Wrath of the Righteous Player's Guide

It lives!

DOWNLOADING

Why say PCs can come from anywhere in the Inner Sea when all but one of the Campaign Traits assume you were born and raised near the Worldwound? :P

Page 5, Third paragraph

:)

Why say PCs can come from anywhere in the Inner Sea when all but one of the Campaign Traits assume you were born and raised near the Worldwound? :P

I didn't want people to feel like they HAD to be from the area despite that it would work best. People don't have to take the campaign traits, it just works better if they do.

Summoner fans should take note! This is a place where that class has very deep roots!

These campaign traits look rather meaty as far as what they hint at...

edit-Re-read the intro to the traits. MUCH meatier. :O

Joana wrote:

Why say PCs can come from anywhere in the Inner Sea when all but one of the Campaign Traits assume you were born and raised near the Worldwound? :P

I didn't want people to feel like they HAD to be from the area despite that it would work best. People don't have to take the campaign traits, it just works better if they do.

So if the mage's parents aren't missing Riftwardens he gets shafted out of the full spectrum of his mythic path?

Thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather make my own character than play one of six pregens. :P

I wish there was something a little meatier for Druids trying to reclaim Sarkoris. That's a key conflict PCs should be aware of, I think.

Adam, you da man!

I don't think the entirety of the trait's backstory is needed to have the trait work with both a character idea and whatever it sets up in the AP. For instance, one idea I've been playing with character-wise is an elven fighter who has decided that the drow might be redeemed if only they could be separated from the demonic influence corrupting them. Although the character background as I was developing it was "born in Crying Leaf, captured and taken to Zirnakaynin, escaped and used an aiudara that dropped her off in what used to be Sarkoris," both Chance Encounter and Stolen Fury would work perfectly within that context, regardless of whether the details would actually match was what written.

I have to say though I do think this is a great guide for players! I might have to add a few more options!

I don't think it would be too hard to adapt the traits for characters if the player and GM can hash things out. (though this will probably require the GM to have the whole AP to be sure about what's being changed).

Torn between Exposed to Awfulness and Touched by Divinity...

Torn between Exposed to Awfulness and Touched by Divinity...

...

No Comment. >_> <_<

Noticed something odd...

On page 8, Staunton Vhane is noted as being "a dwarven man... recently revealed to be an antipaladin and traitor to the Mendevian crusades." Except Staunton Vhane is also the name of a 15th-level male human cleric of Norgorber from Magnimar known as the Forever Man.

Have to admit, I'm surprised(and intrigued) that downtime is going to be a Thing in this AP. I was actually mildly worried that a lack of breathing room might be an issue, given where the AP takes place. Looks like that's definitely not the case.

Liath Samathran wrote:

Torn between Exposed to Awfulness and Touched by Divinity...

...

No Comment. >_> <_<

Six terrifying years of the former if it can be tweaked a bit.

You know, it just came to me a few days ago......

It's a Paizo product (so Paizo writing style).

It's for characters for whom alignment can be absolute instead of relative.

It's got Mythic Rules (epic stuff).

It's set in the Worldwound with lots of fights against demons.

It's basically "Paizo does Diablo" isn't it?

:D

YESS!

Adam, you ROCK!

@Balgin: When 3.5 came out, my friend Bill pointed out that the game was no longer Dungeons and Dragons... but Dungeons and Diablo. Of course, it also doesn't hurt that WotC put out basic rules for running a D&D Diablo game...

The problem is, of course, that the shift toward fast-paced buffs and the like eliminates the tactical nature of magic and instead has it as something used for skirmishes instead of the long run. The castration of Invisibility from 24 hours in 2nd edition to a maximum of 20 minutes in 3.5 (and Pathfinder) is one such example of how this mindset has eliminated such tactical aspects as using invisibility to scout, or Reduce Person on a group so they could explore a goblin warren.

So is Worldwound "Diablo, Pathfinder Style?" No more than any D&D-related product starting with edition 3.5. I'm still looking forward to reading this module... and maybe in a couple years have a group able to run it.

