn't part of the book by itself"
4) its okay to point out to players "This creature is absolutely horrifying and also this is extreme level encounter" :p
(thing is that all horrifying monsters are fictional to in real life players, so sometimes only way to get across how terrifying situation is on sight is to just let them know difficulty level XD)
But yeah another reason I didn't list that point is that I think "tell players absolutely nothing their characters don't know and let them fumble in the dark doing their own decisions, it's super cool and I don't want to taint their choice by influencing them in any way" is pretty popular school of GMing. I'm myself more of "let's narratively set up what is happening here" type of gm :p (like "door opens and three more guards join in the fight" vs "and over in the other room, these three guards had to stop their poker game and they find that really rude") And as said, sometimes players don't understand how horrific an ancient horror is until they hear how likely it is going to kill them
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something I've stressed to my players (especially those who I've run APs with using milestone instead of XP), is that AV will have challenges that they won't be able to overcome through brute strength and may have to return to places throughout the dungeon. This was further solidified when I turned the river drake from floor 2 into something of a wandering wilderness encounter that harassed the PCs as they travelled through the Fogfen.
Ah! I see the omission. Lasda was seen walking with a hooded stranger (page 72); you should also let heroes know that this stranger was carrying a lantern. This is the connection, made a little obscure when the lantern mention on page 72 was cut.
"Sponge! Scalpel! Oops!" -- Bill Cosby
|
Creative Director
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
We specifically don't include creatures in the readaloud text, for two big reasons:
1) Creatures, unlike the room themselves, can react to the PCs' approach. If the PCs are noisy, they might hide in ambush. If the PCs surprise them, they might catch them off guard. If the PCs call out, they might emerge from the room to investigate, and so on. By not including creature descriptions in the readaloud text, we avoid the GM accidentally revealing something about the monsters that wouldn't make sense for the specific situation in the room, and also encourage the GM to adjust the creature's positions in the room to match the current situation at the table...
2)...because for many GMs, it's SO much more dynamic to not be reading someone else's words when presenting action scenes, including setting up a potential combat or roleplaying encounter with monsters. By not including the creatures in a room in readaloud text, we put that onus on the GM to be active in presenting the creatures rather than passive and just reading from text.
|
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What about the rooms where things in the West are described as being in the East? :D Keeps us on our toes!We specifically don't include creatures in the readaloud text, for two big reasons:
1) Creatures, unlike the room themselves, can react to the PCs' approach. If the PCs are noisy, they might hide in ambush. If the PCs surprise them, they might catch them off guard. If the PCs call out, they might emerge from the room to investigate, and so on. By not including creature descriptions in the readaloud text, we avoid the GM accidentally revealing something about the monsters that wouldn't make sense for the specific situation in the room, and also encourage the GM to adjust the creature's positions in the room to match the current situation at the table...
2)...because for many GMs, it's SO much more dynamic to not be reading someone else's words when presenting action scenes, including setting up a potential combat or roleplaying encounter with monsters. By not including the creatures in a room in readaloud text, we put that onus on the GM to be active in presenting the creatures rather than passive and just reading from text.
That's a typo/error. Don't assume that us making a mistake is proof that we should alter a style guide we've been following from the very start of the company's existance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the MMO "Clan Lord" one of the races is the Ghorak Zo. Big, strong, generally regarded as not very bright - although the race did arrive on the planet many years ago via spaceship, so some of them must be smart. Anyway, early on, one Zo kept mixing up his directions, so now East is known as "Zo West" and so on. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After Gauntlight fires its beam on the graveyard, why does the recharging ribbon of light from area D9 stop at area B35? Shouldn't it also go through area A11 until reaching A25(the cupola)?