Hello All. Not sure if this is the right or best place for this. I have done this in the past and the feedback has been invaluable in shaping the experience for my -players. We are just approaching the end of a homebrew AP style adventure - Throne of Light and shadow - where my players got to face off against the forces of Cyth-V'Sug in a corrupted dwarven fortress, prevent an old one from rousing from their slumber, and defeat a Veltrac demagogue in at the moment of his ascension. SO now I'm looking to develop a new adventure. Here is my basic idea, I'm seeking ideas and feedback to round out the adventure - Throne of Iron and Blood. Parts 1 and 2 - Best Served Cold and A Little Hatred
Returning to the wizard he thanks them. when they inform him what has happened he grows deeply concerned and tells them of another village that collapsed in an apparent mining accident just recently. He asks them to investigate fearing something truly dire may be afoot. This town is an almost identical scenario, investigation draws them into conflict with a group of Derro who have come to the collapsed town seeking answers. Here they will have their first encounter with the Duergar. That's about where I'm at. I am in the process of fleshing out adventures: Exploring the Darklands In a foundry in Alkenstar where the youngest Duergar son seeks to source explosives and technology to further his father's goals. He will also be seeking to destroy this town using the Duergar secret weapon as well - very much against the wishes of his father who wants to remain a secret until they have perfected the technology Culminating in a Duergar fortress filled with treacherous Duergar intent on killing each other as much as the outside world in a very King Lear fashion. Allowing PCs the opportunity to ally and turn them against each other before seeking a final confrontation with the Iron King. I would love feedback from this community.
Excellent response James. I find myself challenged in exactly that fashion. Not working to build a sub par character but looking at the myriad possibilities and which things I’d like to try out at the table, rather than focussing on that one build. Besides isn’t a build only sub par is everyone at the table, including the GM allow it be so?
We’ve been playing since 2e cane out and our take has been that we enjoy playing martial sand casters equally. Our group of 5 has had immense fun playing a variety of classes, we’ve died a fair bit.
If there is a discrepancy between casters and martials it haven’t been a big issue at our table - or evening a little one. The primal sorcery who died immediately rolled up a wizard, and then an occult sorcerer when he died (he’s not a very conservative player and does some odd stuff at the table which we all immensely enjoy, sometimes at his expense ) . For completeness we’re all in our 50’s and have been playing in one for or another for over 30 years on average.
While last weeks preview didn’t really inspire me this weeks almost pretty well sells the set by comparison. Xulguths - huge tick. Plus we get three! Like some others I do believe the leader could be an uncommon but I suspect there’ll be enough of all three in a case that it won’t matter too much. Duergar - I know I’ve said I’m not fond of NPC style minis but that’s the standard haul of elves and guards and dwarves, oh my all the dwarves. These excite me a little because we get yet another unified force in the one set AND the large version. The only thing holding me back from a huge thumbs up is Wizkids hugely variable paint quality when dealing with humanoids like this - they could be amazing or just big blobs of colour. Fingers crossed. With both of these creatures I truly hope future sets match up to them in style, scale and colour. Now let’s face it do I need another shambling mound? Probably not, and this is what this essentially is. That said it has huge potential to be the go to if it’s half as good as the render and I think the open “tentacled” face is awesome. Who knows it may be very different in hand. I’ve got to assume that Gogiteth is rare. It...is...freaking...awesome. As soon as I saw it in B1 I had fingers crossed it would find its way into the plastic world and BAM, here it is. Please, oh please let it turn out even half as good as that render. Thank you guys. Even rare I think I’ll be on the lookout for more. A++ all the way. The traps? Yeah they’re nice, I’m 50/50 on them but certainly won’t begrudge getting them in a case. Not the sort of thing I’d go out of my way to hunt down though. Well played good sirs, this preview pushed me back onto the gonna get me a case” side of the fence.
Now that we’re over all that. The heavy proportions of NPCs and humanoids in mini sets is hugely off putting. With very cheap alternatives and the unpainted lines I look primarily for monsters that I need (?) in sets. I also find that wizkids are terrible at humanoids - the intent is good but the paint jobs are usually a let down. I await the future previews to see what else is in this set - it may well be the first I pick and choose from, though not because of the set but entirely due to finances. The Aussie dollar is getting lower and lower.
