Oh right, do Ulat-Kini not exist in post remaster anymore? I thought they did exist in the dwarf ap that featured the post remaster darklands lore article Sky King's Tomb introduced some remastered monster names, but was still OGL.
I'm impressed by how smooth it is to switch from remaster to legacy stuff. Very well done.
Oh, I'm looking forward to the developments in and around Aucturn...
That title, though.
Since all the 2nd edition material is still usable in the remaster, I don't really feel much of the effects of the OGL-to-ORC shift just yet. When 3rd edition comes out, and if it has significant changes from 2nd edition, then I'll start mourning owlbears and their friends.
"Ripples across space time..." Could this make for a narrative excuse to rope in a Pathfinder PC to play alongside Starfinders? Asking for a me.
Baldur's Gate 3 is my current obsession. I haven't played another game that gives me an opportunity to do all the idiot things my players enjoy doing at the tabletop.
The bonus skills from Intelligence never go beyond Trained. And the game assumes that all relevant skills will be boosted to Legendary if you want any modicum of success for them. Given that Trained to Legendary is a whopping 6 point differential, it's basically a Nat 20 fisher, which you already are doing anyway (in which case, why bother with the training if it doesn't change much). Even if the argument is "Well, you get access to more Trained skill activities," this still falls under the previous statement's problem, which is that in the higher levels, it falls off really fast, meaning having the capacity to do that skill activity is really, really worthless. By 10th level, Trained skills lose a lot of relevance, since the game is assuming you're running around with Master (or at the very least, Expert) skills. I don't think this logic holds water in a lot of games. The vast majority of games I've played stay in the single levels, maybe capping out in the early teens. And even if the game goes to 20th level, something that stays relevant for half that time is still pretty significant. I stumble on a lot of theorycrafting arguments because they so often look toward the end of that 1-20 scale. I really like that 2nd edition stays fun and balanced at high levels, but even so I don't think many games really reach that point.
I don't know how the rest of the adventure path shakes out, but my favorite 2e adventure path so far (still in Book 1) is Outlaws of Alkenstar. Its bank robbery opening plus subsequent run from the law is tons of fun, and the first book just keeps going with great flavor and fun encounters all throughout.
Strong recommendation for Sky King's Tomb. Despite being entirely Darklands-based, it's got far more role-playing encounters than combats. There's also lots of adapting to different cultures, be it dwarven, fey, or hryngar. You do have to like the Victory Point systems from the Gamemastery Guide, though, as it gets extensive use.
201 seems early to me. It's scheduled for spring 2024, and War of the Immortals is closer to the end of the year, I think.
I'd probably bump up the story awards. Each major task tends to have multiple phases. I don't have the book in front of me right now, but if you gave 80 XP per phase for a major task and 30 XP per minor task, that would probably get you to the target of one level up after three major tasks.
You may want to keep your eye out for their next project, "Year of Legends," which sounds like it will be hitting Kickstarter soon.
We currently have a total of one sentence in a playtest document saying that we are getting some mythic rules. I'm excited for the possibilities, and I know that the Internet is the place where we overanalyze everything, but I have a hard time getting super worked up until we actually see...anything.
That seems to be a situation where you let common sense guide you to the intent of the rules.
I'm excited. I've been wanting mythic rules for a while, and I think they'll work very well in the sturdier 2e system.
Are those svirfneblin or are they the-new-name-for-duergar ? Those are drathnelar/deep gnomes. Hryngar = replacements for duergar. Drathnelar = replacements for svirfneblin. At least as far as I can tell so far.
My very first AD&D product was the 2nd edition Rogues' Gallery, and it made a huge impression on me. I've always been obsessed with reading NPC backstories, and I love it when an antagonist survives an adventure to either return another day or become an unlikely ally.
It's not done yet, but so far I think Sky King's Tomb fits the bill nicely. It's got a pretty strong theme... Spoilers about that theme:
Beyond just "dwarf/Darklands stuff," it leans heavily on the theme of making amends for sins of the past, and even highlights some NPCs who lean into that theme especially hard. At least early on, it also has a lot of options to let PCs showcase unique skills, with combat possible but not always necessary. One would think that being in the Darklands means that it's all dungeons, but it actually has a good amount of urban adventure in it. The only thing that I would point out in terms of prep for it is that the Gamemastery Guide is basically essential for the adventure path, as it makes a lot of use of the subsystems in that book.
