Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Lopo

Sub-Creator's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber. 405 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 405 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Short Notice


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Just a Guess wrote:

As to blizzard: It states affecting the area around him. have you treated it as following him or as affecting the area he used it in and staying there?

As it is centred on him, and the FAQ about spells centred on large creatures states that the area is measured from the outer edge of the creature's square, that makes it a big affected area.

I didn't have it follow him. He uses his breath weapon to create it, so it's not a spell effect, but supernatural ability (I picture him breathing out all around him to form a blizzard vortex). Thus, where he breathes it out is where the blizzard stays.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I have a five-person crew for Runelords, and Arkhryst definitely did her job for me. Next to Xanesha, he was probably the most difficult fight they've had thus far (we just finished Book 5 yesterday). He never landed in my fight either, though he only destroyed one of the giant zombie minions of our undead bloodline sorcerer.

I can tell you that blizzard worked to tremendous effect for me! Its hindering effects on sight and movement (1 square = 4 squares) made the party struggle for a while since they hadn't pre-buffed with flight spells at all. Eventually, they forced Arkhryst to retreat back to his lair, but he didn't come out to fight them there. Instead, he hid in his network of tunnels for them to open the portal to Runeforge, then stealthily followed them through.

While they were exploring, he was doing the same and went into the Necromancer wing where the lich there turned him into a Ravener. That led to an awesome and hair-raising final chase through the Halls of Wrath with Arkhryst the Ravener seeking to destroy them all the way through! They finally tried to ambush him in the Hall of Preparation, which turned bad for them in a hurry -- blizzard in that room worked to his advantage with the high stealth score he had! They finally put his down, but it wasn't until he had virtually wiped them all out.

Good times.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The APs I've completed as GM are but one:

Serpent's Skull - Players had a blast. Was a lot of work, but worth it in the end.

The APs I'm currently running as GM are two:

Kingmaker - This campaign will be closing on the completion of its third year at the end of the summer, and we should be finishing the campaign about that time as well. We just completed Book 5, and there are a few things to do before Book 6 can begin. Everyone has loved this AP. It's been an absolute success.

Rise of the Runelords - We gather to play this one about once every 4-8 weeks. It's the first AP we ever started in PF back in 2010, and we are at the very end of Book 5. Players have enjoyed it despite the rather hectic scheduling through the years.

The APs I'm currently playing in, but that are not finished are one:

Jade Regent - I've been thoroughly enjoying this one. I've enjoyed the Asian flavor thus far, and the group has been a great deal of fun. It helps that I am now an enlarged dwarven magus using the Hammer of Thunderbolts. Joy!

The APs I am getting ready to run as GM are two:

Shattered Star - My group and I love all things Thassilonian, pretty much from our experiences with Runelords. Thus, this is the campaign we will be starting when Kingmaker reaches its conclusion.

Carrion Crown - I also have a group that enjoys the old Gothic horror schtick, which makes this a no-brainer for them also. Will be looking to run this one after Jade Regent has concluded, probably about the beginning of next year.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rogar Valertis wrote:
My two cents: playing an evil campaign is possible if your players are mature people and the GM is experiences. Is more about trying a different prospective on adventuring than "being evil" per se. If your players enjoy roleplaying and deeply complex characterizations and you are good at curbing excesses and situation with the potential to ruin fun for everyone then an evil AP is a great opportunity. If you don't have that kind of human material or experience then evil APs are probably not the right choice for you.

Nope. I'm not buying.

All of my players are incredibly mature . . . mature enough to know beyond all reasonable doubt that playing evil characters is not something they're interested in. Also, mature enough to know that to desire evil to gain victory isn't their cup of tea at all.

I would also argue that playing evil is quite easy, actually. It doesn't involve a great amount of depth at all, as evil is very much engrained within human nature. Unwillingness to lie, cheat, steal, or even bend the rules to get what you want or desire (lawful evil characters do this according to the society they wish to uphold, as well, though they do it in a fashion that would be logical, with loopholes -- think lawyers!) isn't easy to play. If you don't believe that good would be more difficult, look at all the Paladin alignment threads out there! People can't seem to grasp how good can even be quantified in-game!

I've also been running games for over 20 years, so I've got plenty of experience doing it. My friends would say I'm pretty good at it. ;)

For us, it's a question of morality and ethics, even in the characters we're portraying. I run evil characters as GM with the knowledge that such characters will get defeated by my players. It's not about evil winning with us. Evil is there to be defeated, not to be the stars of the show.

Thus, I disagree with your two cents. But, I will not argue with your play style! If you enjoy evil, have fun with it RV! I wish you many happy hours of gaming!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Tangent101 wrote:

I'm curious as to how people would handle an adventure or AP where incrementally the players are put on a path of Falling and becoming evil. Each step, the easier path is the one that increases the chance of becoming evil. The good path is the path of suicide.

You'd see a lot of groups go into the path of evil, more being annihilated, and a few lucky (or very tactically adept) ones somehow remaining Good.

My group would be all about going that difficult path to suicide if it meant doing the right thing. They're awesome that way! =D


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
CorvusMask wrote:

Really what confuses me about subscribers is that I'd stick around to first part at least before unsubscribing <_< Heck, I'd get them anyway even if I'm not planning to run them since I like reading material even if I don't get to use them

Its kinda like people who unsubscribed from Iron Gods without giving it a chance, saying "Nope, I won't have any interested in it no matter how well it is done" is kinda... Eh, you know.