Yeah, we felt the same way.Wow that’s quite fatalistic.I guess you were right that this set won't sell well, then. What a shame. Wow that conversation devolved quickly. I agree with Marco in some respects - no previews until now, caronavirus - it is a hard sell. I was more amazed at the fatalistic response from mark. I also feel wizkids have added to the issue, for quite reasonable and understandable reasons (dnd is the well known name) They market all the effects and add ons under the icons line. There website only shows half, if that, the PFB mini sets ever made so naturally PFB feels like a secondary add-on to the market. It also doesn’t help that a few big voices on various mini websites sound almost like wizards employees lurking there to pump up their products. Personally I just glad we have all these minis to choose from and want to see wizkids branch into other rpg styles - hanging out for the starfinder minis, would love some modern investigators. All I can say really is...eh give me more minis and game systems to try.
Yay, finally a huge Abol...Algothu. Although I’m not 100% sure on the size, could be on the small size maybe? Love the colour and pose. Awesome goblins. New look is great. With the common and uncommon rarity I can probably replace my existing old school (ha, ha) kobolds after this set. With the evolution sets we have red, white and now blue dragons at the huge scale. Hopefully we get black and green. I don’t think we need more than that at this time but given the nature of the first AP I suspect we will although I hope we get more unusual pathfinder huge minis instead. So PFB moves into the alternative minis. I like these as they increase table variety but is the only variation on the orc his colour? So three variations in colour - sample pack and two in this?
Sorry got to agree with others here. This post is not well timed, to spoil the current AP in this fashion is in poor taste. You can play it down, act like people are having nerd rage or belittle their feelings on the matter all you want, but that still doesn’t excuse the fact that Paizo shouldn’t have done it. It’s like that guy that walks out of the blockbuster movie telling everyone what happened. Yeah you may have known it was going to happen but it still affects your enjoyment of the film. I hope my players don’t read this blog. On a different note. When do the minis previews start again?
So the obols in the PCs help to stitch soul and flesh. They’ve also upset to some degree the beaurocracy of the dead roads and boneyard. If they die during the game what then? I’m now in book two and while there have been no deaths, it’s been close once or twice. I’ve decided to try something but I’m uncertain how it will go of the obols play a bigger role in later books. When the PCs returned from the dead roads they found themselves in possession of a coin, one face the comet symbol of pharasma, the he other the moon of Groetus. If (when?) they is they will NOT renter the river of souls but instead be subject to athe corrupting influence of the Obols - accelerating their inevitable effect. How? Well when killed they reawaken shortly after (at 0 HP) and the mortal wound mysteriously closes. Disintegrated? Destruction? They die but the power of the obol prevents their body from being destroyed - that will certainly confuse them. By the way I have no intention of letting them know of the obols real nature until the AP demands it. The penalty? Horror adventures Corruptions. Each time they die they increase manofestor level by 1. Toss the magic coin, Pharasma = no further effect, Groetus = increase corruption level (better find a way to lower that again. Is this feasible over the AP? I suppose that’s a question for you Mr Lundeen. What do people think?
Yeah, i suspect ill hang on until Ruins of which, as you say Pigraven is most likely the last of the first ed sets. Like you ill be waiting to see how things change in 2e to decide my future. Ive been a sub since the first AP, i’m undecided about 2e having playtested some of the stuff. My group is certainly split, half feel they could get on board with the new edition, half do not (but thats not unusual). I hope the look of the 2e citters doesn’t change too much, certainly hope they don’t change the sizes like 5e did on too many, although i do like the idea of reducing colossal and gargantuan creatures since this increases the chances of a mini getting made.
Yeah. I’m a bit disappointed, a purely selfish feeling, but I look forward to my “weekly” look at the miniatures heading my way. I did get my wish for a medium and large spriggan so I can’t complain too much, now I just need my Frogemoth and Mobogo. Maybe a night walker and a neothellid,perhaps a...
If my character encounters another in the game what will be there first impression? Im believe, perhaps wrongly but please point it out, that initial perception will be one of two things, male or female, or androgynous to some degree where that distinction is not apparent. I have no way to percieve if a person is trans, intersex or of no identified gender, so my initial perception is one of the above, how can it be anything else? Please explain to me if im wrong here. It then part of a roleplaying opportunity or a social contract to elicit any ‘gender’ preference. On that note i see no reason for gender on the character sheet. It has no mechanical effect on the game, is a highly personal issue that everyone has very strong opinions on (just look up) that are better dealt with through actual communication.
Yeah thats what i posted about earlier Steve, im curious as to whether Paizo have any news on this front. As for the wait, eh, im in Australia were always among the last so im not too concerned as long as it does actually arrive. Ill have the free pdf until then.