Thank you for the insight. I agree that milestone leveling works well for Sky King's Tomb (so far, at least). I have much more to go through, but so far the encounters are incredibly fun and flavorful, so the composition of the early part of the campaign is much appreciated.
I don't think Starfinder poses any shackles to continuity. Sarenrae could die but return sometime during the Gap, and nobody would know.
Very pumped. I'm going to break time and space in my setting, so the players have to mix and match Pathfinder characters with Starfinder characters to fix the universe.
I don't think I agree with the notion of partial boosts being bad design. The way the system stands, it keeps players from being hosed if they don't absolutely min/max their scores from the get-go. That's especially beneficial to new players, which I appreciate. There are pros and cons, but partial boosts solve some problems without requiring a whole lot of new words to explain the rules, and I don't see that they will be much of a problem moving forward.
I envision this being a little checkbox next to the attribute modifier on the character sheet. Seems pretty simple to me. It won't even use up the real estate that not having ability scores frees up.
Check Rise of New Thassilon pgs. 23 - 25** spoiler omitted ** That's what I get for going by memory alone. ;)
I've included the deck in almost every campaign I've run for the past twenty years. I've only had one where the players didn't draw from it. (They gave it to Murlynd as an apology for lighting his house on fire.) Lots of good memories. It never blew up my game, but it did sometimes cause it to veer in a new direction.
The 1st edition Advanced Player's Guide has a d20 that created powerful random results when rolled. I'd bring that back.
In two recent games of mine, I got someone wanting to play an aasimar/tiefling hybrid (took the aasimar heritage, allowing both aasimar and tiefling feats) and someone wanting to play a half-dwarf (gave low-light vision and the ability to choose human or dwarf feats). I really like it when the game's revisions make it easy for me to let my players know that the rules are catching up with their ideas.
I was very much looking forward to this blog entry. I'm happy that something along these lines has become tradition over the past few years.
What I am likely to do: drow are now represented rules-wise by the cavern elf heritage, and are sinister, demon-worshiping cavern elves. What I kind of want to do: the drow are secretly playing a long con by using serpentfolk tactics against them. A huge number of serpentfolk in leadership positions are actually drow in disguise.
Personally, I prefer not to have an explanation saying "All the drow are gone/dead." I'd prefer room to do my own thing with the drow and include them as I wish, and not having to say, "Ignore the canon drow apocalypse" saves me a step.
RE: why drow but no one else? It's not just drow. We've already heard hints that otyugh will be replaced by a different sewer monster. I'd be amazed if owlbears stick around. There are a number of old friends who will be left behind when Pathfinder moves on from the OGL. Hopefully, the new crowd is as interesting and engaging as the old.
I've enjoyed using ogres a lot in my games. I don't go with the inbred hillbilly tropes, but I have lifted some stuff from their entry in Classic Monsters Revisited, like their sport of swordfighting with people as their swords. They're big brutes that love violence and have little capacity for empathy. The exact details as malleable and can be adjusted to individual groups.
Preeeeeeetty much :'D I'm also afraid it means starfinder devs will not do much with Apostae at all for foreseeable future because they see planet's lore as doomed already I feel like Starfinder could rebrand drow as Apostaens (or whatever the proper name is) and do relatively little further adjustment. Extremely corporate interstellar gun-runners whose barren planetoid home may or may not be breaking apart is a fairly long distance from the underground-dwelling Machiavellian wannabes from D&D, while Pathfinder drow are quite a bit closer.
All these years I've wanted a merfolk ancestry, but never had a game that put everyone in an aquatic setting. It never occurred to me to combine the combat wheelchair with an on-land adventure. Brilliant. This book is going to be so ridiculously good.