Iron Gods was in no way my cup of tea. I'm a fantasy nut, but not overly big on sci-fi. However, I'll admit that their story and continuity in Iron Gods was great. Even more important than my appreciation that they created a great AP in a genre I'm not big on, though, is that I have players who would choose it as an option for a future game.

Hell's Vengeance, being an AP for evil characters, does not give me such an option. My players won't do evil. Period. Doesn't matter how great the story might be. You can criticize that all you want, CM, and tell me I'm being silly, ridiculous, unfair, or a whole host of other flavorful titles. What it comes down to in the end is: My players won't play such a game, and I don't enjoy running evil campaigns either.

Thus, there's no purpose for me to spend my money on this one and give it a chance. I hope it's fantastic! I want Paizo to make money because I enjoy the products Paizo puts out.

This one is a no-go, however. I'll look forward to Hell's Rebels and whatever AP follows Vengeance!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Duiker wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Duiker wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

Is there any official confirmation that Hell's Vengeance will "undo" the results of Hell's Rebels? (Or even that it's a sequel?)

All I've seen is that you're expected to play evil PCs. Has there been any further information?

I have seen no confirmation of that one way or the other. The only details tweeted by those actually there are the title and the fact that you're playing evil characters. Everything else has been speculation and assumption that this will be the worst thing ever and the standard threats to unsubscribe. After a hundred AP volumes, I kind of tend to give Paizo the benefit of the doubt that even if at face value I don't see the appeal that they're going to put out a damned good story that's worth giving a chance.
Cheers. I just wondered if I'd missed something - my recollection is that the REAL Adventure Path spoilers/news comes on the Sunday of Paizocon.
Yep! That's my understanding as well. If I recall, there's a panel on Sunday discussing it in more detail and the presentation tonight was just a teaser on the heels of giving a lot of Occult Adventures details, and product announcements.

No threat here, my friend (Duiker)! I meant no disrespect to Paizo at all, which is why I wished them all the best with this one. This simply comes down to play style. This AP could be the greatest, most unbelievably awesome story ever conceived in modern day gaming . . . but once you've slapped the "Evil PCs" tag upon it, there's nothing about it that my group will buy into. Nothing.

I don't blame Paizo for making this AP. I know there has been an outcry by many for an evil AP, and now they've got it. Which is cool! I buy APs to give my players options of campaigns to play, however, and this provides us with none. My players want to play heroes, and good-aligned ones at that. Literally, there is one kind of AP that is of absolutely no use to me, and an evil one is it.

I'll plan to resubscribe after this one is done. Has nothing to do with giving benefit of the doubt though, and everything to do with a play style that's useless for myself and my group. I suppose you can take that as you will.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Samy wrote:
Starglyte wrote:
Well, all my guesses were wrong. The next AP after Hell's Rebels is Hell's Vengeance. Evil PC AP.
Seriously? Ah hell. Seems like a bit too much hell in a row. I think I'm'a pass.

I'm with you there, Samy. My players don't do evil. No use for this AP at all. I wish Paizo the best with it, of course, but I'll not keep my subscription up for this one.

It will also be the only AP in their line that I'll not own. Sadness . . . :(


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Thanks for all the responses and ideas, all! Greatly appreciated!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Doomed Hero wrote:
Effortless Lace?

I just looked at this magic item . . . unfortunately, according to the rules, it won't allow me to wield it one-handed, but instead wield it two-handed without size penalty. I was disappointed.

Plus, it appears effortless lace only works on slashing and piercing weapons, not bludgeoning. Something else I find absurd, personally.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I have a dwarf character who just got a Hammer of Thunderbolts. Is there a way for a medium-sized character to wield the artifact with one hand? He's a Magus (Spellsword Archetype), and I'd love to be able to continue to use the athame if possible!

That whole large weapon for it the warhammer is what's stifling me on this. How do medium players wield it without size penalties?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Tels wrote:
Fourshadow wrote:
Sean K Reynolds said "If you play an RPG to maximize your damage, you may as well play a video game."
No, this is basically declaring that one person's way of playing a game is 'wrong'.

You absolutely could interpret it that way! my interpretation of the quote, however, would be that if one enjoys soloing games, perhaps it would be more fun for you and those around the table if you played solo games. ;)

Clarification: "You" here not intended to point a finger at anyone in particular on these forums.

Greylurker wrote:
little bit on Multiclassing that actually sounds pretty neat. Kind of like 4E feat dip multiclassing.

This actually scares me just a touch . . . When you start looking to 4E for inspiration . . . Oi!

All the same, I'm looking forward to this one.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
WormysQueue wrote:
Still there was never any need to get those high-level-NPC more involved in your campaign than the high-level NPCs from the Golarion setting. While they had a lot of exposition through the novel line that hadn't to mean anything for one's own campaign (And if you needed a reason why they didn't interfere in one's campaign, well it was the novels which gave it to you - they simply were busy elsewhere).

All those powerful NPCs in the Realms made it difficult to justifiably explain why they never showed up when a huge problem arose though. They were everywhere! And their driven purpose in the Realms was to affect it, both overtly and covertly. Having some great Realms-shattering storyline happening and not working these NPCs into it was virtually enough to destroy suspension of disbelief. Even those players that hardly knew anything about Realms continuity still knew about Elminster and Drizzt and the Seven Sisters and so on. If everything in Faerun was going to the hells in a handbasket, did it make sense for a few of these superpowers--namely the ones that could teleport around the world on a whim, and who were so connected with the Weave and the gods that they knew everything that was happening anywhere in the world--to not show up and do something about it? It didn't make sense.