Im very curious how the Australian orders are being fulfilled. Amazon US doesnt deal with Australia since we started putting GST on all packages, in fact all reference to Australia has been removed from the US site. Australians MUST operate through amazon australia. So are we gett8ng our orders through the US at the standard 18-36 day shipping - anything up to the end of September!! Or are Australians getting it via Australian centres? On a different note i oredered a second copy through bookdepository (an amazon subsidiary now i believe?) and thats on its way to me, due to arrive any time now, shipped last week around the 24th or so to reach me by release date.
I like the potential here. Wizard dedication and probably 2 feats gives me spellcasting to 6th level - im assuming a second spellcasting feat that cover 4-6 level spells. Then since i have my 2 required atchetype feats i can multiclass again. Could see some really inventive characters here which partly alleviates my concerns over the homogeneity among classes, one of the big things that put me off 4e., but im still going to look closely at low level play which i think may still lack that diversity. I alo like the fact that even multiclassed i will still feel like every level i gain adds to my class, the big thing that put me off 5e with its bounded accuracy. Lookng forward to the playtest and the opportunity to refine/reshape the system.
Would unlimited use of powesrs at an action cost be too unbalanced?The idea for powers is to be stronger than a cantrip but weaker than your highest level spell. So ask yourself this question: would it be overpowered for a wizard to get infinite access to his second highest level of spells? Oh i realise that but so far i cant say ive seen any that actually fit that concept. Plus they can be gated by prerequisites. I just putting it out there bacause we still seem to have /day things and powers of variable cost that probably really amount to /day abilities. Realistically how many “events” occur per day that results in this being a limit anyway
Cant see spellpoints being the answer to multiclassing. If this were the case id always start as a spellcaster to get actual spells and p the martial abilities via feats. The other side: martial, then pick up my spellcasting as spell points falls a little flatter by comparison. The issue is whatever they do i suspect they will be hammered simply because multiclassing always requires some degree of sacrifice. You cant possibly maintain full access to both (three, four) class features if you multiclass, it doesnt make sense to do so, otherwise multiclassing becomes the default. Why play a wizard when a wizard/fighter is just as good at spellcasting and gains the martial combat benefits as well? if scaling is indeed by level not class then that will reduce some of the current issues, if i multiclass i will most likely lose access to higher levels spells but my fireballs (for want of an example) will be just as good as those of a pure spellcaster-the non multiclass wizard will have more variety and access to higher level spells. The reverse is true as well, the multiclass fighter will have access to a greater number of class feats and abilities by virtue of level in the class, the multi will have less but the benefits of the other class(es). My 2 largest concers in 2e are still long drawn out combats and homogeneity in classes.
I kind of like this, want to see how its actually presented in the core rule book, but it appears quite handy here. I can see how this might be rolled into settlement descriptors: Hamlet (level 1-2 settlement): 75% likely to have any level 1-2 common items available. Unlikely to have uncommon items unless the hamlet contains an unusual NPC. Small Village (level 5-6 settlement): level 1-6 common items and level 1-3 uncommon items are readily available, 50% chance of level 4-6 uncommon items usually associated with an unusual or powerful NPC in the village. Sort of thing. Its all behind the screen, but players know its there, so doesnt need to be intrusive. PC: any possibility i can find a katana here?
Why hes here is something the DM can flesh out, maybe even link to a possible adventure. PC seeks him out and asks if he can make him a katana.
Grab edge reaction? Why? Why not simply say “grab the edge as a reaction”, why create yet anothr different action/reaction? Every blog seems to add a new one and i fear its becoming more and more awkward as well as harder to recall and teach new players. Yes i know the old system had a lot as well but wasnt this edition attempting to resolve this issue not simply relabel the complexity? Got to agree with others the Stealth DC is awkward, why this choice as opposed to listing a perception check (or other skill check) required? Under the disable could you not list a number of actions required, this then allows for a person to start disabling, get interrupted and continue later. Wouldnt this allow for more dramatic and interactive trap disarming? To awkward? I like the new mechanism for handling hardness. Not sure i like the term dents but this system seems so much better.
Aaarrrgg another action type. Too many actionn types guys, way too many Missed the point. Im not confused over the three actions per round plus reaction. Whats starting to get to me is the huge range of things with an action tag. Off the top of my head we have: Verbal action, Somatic action, Material action, Focus action, Manipulate action, Interact action, command action, operate action. Its too many. I love the new action economy just not the clunky language, reduce these to just things like “one action to...”.