In WotC's apology letter back in January, they stated, "we wanted to ensure that the OGL is for the content creator, the homebrewer, the aspiring designer, our players, and the community—not major corporations to use for their own commercial and promotional purpose." I don't know if I'm the only one, but I saw that as a kind of shot at Pathfinder. When discussing the legal ramifications of drow, it might be worth keeping in mind that Hasbro may perceive an opportunity to punch down at the industry's second biggest brand to be beneficial. Blizzard may have dark elves, but I would bet they have a bigger legal team than Paizo, and nobody is saying, "Dump D&D and play Warcraft as a replacement." It's reasonable to disagree with Paizo on the logistics or the absolute removal of drow, but they are in a tough situation and Hasbro has every reason to take a swing at them if they have an excuse. With that in mind, and knowing that there have been lots of behind the scenes talks, I find Paizo's claim that this is needed to be very believable.
For the "give an explanation, then never mention them again" group... 1) Isn't that functionally the same thing? Either way, drow aren't in future stories. Or are there folks who feel like Second Darkness/Abomination Vaults no longer "count" if they aren't referred to by future products? 2) Where should the final development occur? We've got two adventure paths, a couple Lost Omens books unrelated to the Darklands, and then the ORC license is the new normal. There's not exactly room in the product schedule for something that has no role in future plans. Or would a blog entry satisfy the need? Honest questions. My favorite character is a drow (he's been a cavern elf who lost his drow trait through being on the surface for too long since the start of 2e), and the drow will still exist in my setting. I'm just not sure there's a good solution for Paizo as a publisher.
I'm trying to put together a retcon in which the serpentfolk played a long con to convince elves that drow existed. The pieces are there, but I haven't quite put them together yet.
One thing that seems apparent from the remaster previews so far is that all the old bestiaries remain compatible. While drow won't be in the official products anymore, we at least still have the tools to tell our own 2e stories with them (and with owlbears, green dragons, and anything else being left out of the Monster Core).
I don't see it as drow going away. I see it as them joining the likes of Tiamat and Orcus...still in the setting, just not mentioned in the adventures.
I've been wanting a book like this for a while, so I'm really excited for this to come out! There's so many ancestries I'd love to see that would work well for the remaining four like merfolk, sthenos, gargoyles, or maybe some sort of insect ancestry. It's worth noting that the Battlezoo Year of Monsters product that is currently rolling out has stheno as a playable ancestry. It will also have minotaurs, and it will be interesting to see the design differences between their minotaurs and Paizo's when both books are out.
Book of the Dead is so good. I'm very happy that there are more creature-focused books coming out.
My personal hope is that the new heritage isn't dragon-related, because I have the dragon scion versatile heritage from Battlezoo to scratch that itch.
If the owlbear does go away, I propose that Pathfinder needs a new hybrid of two awesome animals. I suggest the octopanda.
Technically, they'd have to buy two books anyway to get everything presented in the Player Cores, since it combines the Core Rulebook and the Advanced Player's Guide. From the looks of it, a new player who wants to have the bare minimum needed to play the game would now need three books: Player Core, GM Core, and Monster Core. That's still an increase, but not something that should seem too far out there given the way D&D has set things up for years. The Player Core 2 seems to kind of occupy a somewhat separate niche in that it looks like you could play the game as presented without it. I'm not sure whether that's a distinction that Paizo wants or, if it is, how they would convey that. But the product descriptions really do seem to make the Player Core 2 out to be the equivalent of the Advanced Player's Guide, but with four Core Rulebook classes added in. I imagine that keeping the page count down so there isn't a big 640-page rulebook is probably a primary motivation for the moving of those classes.
I am not ready to mourn anything until I hear that they're actually gone. Even then, I'm likely to keep my old Bestiaries around to keep using these things in my house game.
I still play and enjoy Starfinder.
I honestly worry if I am a rational human being, because I am very close to declaring the existence of owlbears in Pathfinder to be a make or break for me.
There's likely a balance here. I'm sure that the creative team has ideas on what 3rd edition might look like. There's probably some benchmark telling Paizo when they need to put pen to paper on that game. At the same time, there's no need to leave sales on the table. If 2nd edition is doing as well as it seems, it would be foolish to put a lot of resources into a new edition until things start flagging. And pushing out a new edition because of what WotC is doing with D&D seems to be a recipe for failure, especially since it looks like D&D will continue to chase an audience that is different from Pathfinder and Starfinder. I'm sure that there are ideas in-house about what the next edition might look like. Putting those ideas into active development would mean taking resources away from a successful game right now, though, which would be sacrificing known sales for a maybe.
|