Edit: And of course it also makes Extend Spell nearly useless. I mean, increasing the level of a spell just to double its duration doesn't do much good when your duration is five minutes long! It'd be better if it expanded the time duration up one slot - 10 minutes per level instead of 1 minute per level, for instance.

I was more thinking "the Diablo soundtracks would make a great ambient soundtrack for this AP"...

Case in point!

Also, I really like having known, famous enemies right there in the player's guide. :)

I agree with Tangent. When booster spells became short so they were combat applications only it meant you couldn't cast a strength spell to carry all that treasure back to town. That's why we have Ant Haul now. The 3.0 shift to a more combat heavy focus caused a derth of utility spells which are now coming back into fashion.

I wasn't claiming the Diablo link to be a problem but more of a theme players might choose to embrace (the Diablo stance on morality moreso than random item generation adn disposable equipment :p).

Interesting to see that mass combat is going to play a part here. I like that- definitely lends a sense of epicness to the storyline beyond just the Mythic rules.

Plus, I've been wanting to see a sort of "war" themed Adventure Path for a while, and while this may not specifically be that, it is a good/close alternative.

War huh? What's it good for?

War huh? What's it good for?

Sales. Duh. ;)

Balgin wrote:

War huh? What's it good for?

Sales. Duh. ;)

Rule of Acquisition #34: War is good for business.

Joana wrote:

Why say PCs can come from anywhere in the Inner Sea when all but one of the Campaign Traits assume you were born and raised near the Worldwound? :P

I didn't want people to feel like they HAD to be from the area despite that it would work best. People don't have to take the campaign traits, it just works better if they do.

Wait, what? Players are supposed to take one campaign trait and one normal trait. Unless that has changed, this is how it is supposed to be. Where does this notion that you don't have to take the campaign traits come from?

Wait, what? Players are supposed to take one campaign trait and one normal trait. Unless that has changed, this is how it is supposed to be. Where does this notion that you don't have to take the campaign traits come from?

The Adventure Path assumes that every character in the campaign has one of the following campaign traits.

As per the quote, Wrath of the Righteous assumes that you take one of the campaign traits, but I'm not seeing any text that says you absolutely have to. Not choosing one of the premade campaign traits means that there's a bit of work to be done by the GM and the players but I imagine that's where books such as Mythic Adventures and Mythic Origins might come in handy as tools with which to reach a different solution.

Well, as far as I know, it has always been the assumption that you have to take one campaign trait and one normal trait. That you can simply opt out on the campaign trait is new to me.

I've never required PCs to take on Campaign Trait. Then again, the only two campaigns I ran were Runelords and Reign of Winter, and the latter started with PCs from a previous campaign so I didn't even bother having the RoW Traits available.

Of my Runelords game, only two PCs took Traits specific for Runelords (one with the merchant trait, the other with Thassilonian Scholar which has allowed for the amusing bit of a half-orc Barbarian scholar who wears glasses when not raging and loves to read. Then again, the PC loves Beast from X-Men, and she fashioned her PC after him.)

Well, as far as I know, it has always been the assumption that you have to take one campaign trait and one normal trait. That you can simply opt out on the campaign trait is new to me.

For me, the understanding has always been that campaign traits were tools. Hooks, if you will. Not something that was required. Oh well. :)

Well, as far as I know, it has always been the assumption that you have to take one campaign trait and one normal trait. That you can simply opt out on the campaign trait is new to me.

I know not every AP says it in the player's guide, but a few do, (this one, Jade Regent, Carrion Crown and Skulls and Shackles to name a few) however it's more up to a GM, I mean it's not like your running an 'organized play' type thing, GM's can fudge up whatever they want. It is useful to note however, that Campaign Traits are typically just better than standard ones, providing bigger bonuses or unique ones. (The Sword Scion trait from Kingmaker comes to mind, a +1 trait bonus on attacks with longswords and Aldori Dueling swords, wow.)

magnuskn wrote:

Well, as far as I know, it has always been the assumption that you have to take one campaign trait and one normal trait. That you can simply opt out on the campaign trait is new to me.