Snares are not a routine class feature. They are a global feature of the Skill system that a Ranger can opt to make better use of with feats. The problem is still the cost. The examples, a level 1 and 4 snare, cost 2gp and 50gp in a game that uses a SILVER PIECE economy. So at level 1 the snare is 20sp, starting cash is 15. Way too expensive for a 1 round effect. Imagine the outcry is a wizard had to pay 20sp for every first level spell he cast, let alone 500sp for every casting of a 2nd level spell. Add to this the fact they take a minute to set up, or “in combat” if you invest feats, that they will require DM fiat to trap a foe or just plain old luck for a foe to hit that particular space in combat, and unfortunately is makes zero sense for a ranger to use this or the feats. Will wait and see.
Aaarrrgg another action type. Too many actionn types guys, way too many
Ive been a dedicated pathfinder fan since its inception. Ive been mostly positive about pf2, with a few issues with the terminology useage, but now i am genuinely disturbed(?) or perhaps disillusioned by what i read. Some examples: Actions: The odd need to specifiy soooooo many different actions is losing me and adding to an unnecessary degree of confusion. This is especially true of the need to add the word action at the end of every action; verbal action, material action, operate action, manipulate action, attack action, somatic action, command action, and so on. It’s too much. Perhaps it needs to be simplified to drop the word action after each, to add the action icon instead or to just list references to actions in a different font, bold perhaps, to identify an action. The rule book is going to be a torturous read if not, and if it arduous to read, itll get put down and forgotten about. Uses per day; I know this is one of only a few instances it occurs, but it still occurs. The 1/day, 3/day mechanic is a heap of steaming, unnecessary...bookkeeping. In pf1 these items and abilities (not baked into classes) just never saw any use at our table because they are sooooo limited. The rage rework showed real genius in this area, items should too. Simply having them cost resonance is limiting enough, if a power is brutally effceient then either cost it up or dump it as a bad idea. Potions and resonance; I hate this, truly hate the idea. If there is one thing that i despise the most so far this is it. This is such an unnecessary idea. Surely a potion has inherinant cost in gp and action use? Plus who is going to carry like 50 potions around without the agam calling shenanigans? Vorpal; I predict this will see absolutely no use. 5% chance on an attack, if you beat an opponents AC by 10+, if you use RP, if you use your reaction, if they fail the save...at 15000gp in the new sp economy. Pointless. This blog alone has me seeing many design decisions as attempting to be clever fo rthe sake of it and realling missing the mark. You guys are better than this. I know we are not seeing the whole picture but....
There is some great stuff here, and I'm not at all opposed to resonance. Sure it limits items, but I feel that the game really does need that. I'm also not certain it does really limit your items. My level 11 CHA 10 archer has about 9 items on him now - weapons x2, armour and shield, belt, headband, ioun stone, cape, two rings. Under resonance he could till have those and 2 more. Whats potentially bad is the idea of potions utilizing resonance - I don't like that and suspect that will be unnecessarily limiting. I am also opposed to items that double dip - like the staff that requires 1RP to invest, then 1RP every time its used. Perhaps 1RP to invest and charge it, then use the charges. Why the added RP cost every time you use it? Staffs can be limited simply by careful design and spell availability, or at worst by increasing the cost to invest more powerful staves. Trinkets are a nice addition but they are very expensive for one off items, unless of course potions and scrolls are similarly priced, if that's the case then there really isn't an issue, just a readjustment in how I think about them.
I must agree with Arachnofiend here. Trinkets should be consumed only after a successful use, not an activation. I'd be OK with the item if I could use it again and again until successful, but risking 11gp (110gp on the old pf1 scale) on a potential miss is harsh. The coin doesn't suffer this drawback because it not dependent on a "hot or miss" roll
FLOATING SHIELD ITEM 13 Magical Price 2,800 gp Method of Use held, 1 hand; Bulk L Actions Utilized: [[A]] Operate, [[A]] Interact This master-quality light wooden shield (Hardness 6) protects you without requiring you to spend actions each round. When you use an [[A]] Operate action to activate this shield, you can release it from your grip as a part of that action. The shield floats in the air next to you, granting you its bonus automatically, as if you Raised the Shield. Because you're not wielding the shield, you can't use reactions such as Shield Block with the shield. After 1 minute, the shield drops to the ground, ending its floating effect. While the shield is adjacent to you, you can grasp it with an [[A]] Interact action, ending its floating effect.