To Paizo's credit, the NPCs they have hovering around their world aren't nearly as intrusive. Yes, there are powerful ones, but they either keep to themselves or are the big bads your characters are supposed to beat! The ones we read about in their PF Tales novels are cool, but none of them are overly powerful. The two coolest, in my opinion, are Radovan and Jeggare from Dave Gross's novels, and I've got PCs in the world that could easily walk either of them, or both of them together. That's good thinking on Paizo's part, as far as I'm concerned. They saw the problems an overabundance of potent NPCs created and learned from it.

And WQ, this is coming from a person that still enjoys reading about the Realms. I always enjoyed that world!

WormysQueue wrote:
Some people here in this very thread have argued that they had problems with the realms because of new published material antagonizing what they had developed in their own campaign. That's something I never really understood. Why should I let myself get stifled by anything an author writes?

At one point in my campaigns, I had ten players around the table. (One thing I loved about 2E, you could run a game with these types of numbers no problem--not the same in PF!) While the majority of them were the folk I described in my post above--they had lives and other things to do other than keep up on Realms continuity, there were a couple of them that were exactly the opposite. They read every book (including ones I hadn't read!), and knew every little thing that went down in the Realms. It meant I had to try and decipher this intricate puzzle to keep everyone happy. You know how some people are! If the world's creators make it canon, how can you say it's not? Telling those people, "In this game, that and that and that never happened, but this and this did" just never really worked, because it all created the whole to them. Missing anything meant it affected everything else.

Thus, the majority of my group back in the day would argue that this bit of continuity really screwed them over, while the minority of the group would argue that that bit of continuity was crucial because, without it, these other things don't make sense! Either way, you're ruining the experience for some people or for all people.

Again, haven't had this problem in Golarion yet because they created a static world in which the players' continuity is the only thing that matters. (And what I want to do with the rest of it, of course, as it sounds like you do, WQ!) From a gaming and player perspective, this works better for us.

That's not to say I'd get all disgruntled if they did it otherwise. I played in the Realms for 15 years plus, as I stated, and we made it work. There were just a lot more complications involved.

WormysQueue wrote:
One the other hand, why should the authors of a campaign setting let themselves get stifled in their creativity, because some readers could take offense with it? Because that's exactly why they thought they had to destroy the Realms and create a new version.

This was an interesting note you made, too, as I'd not heard this one. I do recall listening to Greenwood, Salvatore, and a couple of the developers (Baker, I believe was one of them) comment that because 4E was so drastically different mechanically, they needed to jump the Realms so the world would work mechanically with the system. The price one pays for having a world that requires adaptation to the game that's being played in it, as opposed to stories just being told via novels.

Perhaps there was a little of both going on!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
WormysQueue wrote:
As I said before, I can rearrange the material as I like, but then it's me who's breaking the canon.

Except you're not breaking canon because you're creating it . . . by playing the game. That's one of the beautiful things about how Paizo does this. They give you all the backdrop details. All those little intricacies about what could be going on here and here and here and there and over there. They don't give you the storyline of the whole world past a point (4708, as you stated). Thus, everything that happens beyond 4708 in your games is canon!

I usually play different APs with different years as the starting time. Our Runelords game was in 4709; Serpent's Skull in 4710; Kingmaker also in 4710 and has progressed into 4714. As we continue playing new APs, the events from those APs has taken place, and the results are canon in my world. There's continuity there that's beautiful because we made it! My players like that a lot too! It's fun for them to hear about stuff their old characters have already done and how that changed the world someplace else.

In Forgotten Realms (the world I ran for nigh 15 years between the mid-90s to 2010), the continuity often got in the way for my players because I was the only one keeping up on it as GM. They would construct character stories from stuff they'd learned in past campaigns, to which I would tell them repeatedly, "No, no, see that's changed because of such-and-such who wrote a book about it." It aggravated them a great deal.

No such problem in Pathfinder! Everyone is much happier in my crew!

I love advancing continuity! I just love when my players are the ones doing it and not necessarily a plethora of writers and developers for the company.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If run "as is," I've found that PF APs usually last us between 18-22 months. Kingmaker will probably make it to the 3 year mark because I added a large amount of stuff to it, both my own and other module/mini-campaigns (playing weekly, ~4 hours/night).

When I used to GM 2E, the campaigns were much, much longer! I've run five 2E campaigns to their conclusions. The shortest took about two years. However, the last one I did completed in just over three years, while the CoRD game (2E Forgotten Realms -- our primary world of choice) took almost 7 years, and our Ravenloft 1890s game ran for about 9 years.

In 2E, our characters averaged about 12-14th level by completion. PF really streamlines the leveling process, so we're usually finishing APs at about 17th level.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gargs454 wrote:
For instance, while I said earlier the idea of the megadungeon in the Stolen Lands sounds awesome (and still think it does) I could see that causing issues with some of the players that I have played with over the years. The main issue being that a lot of my players do not like the idea of ever leaving a dungeon unless every single critter inside has either been freed or killed. Granted, there are things the GM can do to handle that, but that is a different issue.

I think the group can definitely play a large part in determining this, absolutely. My players have been much more organic in their thinking in this campaign, as opposed to simply being a band of adventurers out to kill everything. Making them royalty has certainly had a change in mindset as to how they play this one, and it has been for the best, I assure you! They don't necessarily seek to "kill everything," for instance. They haven't always cleared entire dungeons just to say they have, but have gone in with purpose and, when achieving that purpose, sealed the place back up and made it next to impossible for anyone else to fine (as an example).