For me, the understanding has always been that campaign traits were tools. Hooks, if you will. Not something that was required. Oh well. :)

Same here. Can't remember ever reading anything other than that you're allowed to take two traits, which can't be of the same type.

By the way. The Ultimate Campaign section on Traits does not say you are not allowed to take two traits of the same type. Does that mean that specific rule is no longer valid if you're using Ultimate Campaign, or was it just left out by accident?

By the way. The Ultimate Campaign section on Traits does not say you are not allowed to take two traits of the same type. Does that mean that specific rule is no longer valid if you're using Ultimate Campaign, or was it just left out by accident?

It was probably left out by accident since I doubt they'd up and change the general rules about traits without letting people know.

Well, as far as I know, it has always been the assumption that you have to take one campaign trait and one normal trait. That you can simply opt out on the campaign trait is new to me.

Some groups never even READ the player's guide. The APs assume that the players have to work together and have some connection to the plot. The campaign traits make that a quick and easy premise.

Noticed something odd...

On page 8, Staunton Vhane is noted as being "a dwarven man... recently revealed to be an antipaladin and traitor to the Mendevian crusades." Except Staunton Vhane is also the name of a 15th-level male human cleric of Norgorber from Magnimar known as the Forever Man.

Ha! Oops.

That's my error. Staunton Vhane was a big bad guy from a homebrew game I ran back in college, and I messed up by re-using his name twice it appears.

Feel free to make something of it in your game if you want, but it's not intentionally a hidden secret link between Wrath of the Righteous and Magnimar.

By the way. The Ultimate Campaign section on Traits does not say you are not allowed to take two traits of the same type. Does that mean that specific rule is no longer valid if you're using Ultimate Campaign, or was it just left out by accident?

That wasn't left out by accident–that's part of the fundamental rule of traits.

Note that it's not so much a balance thing as it is a way we try to encourage players to pick different traits from different background elements so that they have 2 different historical elements for their character rather than 2 of the same types of elements.

Ah, odd. I figured it would be included in the now-official Traits rules. Unless all the rules in Campaign are optional. ^^;; (Yes, I know a GM may choose not to use a rule if he or she so desires.)

Adam Daigle wrote:

Joana wrote:

Why say PCs can come from anywhere in the Inner Sea when all but one of the Campaign Traits assume you were born and raised near the Worldwound? :P

I didn't want people to feel like they HAD to be from the area despite that it would work best. People don't have to take the campaign traits, it just works better if they do.

So if the mage's parents aren't missing Riftwardens he gets shafted out of the full spectrum of his mythic path?

Thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather make my own character than play one of six pregens. :P

One thing that I think that we could have been a bit more clear on is that the GM should ABSOLUTELY work with the players on adapting and changing these campaign traits to match ideas that the players have for their characters.

We're trying something new in Wrath of the Righteous—we're including personal quests as a minor part of one adventure in the AP, and in order to do that, we need to make assumptions about player backgrounds. We chose to make the campaign traits into what they are so that we'd have some background elements to make those assumptions of, frankly.

If you don't use the Campaign Traits at all, the campaign itself still works fine. You the GM may want to adjust some of part 3 of the campaign to more closely match the types of backgrounds your players come up with when they get there if they didn't take Campaign Traits.

And if you do want to use the Campaign Traits but you want to make changes to the background, that's absolutely something that you and your GM should work with on adjusting.

A campaign is more fun, I've found, if the player not only designs a cool backstory for their character, but sees that backstory actually come up in play and MEAN something in play. These traits are an attempt to incorporate that directly into the adventures.

That said... this is the first time we've done something like this, and I'll absolutely be paying attention and taking notes on observations about how we can improve things in the future... but until folks see how these traits play out completely (as revealed in the 3rd adventure)... I'll have to wait patiently and hope folks don't get too angry or frustrated or impatient in the meantime.