Yeah, but can you get rid of sneak attack or flurry?Considering that most class features are now class feats, I'm not sure you are going to get what you want. Dont play a rogue or monk Seriously i suspect no is the playtest answer. They want the playtest to look at the class designs and get some constructive feedback on the basic design. I do suspect if you want this level of customization you, and others will need to give this feedback during the test. “Yes the rogue sneak attack appears balanced, works well with the feats and conditions available but i feel there is a niche for rogues without this ability now that we have seen it works fine in PF2”
I like the idea but think with all the feats around there needs to be very clear guidelines and identifiers on feat types, as others have said. That in mind. Why do we need the feat level indicator on the right hand of the name? Why not leave out the level and use this to indicate feat type - class, general, skill. This means the pirate one would have a header containing archetype, dedication, skill in the header rather than just under. I say skill since this particular feat seems to be more akin to a skill feat than a class. Wouldn’t this be easier toID the skill type? It still sets you up as pirate, still has the necessary prereqs and does all its meant to do. Why indicate or limit level when prereq can do that? Why limit to class feats when skill feats would also work, shouldnt a pirate be focussed on different skills? If that seems cumbersome then put the “subtypes” underneath, so the header says skill rather than feat 2 and the first line of the feat is archetype, dedication. Since dedication is in he feat name perhaps the actual header needs to just say skill (archetype) rather than feat 2. I dont think the header will become to crowded unless there are weird feats that have more than 4 types. The gray maiden header would be longest... Gray maiden dedication............................archetype, class, dedication, prestige Or Gray maiden dedication..............................................class (prestige) That would render a lot of the description irrelevant - the feat describes what type it is. Do you need to have more than class (prestige) to ID the purpose? Wont the actual rules clarify what a dedication is, or what a prestige is? Archetypes could then use any feat type applicable, but you could only acccess those particular skill, general etc feats with that appropriate archetype.
Actually i can see giant orders working differently: 1) A group of knights who run a brutal combat style INSPIRED by the strength of giants, who seek to prove their might against any worthy foes. 2) A group of LAWFUL warriors who seek to EMULATE the strength of giants and/or similar creatures and are trained to accept challenges from worthy foes who test their mettle 3). A group ofights trained in oversized weapons LIKE THISE WEILDED by giants. As a knighthood they defend their honour by accepting challenges from worthy foes that seek to imply dishonour in their ways. 4). A brutal group of thugs who operate under the guise of a knighthood but who simply throw their weight around to show their power. A challenge to them comes form the fact that they are trained to feel no opponent worthy, any who challemge this are an affront to their pride. 5) knight trained in the use of GIANT weapons who follow a code that means a worhty opponent can challemge them and should they see this opponent as worthy they feel compelled to accept that challenge from their years of training and discipline I see the anathema as an inspiration not a limitation. I also agree that the last comment is quite rude to you and could have been made in a more appropriate tone.
Thats an excellent point gustavo. I dont see any issue with the spell scaling here at this time. It lowers the disparity between casters and martials without directly affecting the utility of either. Since DC now scales with level for all spells those low level spells will have have higher DCs when used later in the wizards career. This means more save fails, or more importantly critical fails. That critical fail is double damage remember. That 5d6 is 28 damage in a 20’ radius with a DC of 18 (10+lvl+stat?), against lower level enemies that lower level spell can be 56 damage against ALL foes in a 20’ radius. When cast as one of your lower level spells when you reach level 9 that DC is probably 24, now those lower levels creatures are far more likely to fail/critical fail AND higer levels enemiies still have a good chance to fail as well. Of course if im not happy with my blast spell i could just leave the damage to the martial and use haste, protection from energy, stinking cloud to control the battlefield, vampiric touch to heal myself and damage my foe, slow to rob my enemies of actions etc etc Additionally if i learn cone of cold as one of my two 5th level spells, my damaging ones, and i run into a creature immune to cold i can upcast my fireball, yes its less damage on paper but the DC is equivilent, and my foe isnt immune to it! If my martial runs into a creature highly resistent to physical damage his damage also drops dramatically and he can then...ah then...power attack? The comparison of “running out of sword” is a silly distractior. fighters cant dominate foes, teleport, turn invisible, summon tentacles to grapple foes in a large area, attack all foes in a 30’ radius in a round or a 120’ line for that matter. They dont hit without rolling to do so, cant claim a 50% miss chance, or buff all their allies at once. Magic has much more utiliy, its not about just blasting. Martials and casters fill a different niche in the game so im perfectly ok with the potential changes as we see them at the moment. If after playtesting the casters are left for dead then the feedback will reflect that. |