Basically, they haven't been XP sponges. Their mindsets have been far more focused on the mission of growing a kingdom and political intrigues. They do what they think is best for their kingdom. It's been a blast!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Orthos wrote:
Yeah I learned the hard way that Kingmaker is not the game to throw a ton of extra events and encounters into if you're still using XP, and once this campaign is over we will not be using it for any future ones. It was a long hard road to convince me to do that, but it did the job.

I'd hate to disagree, but I have to! I've thrown two modules, a mini-campaign (Red Hand of Doom), and been creating my own Lovecraftian storyline throughout this campaign using the slow progression XP charts the whole way. My group has just now gotten to the point of starting the 5th book, and they're 5k away from 14th level.

Needless to say, I've added a ton of additional content (including a lot of political intrigue involving Mivon) to this campaign, while still using XP, and it's worked out perfectly in our run.

Again, individual mileage may vary.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Use Gedovius, the gargoyle rogue, from the dungeons of Irovetti's palace in Book 5. The background of that character is just too cool to be simple fodder. I actually added 5 mesmerist levels of the Occult playtest to make him a bit more powerful, then turned him into a recurring assassin-type able to manipulate the minds of those around him so as to keep from being caught in my players' kingdom. His connection to Irovetti gives some very interesting leads towards Pitax, yet Irovetti's ability to lie via his bard skills offers him a great amount of leeway in "honest" denials.

In my game, the players never actually caught Gedovius, but there was evidence left behind in one of the assassin's victims that led to the perpetrator being a gargoyle. Thus, between the sorcerer's legend lore spell and the master spy, connections were made as to this gargoyle's origins, and its connections to Pitax.

Just one example of something that gets virtually no time in the books which can be played up more in the campaign! You can find his stats/story in Area S2 (pg 48-49)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm simply using the slow progression. It's pretty much done all I needed it to, and players have had more time to play with their current levels. My players do like to keep track of advancement, so eliminating XP would not be something they appreciate overly. I also like it because the chaos in level advancement can add some interesting depth to the campaign. They've fought things 4+ CR higher than them at times, and been able to slaughter things that would have been a challenge, except they had out-leveled it by the time they came back to it. That's almost like a reward in-and-of itself for them!

Additionally, my players pretty much stopped the vast majority of hex exploration after Book 2. Once they started getting into the ebb and flow of ruling a kingdom, they actually found that simple exploring no longer was something they had a lot of time for! They started hiring out that gnome troupe to do a lot of the exploring for them. That's really another thing that makes this AP so awesome: there are a ton of different ways it can be played, and none of them are wrong or boring. In some ways, I feel that if I were just giving them XP at "appropriate" times, it might have actually hindered the randomness of the sandbox.

Still, individual mileage will vary.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:

/sarcasm

What, Asmodeus CR 36? That's two rounds of combat from a moderately optimized mid-level party, and when I say "moderately optimized" I mean that even chimpanzees could do that, let alone human beings who actually comprehend what 'math' and 'balance' mean.
/sarcasm

Well, I can't speak for mid-level, moderately optimized parties or anything, but if you throw a CR 36 against a party of level 20/tier 10 heroes, you're almost certainly looking at a 1-2 round fight, tops. Either he'll be dead within that first twelve seconds of mythic combat or they all will.

I mean, CR 30s have a rough average of about 775 hit points, right? Based on Nocticula and Cthulu and such . . . . At CR 36, you're probably not looking at much more than 1100 or so, which still places this "god" within single round for a buffed up melee type or wizard that can bypass any and all immunities or resistances.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Zagig wrote:
Well, I don't want to have them gain a bunch of XP through the Scenarios and then the regular parts of the AP are too easy.

I'll be using PFS scenarios with my group. They already know that they'll be gaining no XP for them, but will be gaining the riches that come from them, which will effectively raise their WBL, which should be prize enough!

All my players have indicated they're fine with this arrangement. It's really the stories they enjoy. =)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I am indeed one who included Red Hand of Doom into my KM game. It truly fits in there rather seamlessly . . . In fact, many of my players still believe that it was part of the actual Kingmaker campaign! I run my game at slow XP progression, so it was a bit easier for me to incorporate it.

Spoiler:
In my campaign, Hargulka, from Book 2, was an advance Wyrmlord seeking to weaken the area before the main body came in. At that point, I pretty much threw them into the whole thing going into Book 3. While I didn't do it this way, it would be easy for someone to replace the Ghost Lord with Vhordekai (BBEG of Book 3), if they so desired.

Granted, due to the nature of the KM AP, there's a lot of playing around with the Red Hand mini-campaign, but it works beautiful if you have the time or inclination! My players loved it!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

3.x

I played 2E for nigh on 17 years and couldn't stand 3.0/3.5 rules. It was too rigid for me. Encounters were more epic in 2E because they required everyone get involved, which I've noticed in this edition isn't necessarily the case. And 2E allowed the GM more wiggle room within the rules.

Now, I'm definitely getting used to 3.x, though there are still aspects about it that I find ridiculous (like the amazingly high damage output at higher levels). Having a blast with PF!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thenovalord wrote:

You should have hung around for books 4 to 6......you would have really disliked it by then...everyone knows everything and you just interfere with the NPCs very important lives

Four was that bad I dropped out for most of it

Five was the best of the bunch

the writer of book 6 obviously forgot the PCs would be 16th and therefore full of tricks, resolve and bypasses....and the ending one big anti-climax....

