3-13 Guardian's Covenant


GM Discussion

4/5 **** Venture-Lieutenant, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Don't see a thread for this one yet.

page 5 wrote:
Viltydus has a strong knack for assigning tasks that glorify his pupils and allow them to use their strengths to achieve success.

I loved the narrative prompt to choose tasks that the PCs are actually good at, as sometimes GMs do the opposite thing for repeatables. The other advice on choosing the encounters is excellent, too.

Just want to say thanks!

(Also, how do you pronounce "Viltydus"?)

Grand Lodge 2/5 Pathfinder Society Developer

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe Christopher had another pronunciation in mind, but in my mind it's "vill-TIE-duss." Whatever you can easily say at the table should be fine.

Of course, now I'm smacking my forehead because Viltydus should have they/them pronouns, and there's clearly at least one instance of "his" referring to Viltydus in the text. Many apologies for that.

Thanks for the feedback!

Grand Lodge 4/5 ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Virginia—Yorktown

Prepping to run this a bunch of times at PaizoCon, and I'm trying to figure out the intent of one of the replayability modification options.

For task #2, option #4 at low-tier gives one of the creatures you're fighting a shield as an item, and under the shield lists:

"Raise a Shield [reaction]"

Since Raise a Shield is usually a single action that anyone with a shield can take, and there's no trigger listed here, is this meant to be:

a) The Reactive Shield feat/ability, which is a reaction triggered by an enemy hitting you with a melee Strike while you're wielding a shield, which is functionally the equivalent of "Raise a Shield" as a reaction

b) The Shield Block feat/ability, which is a reaction triggered by you taking physical damage while your shield is raised

c) something else I'm not thinking of/aware of?

Scarab Sages 2/5 ***

Prepping this for local and Paizocon, and noticing that the Weretiger and Werebat statistics don't match up with the Beastiary stats. As they aren't listed as being unique werecreatures, I'm inclined to treat this as a typo, especially since the Moon Frenzy ability as listed in the scenario does not empower the werecreatures at all compared to what it actually does, and the scenario as-written makes it sound as if the Moon Frenzy ability should be activated as a penalty for if the party fails skill checks earlier on.

Feel free to correct me if this was an intentional edit, but wanted to at least point it out here to get feedback on the issue.

Moon Frenzy description in the Bestiary, for comparison. Bolded part is missing from the monster stats in Guardian's Covenant.

Quote:
When a full moon appears in the night sky, the werecreature must enter hybrid form, can't Change Shape thereafter, becomes one size larger, increases their reach by 5 feet, and increases the damage of their jaws Strike by 2. When the moon sets or the sun rises, the werecreature returns to humanoid form and is fatigued for 2d4 hours.

The other main discrepancy I'm seeing is that the DC for the Curse of the Weretiger is 3 higher than its Bestiary Counterpart, which feels strange in a scenario where the curse is removed for free; the only way this would make sense as a counterbalance for the nerfed Moon Frenzy is if its assumed that this has a chance of converting a PC into another Weretiger enemy on the spot, which is a whole other can of worms that I don't think any GM would want to have to deal with in a four-hour slot.

EDIT: The Weretiger is also missing Pounce and Rend, but has a unique Wrestle ability; this is what I get for not scrolling down on either page and doing prep in the middle of work breaks. Still think the Moon Frenzy ability feels off in its editted state, however, unless its intended use is to stop the Weretiger from utilizing its Wrestle ability and that's it.

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

steven_mallory wrote:

Prepping to run this a bunch of times at PaizoCon, and I'm trying to figure out the intent of one of the replayability modification options.

For task #2, option #4 at low-tier gives one of the creatures you're fighting a shield as an item, and under the shield lists:

"Raise a Shield [reaction]"

Since Raise a Shield is usually a single action that anyone with a shield can take, and there's no trigger listed here, is this meant to be:

a) The Reactive Shield feat/ability, which is a reaction triggered by an enemy hitting you with a melee Strike while you're wielding a shield, which is functionally the equivalent of "Raise a Shield" as a reaction

b) The Shield Block feat/ability, which is a reaction triggered by you taking physical damage while your shield is raised

c) something else I'm not thinking of/aware of?

We know that NPCs follow a different rule set. I would run this encounter as the NPC having the reaction to raise a shield, thus gaining the bump to ac. They would not get shield block however.

2/5 ***

I am currently prepping this and found an obvious typo in the stat block for the Twigjacks: The attack bonus for their ranged attack should be +11 but is listed just as +1

Horizon Hunters 2/5 *** Venture-Agent, California—Silicon Valley

Falgaia wrote:
EDIT: The Weretiger is also missing Pounce and Rend, but has a unique Wrestle ability; this is what I get for not scrolling down on either page and doing prep in the middle of work breaks. Still think the Moon Frenzy ability feels off in its editted state, however, unless its intended use is to stop the Weretiger from utilizing its Wrestle ability and that's it.

Wrestle is an ability they gain in Tiger Form from the Tiger Stat block. I was just told about the lack of Pounce and Rend by a fellow GM and thought to check here to see if anyone else noticed. The other points you made are interesting too, I wonder if these changes were indeed intentional then. I wish the writers would be more engaging in these threads to shed some light on these hiccups.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Another small issue just came up in our game: The poltergeist in high-tier task 3 has its alignment listed as N, while it normally would be LE according to the Bestiary. This is true even for the version that actually does evil damage, has weakness 5 to good damage and allows good damage to bypass its resistances. Which makes no sense at all if by virtue of being neutral it would be immune to good damage anyway.

Since nothing but the alignment is changed for the basic version, it's probably just a typo and all versions should just be LE. But most certainly, at the very least the last "holy hand" variant is clearly meant to be evil.

Grand Lodge 2/5 Pathfinder Society Developer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cordell Kintner wrote:
I wish the writers would be more engaging in these threads to shed some light on these hiccups.

That's understandable, though it isn't the author's job to monitor the forums, and we developers generally prefer that they leave such questions to us.

Transparently, I've been quite busy with PaizoCon prep + GenCon scenario development. I'll loop back with more specific, bullet-point responses as soon as I can, but it looks like the issues that have been raised here are typos and other errors. Apologies!

Scarab Sages 4/5 5/5 *

Prepping to run this and something I found off:

Imara, option 3 from task five, is REAL swingy and I was wondering if that was supposed to be the case.

If the PCs fail to hit her target (which, let's face it, is possible, especially if they don't have a great ranged attacker) then the target automatically shoots them (basic reflex save) for 1d8+4 damage. If the PCs take 8 or more damage from any single shot the entire thing is over.

So, the PCs could COMPLETELY CRITICALLY SUCCEED at piquing her interest, AND hit the target two out of three times, but then one missed shot and one failed save later and they fail the entire challenge? Seems . . . unfair.

4/5 **** Venture-Lieutenant, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West

VampByDay wrote:

Prepping to run this and something I found off:

Imara, option 3 from task five, is REAL swingy and I was wondering if that was supposed to be the case.

If the PCs fail to hit her target (which, let's face it, is possible, especially if they don't have a great ranged attacker) then the target automatically shoots them (basic reflex save) for 1d8+4 damage. If the PCs take 8 or more damage from any single shot the entire thing is over.

So, the PCs could COMPLETELY CRITICALLY SUCCEED at piquing her interest, AND hit the target two out of three times, but then one missed shot and one failed save later and they fail the entire challenge? Seems . . . unfair.

They can also just bribe her.

I tried to choose options my group was actually good at. I chose her when I ran this the first time because he had a couple archers in the group.

Community / Forums / Organized Play / GM Discussion / 3-13 Guardian's Covenant All Messageboards

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