Ah, odd. I figured it would be included in the now-official Traits rules. Unless all the rules in Campaign are optional. ^^;; (Yes, I know a GM may choose not to use a rule if he or she so desires.)

It probably should have been reiterated in Ultimate Campaign, I agree.

That said... this is the first time we've done something like this, and I'll absolutely be paying attention and taking notes on observations about how we can improve things in the future... but until folks see how these traits play out completely (as revealed in the 3rd adventure)... I'll have to wait patiently and hope folks don't get too angry or frustrated or impatient in the meantime.

Mr. Jacobs, I agree with you on this. While I am debating on these Traits, I am also holding off on a final say until I see how it works within the game itself. Seeing that these Traits can affect Personal Quests does alter the view of the Traits slightly, and once in a quarter year and a couple weeks that I see this part of the AP, I'll know better.

Ironically, I may end up not seeing this 'til the end of October, as that's hunting season and I'll likely not be home when Part 3 is shipped. ^^;; Fortunately, I've friends housesitting so at least I don't have to worry about it sitting in the rain for a couple weeks 'til I get home!

One concern/question I've got about the traits is that since they're going to be apparently enhanced somewhat by one's mythic status, what happens if not everyone took one and you've got one of those players who has an aneurysm at the possibility of noticeable imbalance between party members?

One concern/question I've got about the traits is that since they're going to be apparently enhanced somewhat by one's mythic status, what happens if not everyone took one and you've got one of those players who has an aneurysm at the possibility of noticeable imbalance between party members?

You as the GM should know that you've got one of those players, and you should adjust your game as appropriate. The best way to adjust that is to just give out the boons to players as you see fit. Run the game you know you need to run, not the game we at Paizo are merely guessing you might need to run.

You as the GM should know that you've got one of those players, and you should adjust your game as appropriate. The best way to adjust that is to just give out the boons to players as you see fit. Run the game you know you need to run, not the game we at Paizo are merely guessing you might need to run.

Fair enough.

Torn between Exposed to Awfulness and Touched by Divinity...

Show me on this doll where the Divine One touched you.

You know, it just came to me a few days ago......

It's a Paizo product (so Paizo writing style).

It's for characters for whom alignment can be absolute instead of relative.

It's got Mythic Rules (epic stuff).

It's set in the Worldwound with lots of fights against demons.

It's basically "Paizo does Diablo" isn't it?

:D

Thought it was more Pathfinder does warhammer fantasy setting.

Balgin wrote:

It's basically "Paizo does Diablo" isn't it?

:D

Thought it was more Pathfinder does warhammer fantasy setting.

Whatever the inspiration what excited me about it was that it is a very clear look into the nature of outsiders that we don't get with the appearance of individual outsiders, or the bestiary entries.

And don't get wrong, the Book of the Damned series and Amber Scott's recent book ALSO provide insight into the life, schemes, and ecologies of outsiders—but this Adventure Path provides a "working model" of how demons do their thing. This Adventure Path as a study in Adventure Design goes from the "theory" established in the campaign setting books and puts it into "practical application".

My feeling is that people will (and should) be talking about this AP for years to come.

A campaign is more fun, I've found, if the player not only designs a cool backstory for their character, but sees that backstory actually come up in play and MEAN something in play. These traits are an attempt to incorporate that directly into the adventures.

That is, without a doubt, a laudable idea. However, I think that having to choose among 6 traits isn't enough, even if I understand that multiplying the options in this particular case is even more difficult as each trait should be given its 'side quest'. However, if the only issue was space, what about writing an article about it in the first part of an AP?

A campaign is more fun, I've found, if the player not only designs a cool backstory for their character, but sees that backstory actually come up in play and MEAN something in play. These traits are an attempt to incorporate that directly into the adventures.

That said... this is the first time we've done something like this, and I'll absolutely be paying attention and taking notes on...

Absolutely. That's what I like about them. I would prefer that the experiment were done with an ordinary AP rather than a Mythic one but I still applaud the effort. I hope it works out well enough to encourage more in the future, though going off the initial reaction that might be hoping for too much.