A problem I have with most PF AP's...the writers seem to want to be novelists, where everything is an npc, not adventure writers where the PCs have input and independence of thought

Or you just need to consider who's running your games and not play in one of their games again. Serpent Skull was the first AP I ran and completed for my players, and they absolutely loved it.

thenovalord wrote:

A railroad is ok if done well

You go from a to b to c etc.....they are adventure PATHS after all

What is needed is what you do at each point is....
To be interesting
To have some affect down the line, gives the players choice

SS fails for me as it doesn't matter what you do, someone gets there first, the npcs are too over bearing, important, invincible etc

That's just poor GM'ing you're talking there, my friend. Again, I had none of these problems in the game I played. My players determined how things went down. They were even able to form an alliance with the vegepygmies (and that took some work on their part)! Not all the factions arrived at Saventh-Yhi (at least until much later) because my players tried to keep things on the hush-hush (except they let a couple things slip, which enabled a couple of the factions to arrive shortly after them--one actually before). Their actions determined events that took place in Book 4 (which I actually blended in throughout Book 3). Book 6 was by no means a cakewalk for them because there were numerous villains from earlier books that had gotten away and warned the enemy of their capabilities.

Everything ran smoothly for me, and much of what happened was dictated by the PCs themselves, by their actions. Again, they loved it! If an AP doesn't allow for player decisions and their consequences (good or ill), that's a GM not doing their job. It's not the AP's fault.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
archmagi1 wrote:
My biggest problem to date, is that without the revenge vs the cult or vs Nebta angles, the motivation for a Neutral party to continue along the AP past book 2 is a bit esoteric. My players understand its an AP and requires a certain amount of "just go with it", but I can easily see how other groups might not care to go do research about the mask (particularly when legend lore will give all the artefactory powers anyway, and is cheap), and even less to go tromping off through the desert to kill a miniscule cult. Book 5 and 6's stakes are a bit easier to sell to a N party, but its the mid-3 through 4 pull that really is difficult for a group who isn't out to save the world.

See, I don't agree with this. You could have absolutely neutral characters and still easily go through this entire AP. Two possible examples would be for monetary (ie. treasure hunters) or scholarly purposes. Neither requires a desire to save the world, and both can act as a form of personal enrichment exclusively (or to share an incredible discovery with the academic community of Osirion or elsewhere). These two routes could even be taken with minimal alterations by the GM.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
CWheezy wrote:
Depending on class make up they either win extremely hard or just regular hard

Class makeup would be:

- Paladin of Sarenrae
- Master Spy Rogue (scout)
- Sorcerer (arcane bloodline)
- Monk/Inquisitor/Barbarian/Bard
- Heavens Oracle
- Druid (this one is off-and-on as to whether he shows)

I will also say this: I'm intending to give Cthulu that mythic feat that makes him immune to smiting, and am teetering as to whether I want to also make him immune to critical hits (albeit, not sneak attack damage, cuz that would totally screw the rogue). Still determining how I wish to play that one, because I know the Monk/Inquisitor/Barbarian/Bard halfling is also very reliant on crits for damage potential.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
NobodysHome wrote:
You know, maybe Hathor and Cthulu should come along...

I'll be throwing 5-6 PCs at ~19th level 5th Tier against Cthulu. We'll see how that goes!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Sorry for the double post! I just got back here too late to edit the last one!

I've found enough info to make a pretty good dent in what I need to do with Mythic up to Tier 5, so don't bother answering the second part of my post above! (Unless you want to!)

My apologies again!

Merry Christmas everyone!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
NobodysHome wrote:
(2) The "easy switch" gets turned on. Not to repeat myself ad nauseum, but the CRs of all encounters get dropped too low for even non-mythic PCs. (Generally from character level to character level - 2). For mythic PCs, the encounters are just pathetic. I've heard it was for XP reasons, which (if true) is just yet another argument for dumping XP entirely.

Well, I'll disagree with the bolded part (which I added). I think it's yet another argument for fewer encounters in a book, so that the encounters that do exist are more story-based and less "just because." The occasional encounter to allow the heroes to feel like heroes is great, but we don't need adventures that have 19 of them and two worthy ones. We need more APs that focus on great story and great story-based encounters. You do that, there's no issue at all with the XP system.

I've been running games for 20 years (nigh on, anyway), and I've never had an issue where the XP system inhibited my storytelling capabilities. If such happens, that's a flaw in designing the story, not the XP system itself.

Not saying that playing without XP is a bad thing, mind you! If that works better for you, then by all means do so! Whatever is most fun for you and your group, I say go for it! However, I don't believe for a second that it's an issue of pointing the finger at the XP system and saying, "It's all your fault," is accurate.

It's the design decisions that make or break a system. Paizo has focused their current design for their adventures on a plethora of meaningless encounters with a couple significant ones thrown in, which leads to this outcry that XP is to blame. Tweaking that design philosophy slightly so that there are fewer insignificant encounters and more story-based, meaningful encounters would also fix the problem without having to eliminate the XP system.

-----------------------------

On a separate note! For those of you that have run Mythic, I could use some of your input here. I'm planning on adding a Mythic adventure at the end of my current AP, but will only be granting my players 5 mythic tiers. I've heard that 3rd Tier abilities are where things break down. Any suggestions as to changes I should make to see to it that no one can one-shot or easily eradicate Cthulu (CR 30) would be appreciated!

Everyone is awesome! Thanks in advance! =D


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I don't know about PFS, so I can't say anything about what's legal or illegal. I can tell you that, in Golarion, there's a university in the Mwangi Expanse called Magaambya that has the knowledge of taking druid spells and making them arcane. It was a specialty of its "founder" -- Old Mage Jatembe -- to do such.

I believe there are rules for it in Inner Sea Magic, but I don't know how or if such a thing will help you for PFS. Still, the precedent is there for such a thing being possible in the world!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I haven't decided on race yet; either human or half-orc.

I plan to play a Hunter Mammoth Rider with a Megatherium animal companion (as they have the natural ability to climb). Rather than going all 9 levels in Hunter though, I might dip 2-3 levels in Ranger or Fighter for better BAB and Favored Enemy/Feat help.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mogloth wrote:
Doing away with XP would be an incredible thing. XP is so archaic.

Don't see the point of making such a drastic change, honestly, since they already give you what you want at the beginning of every adventure anyhow. There are those of us that still enjoy XP, actually. I know my players very much enjoy the tangible reward at the end of every game.

Additionally, as mentioned already, XP doesn't hinder anything when it comes to progression through adventures. Make more higher CR fights instead of all these APL -2 ones we're getting, include more story awards for roleplaying XP, and you could easily get up to 20th in six books (if so desired). Again, this matters not to me, as I have no problem with them cutting it off at 17th or so at AP's end.

I do so love archaic things! History is awesome!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

We all have life issues . . . such comes from living life!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Orthos wrote:

I think the main obstruction to such a thing is, I have to say it, the XP Budget. So long as that restriction is in place, the majority of such efforts will be hamstrung by the need to keep encounters to relatively add up to the expected amount of experience for that particular section/module/quest.

If you could start the module or adventure with a disclaimer saying "It is highly recommended that you not use experience as the method of progression for this adventure, but rather grant the players levels and tiers at the appropriately-marked events" and support that by not listing the "XP ZZZ,ZZZ" line in ANY statblocks, you could probably pull it off. Someone could, at least.

Or, maybe the could forgo the idea that a single printed adventure needs to have 20+ encounters in it, settle for something like 12-15 encounters that are difficulty-based, and concentrate the rest of it on story. Wouldn't have to change the XP budget at all, then . . . only the expectations of how many actual encounters a single adventure should have in it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

YES!!!

Because chicks dig them . . .

And glory lasts forever.

'Nuff said.

;)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Just a couple things:

Mogloth wrote:
Yeah, as a player, if I ever get the sense that the GM is out to kill my character simply because I made an effective character, then I'm out. Too many other things to do than play with a GM who has to prove that he can 1up me.

I agree. If the GMs purpose involves showing up the players to the point that they look to eliminate those characters they don't agree with, it's not worth playing a game with that GM. A spiteful GM is not a fun GM by any stretch. I want someone willing to work with me as a player, and that's what I try and do as a GM for my players.

Mogloth wrote:

As an example, my current character in one of my games I am in is a Pouncebarian. I do have Come and Get Me. But, honestly, I rarely use it or activate it.

He is a pure combat machine. He was designed to eat faces. And he does that quite well.

I do believe some caution must be used when creating a character, however. I don't believe there to be anything wrong with a Pouncebarian, or other such powerful force on the field of battle. Unless, that character makes every other character at the table unnecessary. When one character build has become some dominating that the other players no longer have fun, then I have a problem.

Such a problem is typically able to be dealt with via communication, however. You may have that amazing battlefield stomper, but the rest of your table may be playing characters that support or work well with such a character as you have, in which case they are all having a blast with combat scenarios. It's all about group dynamics, in my mind. When a single player decides his character's awesomeness is more important than every player having fun, we've got a problem. Luckily, that rarely happens with my group!

Mogloth wrote:
The prevailing thought in my head during character creation was Wulfgar. I wanted a 2H weapon wielding barbarian from the north.

Wulfgar, however, was not a 2H weapon wielder. Aegis Fang was a warhammer, and thus a one-handed weapon. Just noting that! ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
boring7 wrote:
Also, multiple ranged attacks from lots of mooks already kind of operate like that, since they are all within range of the target, I presume that part of the troop or swarm's charm is that they get a larger attack bonus (so the jerk with a 37 AC doesn't just laugh it off).

Actually, as I understood the troop subtype from looking it over in RoW:B5, you needn't have an attack bonus at all. You've got a large number of enemies attacking a specified area with a plethora of arrows . . . the troop makes no attack at all, and instead you treat it more like an excellent ability: PCs roll a Reflex save for half damage, while those with evasion dodge all of it successfully.

Same goes for melee, except without the save. These are a large swarm of enemies flooding over and around you. There is no attack roll, only damage.

I used a troop of hobgoblin regulars against my PCs just last Tuesday, and they were a hit with my group. They loved it!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
(The adventure that "B" happened to me was, by the way, "Red Hand of Doom," so that was more amusing than annoying, since that particular adventure's got a pretty good reputation...)

Not only did I absolutely love Red Hand of Doom, I incorporated it into my current Kingmaker campaign. Save for the one player that I told, all the others think it is part of the actual storyline of the AP, and they are loving it too!

I've always meant to thank you for the greatness of that mini-campaign, Mr. Jacobs. Well played, sir! HUZZAH!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

You may wish to consider the module Crucible of Chaos by Wolfgang Baur. It's all about the lost city vibe, and it puts together a better inherent story, as well. It's PF 3.5 version, but it translates incredibly well and is an excellent adventure. It's for 8th level characters, so don't know if that'll make a difference.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Shain Edge wrote:
Example is if a dog killed your favorite cat. Is the dog evil? You could think so, because that cat has meaning to 'you'. It's amazing how we are ok with a mountain lion killing a fawn, but if the same killed a child? It's a 'man killer(!!!)' and must be put down as dangerous (if not evil).

Because it is a man killer . . . it killed a man (using the term as encompassing all mankind here, should said child have been a girl). Are you saying that this animal should not be held responsible for its actions?

Perhaps the people in the area where this child was killed should seek to make a treaty with said mountain lion. Maybe ask it not to kill children, or anyone, anymore. Surely, if these people simply communicated rationally with this mountain lion, explaining to it that killing people is wrong, it will understand and quit doing it. Such is how any purely rational, intelligent being should react, I would think.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lucius Erasmian wrote:
zergtitan wrote:
Lucius Erasmian wrote:
False. I am without fault.
then the fault you bear is pride for you lack humility.
Modesty is a virtue only to the weak.

And the meek will inherit the earth!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Ditto on the "get this done" vibe!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Just a note: I'm relatively positive that Jason B. stated there will be no playtest for this book. Can't remember if it was earlier in this thread or in a different one, but I've noticed a couple people getting excited about playtesting . . . might want to just look forward to the book next Spring! Playtesting isn't going to happen for this one!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Some of the discussed issues of versatility for sorcerers are not as applicable anymore either thanks to gear. For 5k gold, a sorcerer can get their hands on a Mnnemonic Vestment, which enables them to cast any spell they can get their hands on. Likewise, Rings of Spell Knowledge can help them to know more spells, as can favored class bonuses these days. Limitations to these items are obvious, but they greatly increase the sorcerer's versatility at any given time.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Bossun wrote:
With the aforementioned information in mind... what I want to see is a skill test system for everything, most especially trap finding. Make trap finding something more than some one in the party spotting a trap and the rogue disabling it because he just happens to have +1 to +10 points better in disable from his class. Make it worthwhile to be a rogue! You remember that D&D movie that only the otaku/cult mentality types liked because they love D&D that much? I want to see traps like that! That's what makes it exciting to be a rogue. I want to be a rogue because the game makes it worthwhile and fun to be one, not because the party needs one "just in case we run into a trap".

I can completely appreciate this thought, though I think more needs to be done with traps period. Traps in 3.X have always been something of a disappointment in that they're not dangerous. You get a nice CR 16 trap that's really nothing more than pathetic because it has a DC 33 Perception/Disable Device score which any rogue by that time has no problem disabling. And these high CR/easily disabled traps take up half-a-page with their descriptions on how they work, despite the fact that the trap itself will never be used because it will be seen and disabled before anyone ever triggers it. Traps need to be made deadly again, or at least something more than just free XP. Devise a system that makes them a challenge! I'm fine with the rogue being the primary trap finder/disabler, of course, but if it actually became something of a mini-game in and of itself, that would be cool, too!

Bossun wrote:
Give us a threat system, and give certain classes like rogues and rangers a way to ignore threat so that they can target that pesky spell user anyways.

Be careful with this. Now you're talking about taking PnP gaming and turning it into an MMO, which I would not appreciate one bit. Challenges in PnP gaming should not be programs. That would make the whole system far less fun when you can force an enemy to behave in a certain way through a threat system like some bot in a computer game. I want villains/enemies that think for themselves and adjust according to their intelligence and what the GM knows about how they think. When you attach a system that dictates how villains/enemies perform, it cheapens them, and it destroys enjoyment and intuitiveness in the game.

Bossun wrote:
Above all, expand on your teamwork feats idea. GIVE US MORE BENEFITS FOR WORKING TOGETHER AS A TEAM AND LESS BENEFITS FOR BEING THE STRONGEST IN THE PARTY! It is a team game, not a soloist game. Reward the party with a system that supports teamwork.

I absolutely agree with this! One of the big issues I find with the game as it currently stands is that everyone wants to be the Big Show, that one character that can do it all. If I can't build a character that hits every time, deals an enormous amount of damage on every hit, can roll high on every skill check, have high save DCs for my magic that can't be defeated, and never fails a saving throw, then there's something wrong with the class/game. I would actually be more appreciative of a system designed where a single character can't do near as much cool stuff on his/her own, but which becomes more potent when actively and cooperatively working tactically with a group. A system that encourages this and not "why can't my fighter/rogue/monk/barbarian/sorcerer/etc. completely win the game alone?!?!" would be most welcome!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
magnuskn wrote:
JFK68 wrote:
I don't think Great Cleave works on Mirror Image.

Not per RAW, since Paizo inexplicably decided to buff the best second level spell in the game and then, when people were justifiably upset and confused by that decision, clarify via FAQ that, yes, they wanted Mirror Image to be even more OP than it already was throughout 3.0 and 3.5.

I don't roll with that, hence (Great) Cleave/Whirlwind Attack work just fine to get rid of Mirror Images. Arcane casters are OP enough already and that way those otherwise almost useless feats have some value at high levels.

Granted, I'm coming into this late, since I never really played 3/3.5 AD&D, but only Pathfinder, I'm going to say that they actually kind of weakened mirror image from 2E, since you can actually dispatch images without even rolling high enough to touch the actual individual. In 2E, if you didn't hit the AC of the real creature, you didn't touch a single image either. The PF mirror image spell says that if you come within 5 of hitting the target creature's AC, you've still dispelled an image. That only makes it easier to get through the spell, at least from my own personal history. Do players hate the spell? Oh yeah! When my monsters/villains use it, I hear a collective grinding of teeth around the table! I'm fine with that though, because it does give my enemies a little more longevity in combat, which makes things more exciting at the same time.

Naturally, magnuskn, I agree with all the talk about there being major issues with Mythic play. I do admit though that one has to be careful about assessing Mythic will supplying all the problems when our own house rules can oversimplify things for our players and make it so much easier on them, as well. Not to say that said villain above couldn't have been taken down just as easily by a magic-using member of your party perhaps, if Great Cleave hadn't worked to eliminate all those images. However, the fact that Great Cleave worked on a spell it shouldn't have via a house rule can't be used as justification that Mythic makes combat too easy. That's an unfair and misleading justification.

Truly enjoying this thread and the discussion taking place here. I believe that you're doing the community a service via the keeping of this log thread, though it sounds like that may be coming to a close soon, sadly. Keep up the good fight, sir!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
Rathendar wrote:
Not seeing it your way here.
just as humans use cattle on farms for sustenance required to survive, vampires use free humans for sustenance. at least vampires don't cage their "meal tickets" the way humans do. humans keep cattle encaged behind small fences on a farm to be raised for nothing more than to die and feed their human masters, vampires don't do that to humans at all.

I'm actually a little bit concerned that, in your personal view, humans equate to nothing more than cattle. ;)

Humans are intellectual superior beings to cows. Vampires are not intellectually superior beings compared to humans, but are equally intellectual due to the fact that they are human undead. If a vampire that once was human maintains its human intelligence, it should realize without doubt that killing other humans is an inherently evil act that one should not do. That it chooses to do so, treating another human being as nothing more than a (relatively) mindless animal, indicates the inherently evil nature of the vampire.

Especially since, if blood is all it needs, it could simply take the blood from the cow.

Just sayin'.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
OldManJim wrote:

Here's a link to the map of The Stolen Lands / Brevoy / Pitax / Mivon etc.

Be warned, it's a 16.5MB jpg file.

It shows what I think are the house borders in Brevoy, along with major towns & my best guestimate at major roads.

This version of the map should be useable by any GM running Kingmaker without giving any major spoilers, plus the Stolen Lands are left empty (no Fort Drelev / Varnhold) so you can place them differently if you wish.

Seriously, dude . . . this is the most incredible thing ever!!!!! You're amazing, and I pray your life is truly blessed!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

This was the first AP I ran to completion.

1) GM Ease of Play: (3/10) If Kingmaker needed a GM willing to put the work in to make that AP his or her own, Serpent's Skull required just as much effort just to make the AP viable for play. Book One served its purpose exquisitely well, but Book Two through Four required an enormous amount of work on my part to run well, especially the infamous Book Three. Books Five and Six ran themselves relatively well with a couple alterations here and there, but without the extensive work in those middle books, it's quite possible a group will never get to the final third.

2) Synthesis of the Story: (6/10) I actually think the story does fit together fairly well, and it even has its moments of excitement for the players. However, it can get quite railroady in Book Two and in Book Five, especially. The PCs are literally expected to go a certain way, or to work with certain races that there's no guarantee or likelihood that they will or would. I had to eliminate a significant portion of Book Five because for my players it just wasn't feasible that they'd deal with a certain group. There were workarounds, but they were all still involving dealing with that certain group in some capacity, and that just wasn't possible. A few more or different story options would have increased this score by a point at least.

3) Role-play Friendly: (9/10) This AP still worked quite well in this category. There were plenty of NPCs for the characters to interact with, which was truly necessary since there was virtually not travel outside the location discovered at the beginning of Book Three. Civilization, in general, was out the door by Part II of Book Two, in fact! This is one aspect this AP still got right, which is one of the reasons why I love Paizo so much! They never fail to give me plenty of viable roleplaying encounters or opportunities for my players!

4) Combat Design: (5/10) The vast majority of the combat design worked well for the appropriate levels and 15-point character builds, but there was a ton of repetition found here, especially in Books Three and Five. Naturally, this does favor the PCs, because once they realize the best tactic to defeat a specific type of enemy, and then they face that enemy a dozen or a score more times in rapid repetitiveness, well, you understand . . . The final conflict, as written, was a huge letdown, too. I did a lot of beefing up the second to last encounter to make it a CR 20, which I accomplished by throwing in villains from earlier that had interacted with the PCs (in some cases numerous times) but always got away. By doing this, it caused the final confrontation--a CR 19--to be more hair-raising because they'd had to use up more resources in the fight immediately prior.

5) Fun factor: (7.5/10) We certainly did! My players had a lot of fun, though had I run everything "by the book," this probably wouldn't have been the case. Still, that's pretty much a given for any AP, I think. There were moments and aspects to the AP that wore on them a bit more, though. More traps, more high-end treasure, and more variable enemies would have increased the fun factor a bit more, I think. All of my players commented upon the completion of the AP that for a legendary lost city, there was nothing there for them except for discovering its history (a mechanic I had to build in, since the AP had nothing for that) and saving the world. It just didn't live up to their expectations of what it should have been.

1 to 50 of 405 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.